Intellectual propert law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 4000 words

Intellectual propert law - Essay Example Moreover, Betty’s business was apparently called â€Å"Betty’s† from the period spanning 1986 to 1994. However, the name â€Å"Betty’s† was never officially trademarked, at least the facts do not indicate that it was. If the name was trademarked, then obviously Betty would have a stronger case. However, Betty might have a cause of action for passing off. Passing off, traditionally a tort that referred to attempting to represent one’s goods as the goods of somebody else, has the modern definition of using a person’s goodwill and reputation in an attempt to benefit oneself, and, in the process, injuring the original person’s good name, reputation and connections (Taittinger and others v. Allbev Ltd. and others [1994] 4 All ER 75). There are five elements in the tort of passing off, and they are â€Å"1. A misrepresentation 2. Made by a trader in the course of trade, 3. To prospective customers of his or ultimate consumers of good s or services supplied by him 4. Which is calculated to injure the business or goodwill of another trader (in the sense that this is a reasonably foreseeable consequence and 5. Which causes actual damage to a business of goodwill of the trade by whom the action is brought or will probably do so (Erven Warnick BV v. J Townend & Sons (Hull) Ltd. [1979] 2 All ER 927). In examining these elements, it is unsure whether Betty can prevail on the tort of passing off. The first element is that there must be a misrepresentation. Calling her company â€Å"Betty’s Produce,† when Jenny had previously worked for Betty for a long period of time, and Betty’s business was known as â€Å"Betty’s† for a number of years would certainly seem as if Jenny is misrepresenting her own produce as Betty’s. Jenny was no doubt highly associated with Betty in the mind of the consumers and the people to whom Betty catered, so those people probably would assume that Jenny w as still with Betty, and that Jenny’s produce was Betty’s produce. Jenny would be using Betty’s name in the course of trade and to prospective customers, and these same customers were also Betty’s customers, so those elements are satisfied as well. Whether it was calculated to damage the goodwill of Betty is a question for which there is no clear answer. Certainly it seems that Jenny was attempting to capitalize on Betty’s goodwill and reputation, but whether or not she wanted to injure Betty is questionable. However, as long as damage to Jenny’s reputation is reasonably foreseeable, this element is satisfied as well. Betty worked hard to establish a firm reputation for her products. Jenny’s products might not have the same standard. If Jenny’s products are not the same standard as Betty’s products, then Jenny would be damaging Betty’s reputation. â€Å"a misrepresentation by B that his inferior goods are of a su perior quality, which is that of A’s goods, whereby people buy B’s goods instead of A’s, is actionable† (Reckitt and Colman Products Ltd. v Borden Inc. and Others, [1990] 1 All ER 873). Jenny was clearly trying to represent her products as Betty’s products, in an effort to get these restaurants to buy her products instead of Betty’s products, so this element is satisfied as well. As to the final element, that the passing off causes actual damage to Betty’s reputation, actionable damage can be that which is gradual depreciation to the reputation that Betty

Republicans and Democrats the U.S. deficit Research Paper

Republicans and Democrats the U.S. deficit - Research Paper Example Republicans on the other hand advocated for â€Å"sound finance† and decreasing taxes but also realized that there should be some form of deficit to support government programs in progress (Colander & Matthews, 59). The republican sound finance perspective is based on the economic view that if taxes are cut, there is an incentive to work harder, save and thus revenues are increased (Miroff, Siedelman, Swanstrom, & Deluca, 397). Therefore in addressing the growing national deficit, the Republican Party advocates for government spending habits to be curtailed, and also to amend tax legislation with a view to creating jobs and increasing salaries, reform Medicare and national security, and for the reformation of welfare programs (GOP.gov.com). The Democratic Party takes the position that the wealthy should be compelled to pay higher taxes, so that the government can fund programs meant to strengthen the middle and lower classes (Moving America Forward, 2012 Democratic National Pl atform). This paper evaluates how democrats and republicans propose to handle the current U.S. deficit and will determine which approach has more merit. During the 2012 Presidential elections, the Republican Party’s Presidential candidate Mitt Romney revealed a plan for dealing with the US deficit. The plan involved an eight-year program in which the federal budget would be balanced (Sahadi). The plan also included a promise that taxes would not be increased and at the same time, retiring Americans would be protected and more would be spent on defense (Rubin). This plan would obviously mean that other government programs would necessarily have to be cut. According to Rubin, we are at least assured by Romney that social security would not be subjected to cuts. However, other government programs could be vulnerable and this would include housing assistance, national parks, food stamps, and any other number of government programs. Wyler provides the details of the plans Romney h ad for the Republican Party’s approach to the U.S. deficit. To begin with, Romney planned to decrease income taxes by 20%. These income tax decreases would affect all Americans regardless of income status (Wyler). This of course is nothing new for the Republican Party. In 2001 and 2003, former republican president Bush introduced two successive tax cuts across the board which were primarily beneficial to the wealthy (Bartels). For the most part Americans are receptive to tax cuts because they are singly focused on their own â€Å"tax burdens† (Bartels, 15). The reality however was that 36% of the tax cuts would benefit the â€Å"richest 1 percent of Americans – a share almost identical to that received by the bottom 80 percent† (Hacker & Pierson, 33). It was estimated at the time that within 10 years, the income tax reductions would cost the U.S. $2.1 trillion in revenue (Hacker & Pierson). Middle and lower class Americans were sold on the tax reductions because in less than a month after the initial reductions, taxpayers were receiving rebate checks for at least $600 (Hacker & Pierson). This was one way of passing a policy that would primarily benefit the wealthy and yet