Part 2- Crimes and Torts, Chapter 8: Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition, Doc 15

Here’s a summary of the key issues and possible court rulings for each case in this exercise on crimes and torts, particularly focused on intellectual property, unfair competition, and contract interference: 1. MercExchange, LLC v. eBay, Inc.   Issue: Whether an injunction is a mandatory remedy in patent infringement cases. Ruling: The Supreme Court later ruled in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. that an injunction is not automatic in patent cases. Courts must apply a four-factor test considering whether the remedy at law is adequate and whether an injunction would serve public interest. 2. Blanch v. Koons   Issue: Whether Koons’ use of Blanch’s copyrighted photograph in his artwork constituted copyright infringement or was protected under fair use. Defense and Ruling: Koons likely argued that his work was transformative, using the photo as commentary on commercialism, which falls under fair use. Courts have previously supported such uses in similar cases. 3. Mattel, Inc. v. Forsythe   Issue: Whether Forsythe’s use of Barbie dolls in his artwork violated Mattel’s copyrights and trademarks. Ruling: The district court’s summary judgment for Forsythe, supported by the Ninth Circuit, likely affirmed his fair use defense, recognizing the satirical and critical nature of his work. The ruling also addressed Forsythe’s limited market impact, affirming that his use was non-commercial and did not infringe on Mattel’s trademarks or dilute its brand. 4. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co.   Issue: Whether color alone can be trademarked under the Lanham Act. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Qualitex, holding that color could be a trademark if it serves as a brand identifier, meeting the requirements of distinctiveness and non-functionality. 5. Deptula v. CBS/Survivor Productions   Issue: Whether CBS’s use of “Survivor” infringed on Deptula’s “Surfvivor” trademark. Ruling: The court likely ruled in favor of CBS, finding insufficient consumer confusion due to significant differences in brand purpose, minimal evidence of consumer confusion, and differences in the commercial appeal of each brand. 6. North Atlantic Instruments v. Haber/Apex   Issue: Whether a preliminary injunction was warranted for Haber’s alleged trade secret misappropriation and use of client contacts developed at North Atlantic. Ruling: Courts often uphold such injunctions if a former employee uses trade secrets or client lists inappropriately. The injunction was likely deemed valid given the nature of the client data, non-compete terms, and Haber’s potential to harm North Atlantic’s business with his knowledge of client needs. 7. AT&T Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.   Issue: Whether Microsoft’s distribution of its software to foreign manufacturers constituted patent infringement. Ruling: In Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., the Supreme Court ruled that software copies made abroad from a master sent from the U.S. do not constitute U.S. patent infringement, as infringement requires physical copies distributed within the U.S. 8. Systems v. Network Automation   Issue: Whether Network’s purchase of keywords that include Systems' trademark constituted trademark infringement. Ruling: Systems would need to prove that Network’s keyword advertising created consumer confusion. Courts assess the likelihood of confusion through factors like trademark strength, similarity, and consumer sophistication. Systems might not prevail if Network’s advertising was clear about the source of its product. 9. Carey Station Village Association v. Developer   Issue: Whether the developer’s counterclaim for interference with contractual relations due to actions by the association should be upheld. Ruling: The court likely found the association liable for contract interference, as the developer demonstrated actual financial harm and defaults on property sales directly attributed to the association’s conduct. 10. Jefferson County School District v. Moody’s   Issue: Whether Moody’s “negative outlook” comment constituted injurious falsehood or was a protected opinion. Ruling: The court likely upheld that Moody’s statement was a protected opinion, not a verifiable false fact. This aligns with protections for opinions, especially when issued by rating agencies or public commentary forums. 11. American Italian Pasta Co. v. Rivals  Issue: Potential cases might involve allegations of unfair competition if rivals used misleading advertising to promote pasta brands.