Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Case Briefs. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
An 8 page paper providing briefs of four cases: American Canoe Association v. Murphy Farms, Balistreri v. Nevada Livestock Production Credit Assn., Oz Technology Incorporated v. Environmental Protection Agency and Sengoku v. RMC International. Bibliography lists 6 sources.
Page Count:
8 pages (~225 words per page)
File: CC6_KSlawBriefs.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
will need to be ordered for case questions; briefs alone provide two "bonus" pages. Business and the Bill of Rights: Free Speech CASE NAME: Sengoku v. RMC International
TRIBUNAL: United States, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 1996. ISSUE: The issue lies in who owns the Keroheat trademark. Sengoku and RMC had annual contracts each year
between 1985 and 1993 naming RMC as Sengokus exclusive distributor of its kerosene heaters in the United States. RMC agreed in each of those contracts to distribute only Sengoku
products. RMC claims that the two parties had no valid contract in 1994, after Sengokus quality had declined over the past two years. RMC began selling kerosene heaters
produced by Wooshin in 1994, those heaters bore the same Keroheat trademark also used on Sengokus products. FACTS: * The annual contracts between Sengoku and RMC required exclusivity
by each. * Sengoku and RMC made annual contracts between 1985 and 1993. * RMC was founded in 1985, by a partial owner of the company with which Sengoku formerly
had a similar marketing arrangement. * The earlier company, C.C.I., claimed that it owned the Keroheat trademark. It purchased Sengoku products from Imarflex, which purchased from Sengoku. C.C.I.
brought suit against Imarflex in 1985 for trademark infringement and for breach of contract. * Sengoku sold heaters bearing the Keroheat trademark to Imarflex between 1982 and 1985. * RMC
claims that the now-defunct C.C.I. owned the trademark. * RMC obtained a federal registration of the trademark in 1992. * There is no evidence that C.C.I. transferred ownership of the
trademark to RMC. HOLDING: There are at least four tests to apply to questions of trademark ownership. Three refer to which partys name appears with it; which party
...