No Need of Evidence for Moral Damages Compensation after a Trademark Infringement – An Appropriate Development of the Brazilian Case Law?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro Henrique D Batista
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Trademark Infringement ◽  
Brazilian Case

scholarly journals Evolution of case law regarding the interpretation of the secondary liability standard in U.S. trademark law

2020 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 141-155
Author(s):  
Jelena Ćeranić-Perišić
Keyword(s):  
Service Providers ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Online Service ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
Trademark Infringement ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
The Right ◽  
Secondary Liability ◽  
Online Service Providers ◽  
The U.S

Secondary liability, according to the general rules on liability, is based on the issue of conscientiousness, in other words whether the intermediary knew or should have known that the right was infringed through his service. In U.S. law, the secondary liability standard is a result of case law. This paper presents the evolution of case law regarding the interpretation of secondary liability standard in U.S. trademark law. This standard was announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in Inwood Laboratories Inc. v. Ives Laboratories Inc. regarding the liability of manufacturers and distributors. In the decades that followed, the U.S. Courts, with their creative interpretations, extended the scope of application of this standard, first to intermediary market operators, and later to online service providers (internet intermediaries). Also, the development of digital technology has influenced the case law to adapt the secondary liability standard for trademark infringement to the new circumstances in the digital environment. The most significant cases in this context are Hard Rock Café Licensing v. Concession Services, Inc., Tiffany Inc. v. eBay Inc. and Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google Inc. Finally, 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Lens.com, Inc. demonstrates a slight turn of the U.S. Courts' practices towards a more flexible interpretation of secondary liability standard to online service providers.

scholarly journals verBERT: Automating Brazilian Case Law Document Multi-label Categorization Using BERT

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felipe R. Serras ◽  
Marcelo Finger
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Brazilian Case ◽  
A Performance

In this work, we carried out a study about the use of attention-based algorithms to automate the categorization of Brazilian case law documents. We used data from the Kollemata Project to produce two distinct datasets with adequate class systems. Then, we implemented a multi-class and multi-label version of BERT and fine-tuned different BERT models with the produced datasets. We evaluated several metrics, adopting the micro-averaged F1-Score as our main metric for which we obtained a performance value of 〈F1〉micro = 0.72 corresponding to gains of 30 percent points over the tested statistical baseline.

The AMA Guides in Pennsylvania “Post-Protz”: Act 111 and Case Law Update

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 12-19
Author(s):  
Justin D. Beck ◽  
Judge David B. Torrey
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Disability Benefits ◽  
Permanent Disability ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Recent Edition ◽  
Impairment Ratings

Abstract Medical evaluators must understand the context for the impairment assessments they perform. This article exemplifies issues that arise based on the role of impairment ratings and what edition of the AMA Guides to the Impairment of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) is used. This discussion also raises interesting legal questions related to retroactivity, applicability of prior precedent, and delegation. On June 20, 2017, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania handed down its decision, Protz v. WCAB (Derry Area Sch. Dist.), which disallows use of the “most recent edition” of the AMA Guides when determining partial disability entitlement under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act. An attempted solution was passed by the Pennsylvania General Assembly and was signed into law Act 111 on October 24, 2018. Although it affirms that the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, must be used for impairment ratings, the law reduces the threshold for total disability benefits from 50% to 35% impairment. This legislative adjustment benefited injured workers but sparked additional litigation about whether, when, and how the adjustment should be applied (excerpts from the laws and decisions discussed by the authors are included at the end of the article). In using impairment as a threshold for permanent disability benefits, evaluators must distinguish between impairment and disability and determine an appropriate threshold; they also must be aware of the compensation and adjudication process and of the jurisdictions in which they practice.

Shoulder Pain at Work: Causation Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-16
Author(s):  
Joel Weddington ◽  
Charles N. Brooks ◽  
Mark Melhorn ◽  
Christopher R. Brigham
Keyword(s):  
Epidemiological Data ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Individual Case ◽  
Shoulder Injury ◽  
Work Related ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Causation Analysis ◽  
Injury Causation ◽  
Relevant Factors

Abstract In most cases of shoulder injury at work, causation analysis is not clear-cut and requires detailed, thoughtful, and time-consuming causation analysis; traditionally, physicians have approached this in a cursory manner, often presenting their findings as an opinion. An established method of causation analysis using six steps is outlined in the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine Guidelines and in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Disease and Injury Causation, Second Edition, as follows: 1) collect evidence of disease; 2) collect epidemiological data; 3) collect evidence of exposure; 4) collect other relevant factors; 5) evaluate the validity of the evidence; and 6) write a report with evaluation and conclusions. Evaluators also should recognize that thresholds for causation vary by state and are based on specific statutes or case law. Three cases illustrate evidence-based causation analysis using the six steps and illustrate how examiners can form well-founded opinions about whether a given condition is work related, nonoccupational, or some combination of these. An evaluator's causal conclusions should be rational, should be consistent with the facts of the individual case and medical literature, and should cite pertinent references. The opinion should be stated “to a reasonable degree of medical probability,” on a “more-probable-than-not” basis, or using a suitable phrase that meets the legal threshold in the applicable jurisdiction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document