Abstract This paper examines the intellectual property law of 'passing off'. The paper explains that the law of 'passing off' is a common law right of action in the law of tort and is based on the premise that 'nobody has any right to represent his goods as the goods of somebody else'. The paper looks at how the action is effectively one of unfair competition, and applies generally to situations where there is no registered trademark or any other intellectual property right. The paper then points out that a typical scenario would be when a defendant uses an unregistered trademark normally used by a claimant, and in so doing, represents the goods or services in such a way that the public is deceived into thinking that they are being offered by the claimant. The paper also explores how protection under the law of passing off is very much dependent on how much importance consumers place on the part when purchasing the product in question. In conclusion, the paper shows that the courts generally adopt a restrictive approach towards protecting the descriptive and the functional because granting such protection will have a negative effect on the market, and ultimately this is a question of fact, and the courts will look at all the circumstances of each case before making a decision.
From the Paper "So long as these criteria are fulfilled, the claimant would have successfully established 'goodwill' for his goods or services, but a descriptive mark runs the greatest risk of becoming too distinctive over time that it is deemed generic. By losing its ability to indicate source, the claimant can no longer rely on the law of passing off to protect the mark. This danger has been highlighted by the case of Linoleum Manufacturing v Nairn [1878], where the public began using the term 'Linoleum' to refer to the product generally, without connoting the source of manufacture. As such, the courts will be reluctant to allow monopoly over such terms so as to promote healthy competition in the marketplace."
Tags: intellectual, property, copyright, patent, trade, mark
Abstract This paper explores the concept of nationalism in England in 1066, English unity, social make-up and the ferocity of their opposition to the invaders. It looks at how the Normans attempted to justify their conquest of England and, in particular, why. It examines how the "rightful claimant to the throne" needed to put such an emphasis on the justification of the conquest. It looks at how William of Normandy held a strong claim to the English throne and how the Norman use of propaganda and their emphasis on the "will of God" suggests there was a seed of doubt somewhere in the Norman establishment concerning legitimacy.
From the Paper "To understand the Norman efforts to justify the conquest it is important to understand the nature of Anglo-Saxon England. How was Duke William of Normandy received? Did he face opposition because he was a foreigner or was it purely political? Anne Williams? provides an insight into English society much earlier than 1066, suggesting that the "emergence of Englishness" began as early as the 7th century . However, such an expression gives little more than a hint as to how developed and patriotic a society England was in the 11th century. The existence of patriotism in England is hard to identify in this period. Overseas invasions were not uncommon and it was only twenty-four years earlier that the Danish dynasty of Cnut had ruled."
Abstract This paper explains that older employees and job applicants, who are 40 years of age or older, are protected under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The author states that claimants can use time-consuming and costly processes of litigation, mediation, or dispute resolution to reach a settlement or decision on their complaints. The paper states that age discrimination claims continue to be the fastest-rising claims with the EEOC because American workers are living and working longer, sometimes into their 70s.
From the Paper "The EEOC recently settled a major age discrimination suit against Foot Locker. In any discrimination case, the following qualifications must be met: the claimant must be a member of a protected class, adverse employment action has occurred, legitimate reasons exist for the cause of action. When an employee feels that he has been discriminated against, he can file a claim with the EEOC who will investigate. In the case against Foot Locker (who owned Woolworth Inc.), employees 40 years old or over were laid off. But immediatley after these layoffs, younger workers were hired from the outside and filled the vacant positions that were left by the older workers (EEOC)."
Abstract T|his paper explains the way to detect automobile insurance fraud and points out methods of investigating. The author relates sentencing for convicted fraud offenders. The paper reports the increasingly costly problem of auto insurance fraud.
From the Paper "Americans pay an exorbitant amount of money each year to insure their vehicles for which they have also paid handsomely. ... Americans paid an estimated ... billion for auto insurance. Why are costs so high? One factor that plays into the soaring rates of automobile insurance is the dramatic increase in car insurance fraud. Consider this scenario. A typical driver is driving through town innocently minding their own business on the way to ..."
Tags: automobile insurance fraud, car insurance, fraud, schemes, fraudulent, identity theft, claimants, insured, insurance company
Abstract This is a case summary of a case before an Arbitral Tribunal arising from a dispute over rights to explore for, drill for and store petroleum and natural gas in economic quantities on a contract area. The dispute is between the Claimants and the Government of Qatar who are the Respondents. The paper includes a sample case write up with the information and this case write up is modelled as close to the actual case summary as possible.
From the Paper "ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL WINTERSHALL, A.G., INTERNATIONAL OCEAN RESOURCES, INC., VESA OEL A.G., DEUTSE SCHACHTBAU-und TIEFBOHRGESELLSCHAFT MBH, GULFSTREAM RESOURCES CANADA LTD. V. THE GOVERNMENT OF QATAR Arbitrators: 1. J.R. Stevenson (President) 2. I. Brownlie 3. B. Cremades I: OVERVIEW * EPSA Ag reement entered into between Claimants (WINTERSHALL, A.G., INTERNATIONAL OCEAN RESOURCES, INC., VESA OEL A.G., DEUTSE SCHACHTBAU-und TIEFBOHRGESELLSCHAFT MBH, GULFSTREAM RESOURCES CANADA LTD.) and Respondents (The Government of Qatar) for Claimants to have the right to drill for and store commercially usable amounts of petroleum and natural gas in economic amounts in contracted area. * Claimants did not find crude oil for petroleum in suitable amount. * Due to boundary dispute.."
Abstract This paper presents a professional manual for employees of a specific administrative agency. It briefly looks at administrative law and the procedures the department should avoid to ensure that no legal problems arise. Specifically, the paper outlines the concepts of discretion, credibility (and how applicant credibility is to be determined), standards with regards to bias (that is to say, what will henceforth be expected of subordinate decision-makers) and the extent of duty that will now be expected from all employees.
From the Paper "Before leaving the issue of credibility, I wish also to point out the manner in which concerns about an applicant's credibility are to be spelled out. Henceforth, if there is a suspicion of deceit, precise instances of deception and contradiction must be noted in the final judgment. As well, particulars and context must be provided whenever a claimant cannot answer a question; in other words, if the client was unable to provide certain information because of extenuating circumstances, that needs to be highlighted. Finally, all decisions rendered by an adjudicator must be carefully examined by that adjudicator to ensure that logical fallacies, inconsistencies and contradictions are not present in the text of the decision - and that there is a complete apprehension of all the facts of the case by the adjudicator. For a good example of precisely the sort of thorough, post-mortem examination of their decisions that I want my adjudicators to undertake (especially with regards to decisions about the credibility of an applicant), please see the court decision in Hilo v. Canada (1991)."
