Does not require anyone to give a warranty on consumer goods It applies onlu if

Does not require anyone to give a warranty on

This preview shows page 28 - 31 out of 61 pages.

· Does not require anyone to give a warranty on consumer goods · It applies onlu if the seller voluntarily chooses to make an express written warranty (perhaps to make their product more competitive)? · Have to be full or limited warranty · Prohibits a disclaimer of implied warranties when an express written warranty is given (full or limited) or when the service contract is made with the consumer within 90 days of the sale. Plaintiffs certainly like the legal ideas described in this unit, but many manufacturers argue that consumer protection law goes too far. They have lobbied to place caps on damages and create new defenses in product liability cases. They have had substantial success in both state legislatures and the U.S. Congress. The Court’s used to be pretty heavily pro-plaintiff until more recently when the Supreme Court has also derailed some product liability cases, as Kurns v. Railroad Friction Products
Image of page 28
Corporation illustrates. This unit will conclude with a description of three additional cases in which plaintiffs were unsuccessful. Rittner v. Avg Technologies USA, Inc. (US District Court, 2013)—pg. 189 Brooks Cotton Co. v. Williams (TN Court of Appeals, 2008) Travelers Property Casualty Co v. Saint-Gobain Technical Fabrics (US District Court- 2007) —page 199 Webster v. Blue Ship Tea Room, Inc. (Supreme Judicial Court of MA, 1964)—pg. 205 Demsey v. Rosenthal (Civil Court in NY, 1983)—pg. 207 Knight v. Just Born, Inc. (US District Court, 2000)—page 217 Red Rose Transit Auth. V. North American Bus Industries (US District Court, 2013) Kurs v. Railroad Friction Products Corporation (supreme Court, 2012—page 227 Pelman v. McDonald’s Corp (US District Court, 2003)—pg. 230 Unit 6: Intellectual Property Intellectual property has become increasingly important as intangible goods have greatly increased in value. These exclusive rights are a type of intellectual property right that encourage inventiveness (patent law) and creativity (copyright law). An ideal system provides protection to intellectual property that is no greater than is necessary to create and maintain the desired incentives to innovate and create over time. 1.TrademarksWhy might trademark protection be denied?
Image of page 29
The final category is arbitrary or fanciful terms. Arbitrary terms are common words used in a meaningless context. If your company sells apples, you have no chance to gainthe exclusive right to call your product Apples. But Apple has no problem enjoying trademark protection because computers, iPods, and the like have nothing to do with actualapples. Camel cigarettes is another example of an arbitrary mark. A fanciful mark consists
Image of page 30
Image of page 31

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 61 pages?

  • Spring '08
  • BREDESON
  • Law, Common Law, Supreme Court of the United States

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes