Federal Jurisdiction. District Court Has Jurisdiction to Grant Declaratory Relief to Alleged Trade-Mark Infringer Threatened with Common Law Action by Registrant

1959 ◽  
Vol 45 (7) ◽  
pp. 1233
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
District Court ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction

The Trade Mark, Other Product Designations, and Goodwill

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justine Pila
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
Geographical Indication ◽  
Passing Off ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Essential Properties ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter considers the meaning of the terms that appropriately denote the subject matter protectable by registered trade mark and allied rights, including the common law action of passing off. Drawing on the earlier analyses of the objects protectable by patent and copyright, it defines the trade mark, designation of origin, and geographical indication in their current European and UK conception as hybrid inventions/works in the form of purpose-limited expressive objects. It also considers the relationship between the different requirements for trade mark and allied rights protection, and related principles of entitlement. In its conclusion, the legal understandings of trade mark and allied rights subject matter are presented as answers to the questions identified in Chapter 3 concerning the categories and essential properties of the subject matter in question, their method of individuation, and the relationship between and method of establishing their and their tokens’ existence.

Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp.

1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 565-568
Author(s):  
Carlos M. Vázquez
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
District Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Southern District ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Argentine Republic ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction

Plaintiffs and respondents, Amerada Hess Shipping Corp. and United Carriers, Inc., were respectively the charterer and owner of the Hercules, a crude oil tanker that was bombed in international waters by Argentine military aircraft during the war over the Malvinas or Falkland Islands. The ship was severely damaged and had to be scuttled off the coast of Brazil. After unsuccessfully seeking relief in Argentina, the companies filed suit against defendant and appellant, the Argentine Republic, in the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs argued that the federal courts had jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute (28 U.S.C. §1350 (1982)), which confers federal jurisdiction over “any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” The district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (28 U.S.C. §§1330, 1602-1611 (1982)) (FSIA) is by its terms the sole basis of federal jurisdiction over cases against foreign states. A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court (per Rehnquist, C.J.) unanimously reversed the Second Circuit and held that the FSIA provides the exclusive basis of federal jurisdiction over suits against foreign states.

[Cali] Fornication by False Pretences—No Penalty for Partner Personation under California's Penal Code

2013 ◽  
Vol 77 (4) ◽  
pp. 325-336
Author(s):  
Mitchell C. Davies
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Sexual Intercourse ◽  
Old English ◽  
Sexual Partner ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Penal Code ◽  
District Court ◽  
Appeal Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
Court Of Appeal

This article considers the recent decision of the Second District Court of Appeal of California in People v Julio Morales. The California Court of Appeal controversially quashed the conviction for rape of the appellant who had had sexual intercourse with the victim seemingly whilst she had initially been asleep. With there being conflicting accounts as to whether the victim had been awake or asleep during the intercourse, the appellant had been convicted of rape by the jury on the alternative bases of her either: (1) having been unconscious (asleep) during the intercourse or; (2) having been awake during the intercourse, but mistaken as to the identity of her sexual partner, believing him to be her boyfriend. In a restrictive judgment, displaying more concern for principles of statutory interpretation than criminal justice, the appeal court quashed the appellant's conviction. The reasoning of the court was that the jury might have convicted on the basis of (2) above and that the California Penal Code recognised the offence of rape as being possible in personation cases only where the person being impersonated is the spouse of the victim. This article suggests a number of ways that were open to the appeal court to avoid this unsatisfactory outcome, both by application of other provisions of the Penal Code itself and by reference to the history of the spousal impersonation rule traceable back to old English common law.

scholarly journals Recent Developments in Wrongful Dismissal Laws and Some Pointers for Reform

1969 ◽  
pp. 470 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. England
Keyword(s):  
Nova Scotia ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Just Cause ◽  
Grievance Arbitration ◽  
Employment Termination ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction ◽  
Wrongful Dismissal

This paper examines recent developments in the law of wrongful dismissal. It demonstrates that the current common law fails to regulate satisfactorily terminations of employment and proposes an alternative statutory scheme. Part considers the "minimum contents" required of fair and just system of employment termination. Part II examines the common law response and its inadequacies. Part III suggests proposals for reform, drawing on the ex periences of statutory "just cause"protections in Nova Scotia and England and in Canadian grievance arbitration. Also, the proposed amendments to the Canada Labour Code in bill C-8,1 which introduces "just cause"protections for workers within Federal jurisdiction are considered.

The Benefits of a Functional View

2018 ◽  
pp. 18-26
Author(s):  
Eric M. Freedman
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
District Court ◽  
Habeas Corpus ◽  
Guantanamo Bay ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
Special Benefit ◽  
The Universe ◽  
Direct Investigation

On a functional view, all cases in which custody is challenged by a person seeking a judicial determination of its legality are habeas corpus cases regardless of formal nomenclature. Adopting this view, which flows from historical research into what common law courts actually did, would: — expand the universe of cases argued to and relied upon by the Supreme Court in Suspension Clause cases — teach lower courts to focus on facts ascertained by direct investigation and do justice in the case at hand, rather than seeking to make sweeping legal pronouncements — be of special benefit in national security cases, as illustrated in 2008 by United States District Court for the District of Columba proceedings before Judge Richard J. Leon involving Guantanamo Bay detainee Lakhdar Boumediene following the Supreme Court’s remand in Boumediene v. Bush.

8. Passing off

2019 ◽  
pp. 179-206
Author(s):  
Stavroula Karapapa ◽  
Luke McDonagh
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
Passing Off ◽  
The Public ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Erroneous Belief

This chapter explores the tort of passing off which protects the goodwill of a trader from misrepresentation. In the United Kingdom, there is no obligation to register a trade mark. Protection has always been available at common law for marks in use, by means of the action for passing off. There are three elements of passing off. First a trader must establish that the trader has a goodwill or reputation attached to the goods or services which the trader supplies. Second, the trader must demonstrate that the defendant has made a misrepresentation leading or likely to lead the public to believe that the goods or services offered by the defendant are the goods or services of the claimant. Lastly, the trader must demonstrate that the trader has suffered or is likely to suffer damage by reason of the erroneous belief caused by the defendant's misrepresentation. These three elements are interdependent.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document