Description
These cases are available in textbook case brief 3.1 4.2 and 5.1
Plagarism should be zero.
I don't have much information about the case. This case I found in the course hero but not full case study. Below information you can use it for your references
Textbook : Jennings, M. (2017). Business: Its Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment, 11th ed. (Standard Volume). Southwestern: Cengage Learning
Using information from this week's readings and academic sources, answer the questions that correspond to each of the above case briefs in 500 words (minimum):Case Brief 3.1: * Develop a chart showing the various companies involved along with the people andlocations for doing business Hard Candy, an organization working in the form and magniFcenceenterprises, challenges the utilization in trade of speciFc trademarks by di±erent organizations andpeople related with Ciccone (Madonna). ²ellow Oseary has given individual administrationadministrations to Madonna Louise Ciccone. -> New Evolution Ventures, LLCin California -> HardCandy, LLC in ²lorida -> MGH Candy in California -> Hard Candy ²itness in California * Explain whenMadonna was in ²lorida and why her presence was not enough to allow jurisdiction A ²loridagovernment judge on Monday shot down Madonna's protest to appearing for a statement in atrademark suit brought by cosmetics and garments organization Hard Candy LLC, calling the intenselyredacted complaint "immense". In a brisk, one-page arrange, U.S. Area Judge Cecilia M. Altonagarejected Madonna's protest to an o³cer judge's December choice to compel the artist to sit for ana³davit for the situation, saying the complaint was "boundless" on the grounds that "whole bits of thecontention have been redacted discount." * What kinds of activities would have subjected Madonnaand her companies and agents to ²lorida jurisdiction? Hard Candy contends with the New Defendantsthat are liable to particular locale in ²lorida since they occupied with business in ²lorida and submittedtortious acts in ²lorida. (See Resp. 4-6, 11-12). Hard Candy additionally battles the New Defendantscontrolled HC²'s ²lorida-related direct, and hence HC²'s ²lorida-related contacts ought to be attributedto the New Defendants. To put weight on its contentions, Hard Candy refers to a few cases (see Resp.13-14), all of which miss the mark regarding building up the New Defendants' lessened contacts with²lorida are adequate to subject them to individual locale in this discussion.
Explanation & Answer
Attached.
Case Brief 3.1
Hard Candy LLC (cosmetics and garments organization) v.s. Madonna Louise CiconneFellow Oseary-New Evolution Ventures, LLC in California- Hard Candy, LLC in Florida- MGH
Candy in California- Hard Candy Fitness in California.
Each State, as well as the Federal government, has its own infringement laws that protect
trademarks, however, the latter one is broader. Trademark infringement is more than name
copying. Other bases for filing trademark infringement are a type of packaging, melodies,
designs, and others. Florida has its own governing rules on infringement that will protect ones
intellectual property (Ip Attorneys, 2015).
Hard Candy’s challenge based on Florida’s Trademark Acts 495031 stating the applicant is
the sole owner of a trademark, the mark is currently in use, and no one except the same company
registered the mark in the same state either whatever the classification of the business. No one or
other person can use the same trademark that will cause confusion, mistake, or can be deceiving
(Florida Department of State Division of Corporations).
It also falls under the 495.011, (6) (a) Definitions. In this act, it states the competition
between the trademark’s true owner and the other parties (Florida Department of State Division
of Corporations). Madonna’s presence was not enough to allow jurisdiction for the mere reason
that her main company is in California and the ownership of the trademark filed in the different
state but not in Florida and Florida has its own infringement law that protects...
Review
Review
