Burger King Corporation v. C.R. Weaver; M-W-M, Inc.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
12-13 May 2014 Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Advertisements

Fashion Boutique v. Fendi USA The case of improper evidence supporting plaintiffs claims and their subsequent appeal of District Courts decision.
C&A v. G-Star. Overview After a verdict by the Dutch court on 9 August 2011, fashion brand C&A was ordered to cease large-scale infringements of the trade.
Christian Louboutin v. Yves Saint Laurent. In April 2011, footwear designer Christian Louboutin filed a suit against luxury design house Yves Saint Laurent,
© 2007 Prentice Hall, Business Law, sixth edition, Henry R. Cheeseman Chapter 16: Remedies for Breach of Traditional and Online Contracts.
Copyright © 2004 by Prentice-Hall. All rights reserved. PowerPoint Slides to Accompany BUSINESS LAW E-Commerce and Digital Law International Law and Ethics.
Restitution mechanisms up to this point We have seen several mechanisms allowing P to force D to return unjust gain. All have essentially resulted in a.
Excalibur Bakery V. Excellent Bakery The case of invalid trademark.
Standard Essential Patents in Infringement Litigations - Orange-Book-Approach and latest developments Conference on Information Technology, Innovation.
Discharge of contract A contract may come to an end by virtue of: i.performance ii.agreement iii.breach or iv.Operation of law, especially frustration.
Mirror Worlds v. Apple. In 2008, the technology company Mirror Worlds, LLC filed suit against Apple, Inc. for patent infringement in the US District Court.
Alberta printed circuits v. Canada Revenue Agency.
Vodafone Group Plc. v. Indian tax authorities. In 2007 Vodafone International purchased the Indian mobile telephony assets of Hong Kong-based Hutchison.
WTO Dispute DS362 China vs. United States
Brian Andreas v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.. In 1994 Andreas, an artist, created an image that included the words, “most people don’t know that there.
DEALING WITH IP ISSUES IN A FRANCHISING AGREEMENT by Tan Tee Jim, S.C. Senior Partner, Head, IP & IT, Lee & Lee Lahore, December 2007.
Endemol v. Abbot Reif Hameiri. The Dutch international television production and distribution company “Endemol” has filed a lawsuit against Israeli production.
Balance Dynamics Corporation v. Schmitt Industries, Incorporated.
1 Chapter 51 Liability of Accountants and Other Professionals.
© 2010 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Prentice-Hall 1 REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF TRADITIONAL AND E-CONTRACTS © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing.
P A R T P A R T Property Personal Property and Bailments Real Property Landlord and Tenant Estates and Trusts Insurance Law 5 McGraw-Hill/Irwin Business.
© 2007 Prentice Hall, Business Law, sixth edition, Henry R. Cheeseman Chapter 40 Franchises and Special Forms of Business.
Update on OTC/Government Tax Dispute: San Francisco Seeks Direct Collection of OTC Portion of Tax from Hotels David Colker September 22, 2011.
Contract Law for Paralegals: Traditional and E-Contracts © 2009 Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ All rights reserved Remedies for Breach.
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning 1 Chapter 35 Sole Proprietorships and Franchises Chapter 35 Sole Proprietorships and.
Chapter 40 Franchises and Special Forms of Business
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Andrew Thomases: Consequences of RAND Violations | 1 Consequences of RAND Violations Andrew Thomases.
Chapter 40 Franchises and Special Forms of Business
By: Sonya Cato LIBM 6230 November 21, Tried at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court in Pasadena, California The Plaintiff.
Mattel, Inc. V. MGA Entertainment, Inc.. In 2004, MGA Entertainment’s Bratz range of dolls emerged on the market, they presented severe competition to.
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) v. Canada revenue agency (CRA)
Cambrige University Press et al. V. Georgia State Univeristy.
Temple Island Collection V. New English Teas The case of photograph infringement.
DHL Corporation and Subsidiaries V. Commissioner
©2013 Duane Morris LLP. All Rights Reserved. Duane Morris is a registered service mark of Duane Morris LLP. Duane Morris – Firm and.
1 SECTION 337 INVESTIGATIONS Managing Intellectual Property IP In China April 30, 2013 New York, New York.
Chapter What would likely happen to Anthony if he turns to the courts for help in ending the discrimination? 2. Does Anthony have a duty to anyone,
Unlicensed Builder Cannot Enter into Valid Construction Contracts Pd 7/8 Megan and Anna.
Caraco Pharmaceuticals Vs. Novo Nordisk The case of unclear and unfair patenting of generic drugs.
Arlington Industies, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2013 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Chapter 15 Sales and Lease Contracts: Performance, Warranties,
Shonda Brown, et al. v. Ruallam Enterprises, Inc..
Slides developed by Les Wiletzky Wiletzky and Associates Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Prentice-Hall. All rights reserved. PowerPoint Slides to Accompany.
Veritas v. Commissioner. In November 1999, Veritas Software Corp. (Veritas US – now prt of Symantec Corp.) and its wholly owned foreign subsidiary Veritas.
Maruti Suzuki Indian V. India Transfer Pricing Office.
1 Working the IP Case Steve Baron Sept. 3, Today’s Agenda  Anatomy of an IP case  The Courts and the Law  Links to finding cases  Parts of.
16 - 1Copyright © 2004 by Prentice-Hall. All rights reserved. Performance and Breach  If a contractual duty has not been discharged or excused, the contracting.
25-1 Chapter 16 Remedies for Breach of Traditional and E- Contracts.
ANATOMY OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT. Licensor, Licensee and Licensed Property Title to the Intellectual Property being licensed Written agreement Licensing.
Chapter 39 Special Business Forms and Private Franchises.
© 2010 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Prentice-Hall 1 FRANCHISES AND SPECIAL FORMS OF BUSINESS © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Prentice-Hall.
Recent Japanese Cases Regarding Standard Essential Patents and FRAND Licensing Declaration AIPLA-IPHC Meeting April 11, 2013 Shinji ODA Judge, Intellectual.
Key Legal Considerations for Agencies Wake Forest Business School Charlotte Campus June 12, 2013.
HOT TOPICS IN PATENT LITIGATION ABA – IP Section, April 9, 2011 Committee 601 – Trial and Appellate Rules & Procedures Moderator: David Marcus Speakers:
Class 24: Finish Remedies, then Subject Matter Patent Law Spring 2007 Professor Petherbridge.
Case 10-5 Case10-5. Information Austria,Supreme Court,1996. Austria,Supreme Court,1996. Case No.518/95. Case No.518/95. Osterreichische Zeitschrift fur.
"You Have Mail" And Other Terms Are Generic Produced by: Asia Green.
2/7/2006Class 131 Class 13, Tuesday, Feb. 7 Announcements Thursday Friday240-54, incl. Problem 3-4 Today’s agenda Incomplete bargaining Walker v.
Google v. Louis Vuitton. Louis Vuitton, which is part of the LVMH group of brands including Moet & Chandon and Dior, had argued that Google was acting.
THE JUDICIAL BRANCH COURTS, JUDGES, AND THE LAW. MAIN ROLE Conflict Resolution! With every law, comes potential conflict Role of judicial system is to.
Business Law II Topics Business Law II Essential Question - Students will be able to determine the proper monetary or equitable remedy.
Lecturer: Miljen Matijašević G10, room 6 Session 5.
Chapter 36: Sole Proprietorships and Franchises
Enhanced Damages for Patent Infringement: Halo v. Pulse
REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF TRADITIONAL AND
Overview of Legal Process in IP Cases
Federal Court System Policy Makers.
Chapter 40 Franchises and Special Forms of Business
Overview of Legal Process in IP Cases
Each state has its own judicial system that hears nonfederal cases
Presentation transcript:

Burger King Corporation v. C.R. Weaver; M-W-M, Inc

In 1999 the U.S. court of Appeals for the eleventh Circuit considered whether a district court properly awarded Burger King Corporation (BKC) an accounting of Weaver’s profits as damages for trademark infringement under the Lantham Act, 15 U.S.C.A Weaver operated 2 Burger King franchises in Great Falls, Montana. He stopped paying his franchise rent and royalty fees after another franchise, located near his restaurant, opened. After negotiations between BKC and Weaver failed, BKC terminated his franchises. Weaver continued to operate both restaurants, placing the franchise fees into an escrow account. Both parties brought suit. Case Overview

The Arguments BKC’s Arguments: Weaver is guilty of trademark infringement. He continues to use the franchise rights, but he is not paying for it. If one party to a contract has no right to exclusive territory, the other party has no duty to limit licensing of new restaurants. Weaver’s Arguments: BKC breached its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing among other claims.

Court Decision A district court dismissed Weaver’s claims on summary judgment. His arguments do not withstand with the lack of explicit contract obligations related to this. The court awarded BKC an accounting for profits under the Lantham Act.

Appeal Weaver appealed the award of lost profits. He argued that BKC was not damaged by his infringement of its trademark since the franchise fees have been held in escrow. He further argued that BKC, in fact, benefited from the infringement because “BKC’s goodwill and marks were enhanced by Weaver’s continued operation, and thus, an award of lost profits to BKC represents a windfall”

The Eleventh Circuit The eleventh circuit disagreed. It noted that BKC does not need to show actual damages to receive a lost profits accounting under the Lantham Act. It further noted that an accounting for profits under this act is designed to make the infringement unprofitable and deter the infringer from future similar activity. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the award of a lost profits accounting because Weaver’s use of the mark after receiving a note of termination was willful and deliberate.

Findings Lost profits accounting awarded even though the franchiser may have benefited from the trademark Infringement.

The court proceedings can be found here:

About IPR Plaza IPR Plaza is a web-based platform that bridges the gap between IP law, accounting, tax, transfer pricing and valuation by providing general and profession-specific information on intangibles, as well as, quantifiable valuation models. IPR Plaza is empowered by different leading IP advisory firms. IPR Plaza is headquartered in the Netherlands with representation in other major countries.