Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on GMAC v. Raju. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
An 11 page research paper that examines a case, Graduate Management Admissions Council (GMAC) v. Raju, which involves intellectual property law on the Internet. The writer particularly examines the court’s interpretation of Rule 4(k)(2). Bibliography is incomplete, but 5 sources are cited in the text of the paper.
11 pages (~225 words per page)
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
to the Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT), a test that is used to evaluate the knowledge and qualifications of applicants for graduate business management programs (Einhorn and Struse). The GMAT
test, which was created by GMAC, is copyrighted material, with GMAC having "exclusive right to copy, distribute, display, publish, and prepare derivative works" (GMAC v. Raju). GMAC has registered all
of its tests on a regular basis with the Register of Copyrights. Furthermore, GMAC has registered "GMAT" as a trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark office (GMAC v.
Raju). The defendant is Narasimha Raju (Raju), who registered the domain names "gmatplus.com" and "gmatplus.net" in April and May of 2000 (Internet trademark case). These domains subsequently underwent several
name changes, but the fact most pertinent to this case is that Raju operates GMATplus in order to sell GAMT questions for "test preparation purposes" (GMAC v. Raju). The site
sells books that purport to be actual questions from the GMAT and makes extravagant claims of foreign nationals scoring high on the GMAT due to having bought these books. Raju
is known to have sold and delivered this material, which infringes on the GMAC copyright, on at least two occasions to individuals living in Virginia (GMAC v. Raju). Issue
before the court: The defendant defaulted and the plaintiff definitively proved that GMAC has "a right to copyright and trademark relief" (GMAC v. Raju). Therefore the question before the court
is whether or not the court has "personal jurisdiction over a citizen of India who registers and operates a foreign website selling plaintiffs text preparation materials" in what appears to
be a direct violation of US copyright and trademark laws (GMAC v. Raju). The facts relevant to reaching a ruling are that: 1. the copyright and trademark holder is