Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Chapter 08 - Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition
V. ANSWERS TO PROBLEMS AND PROBLEM CASES
1. The defendant was correct. This invention was obvious, according to the Supreme Court.
Therefore, the invention failed the nonobviousness requirement—meaning that the patent was
2. Koons succeeded on the fair use defense. The Second Circuit held that Koons’ critical and
artistic purpose rendered his painting “transformative.” The court found additional
justification in Koons’ assertion that the use of an existing image advanced his satirical
3. MasterCard sued for trademark infringement and dilution and for copyright infringement. In
the trademark aspects of his case, MasterCard was seeking to enforce its rights to stop, and
obtain monetary damages for, uses that allegedly amounted to infringement or dilution of the
"Priceless" trademark. In the copyright aspect of the case, MasterCard sought to enforce its
4. The Court held that color is registrable if the applicant proves secondary meaning in regard to
it. In other words, the applicant must prove that it has used the mark (in this instance, the
color) long enough and extensively enough that the relevant public has come to associate the
5. Yes. The “Surfvivor” mark was “suggestive,” and therefore worthy of some intermediate
level of protection. But the “Surfvivor” and Survivor marks are only aurally similar, not
6. Yes. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's issuance of a
preliminary injunction in favor of North Atlantic Instruments (NAI). The Second Circuit
8-1
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 08 - Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition
concluded that the list of client contacts was indeed a trade secret belonging to NAI and that
Haber's use and disclosure of the client contact list after he left NAI involved a breach of the
7. Although business methods can sometimes be patented, this particular one was not eligible
8. Vuitton lost its trademark infringement claim and its trademark dilution claim. The
infringement claim failed because there was no likelihood of confusion. Reasonable
9. No. Reversing the trial court’s decision, the Georgia Court of Appeals held that the
homeowners association was not liable to the developer for interference with the contracts
between the developer and the lot purchasers because the association was not a stranger to the
10. Google successfully invoked the fair use defense. In applying the fair use factors, the court
placed heavy emphasis on the transformative purpose associated with Google’s use of the
11. Puffery. “America’s Favorite Pasta” does not stand for a discrete or measurable fact.
“Favorite” essentially means “well-liked,” a subjective descriptor. “America” does not mean
12. The defendants were liable for inducing patent infringement. The Supreme Court held that
inducement liability requires a showing that the defendants knew the induced acts would
constitute patent infringement. The Court went on to hold, however, that the doctrine of
willful blindness can be used as a way of satisfying the knowledge element. The Court
8-2
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 08 - Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition
13. Colting argued that the fair use defense should protect him against liability. A federal district
court, however, issued a preliminary injunction in favor of Salinger and thereby barred
distribution of Colting’s novel in the United States. Although it later vacated the preliminary
injunction, the Second Circuit issued an opinion indicating, after relatively brief analysis, that
8-3
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
