Bus Law Assignment 1 - Part I) Case: Landsberg V. Selchow...

  • Weber State University
  • BSAD 4210
  • Homework Help
  • JudgeComputerGrasshopper8529
  • 6
  • 100% (1) 1 out of 1 people found this document helpful

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 6 pages.

Part I)Case:Landsberg V. Selchow &Richter CompanyFacts: Mark Landsberg wrote a book on strategy for winning at the Scrabble board game. Hewrote the owner of the scrabble trade mark Selchow & Righter Co. requesting permission to usethe trademark on the strategy book. Lansberg sued SR for copyright infringement and breach ofcontract by creating their own strategy book based off Lansberg publication. The State Courtruled in favor of Landsberg.Issue:Is the book released by SR Co. copywrite infringement?Holding:GoodwinMajority Opinion Reasoning:The judgment regarding SR Co. infringement in this case was examined using both Californiaand Supreme Court law.The Court found the state of California implemented the SupremeCourt interpretation of infringement law into state law. Neither the defendant nor the plaintivereferred to California state rulings, instead both parties used federal law cases to create eachparties position. Therefore, the Supreme Court assumed the California copy write laws werenearly identical and utilized federal law to analyze the case in question.Rule:1) California and Supreme Courts law determines the material to be copy written if it fulfills threedetermining factors:A) The owner must establish ownership of the copyright.B) The accused had access to the copyrighted work.C) Establish substantial similarities of the general ideas and the expression of thoseideas thatwere copyrighted. These similarities can be determined by reviewing theSid &Marty KrofftTelevision Productions inc. V. McDonald’s Corp. judgment.2) The degree of similarity to constitute copyright infringement of substantial similarity varies onthe work and how the ideas were presented.A) The Hoehling V. Universal City Studios Inc. ruling determined the use of historical factwhichwas used in the motion picture did not infringe upon Hoehling. This was determined tonotinfringe upon Hoehlings idea rather historical fact.B) The doctrine of scenes a faire clearly states that “A second author does not infringeeven if hereproduces verbatim the first author’s expression, tf that expression constitutesscenes thatflow are necessary from common unprotect able ideas, because to holdotherwise would give the first author a monopoly on the commonplace ideas behind the scenesa faire.”Application:Here in this case, copyright infringement did occur due to the fact:I) Landsberg took steps to publish “Championship Scrabble Strategy” and acquire theapproval of SR to use the Scrabble name within the title in 1972.II) SR Co. did receive a copy of “Championship Scrabble Strategy” when Landsbergsubmitted a copy to SR Co. for approval for the use of Scrabble in the titleIII) Reviewing Landsberg’s work and comparing it to S&R’s work, the district court failedtoconsider the copyright law protects expression of unprotect able ideas without protectingtheideas themselves.
Concurrence 1( Not state within Case)Concurrence 2( Not state within Case)

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 6 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Spring
Professor
BlainH.Johnson
Tags
parties, implied in fact contract, Jaxon Co, Ethan Erikson

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture