Trademark Laws: Is Kazhiloti liable for trademark infringement? Cartier International A.G. and Van Cleef & Arpels S.A. v. Kazhiloti, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 145278

Using the IRAC format (Issue, Rules, Analysis, Conclusion) write an analysis of the case given below. Detailed instructions are listed below. Can provide textbook as a source. CASE: Trademark Zura Kazhiloti sold jewelry bearing the luxury brand names “Cartier” and “Van Cleef & Arpels” to jewelry stores. The retailers then sold the jewelry through their brick-and-mortar stores, through websites, and through the Internet auction site eBay. The jewelry was high-quality counterfeits, however, that Kazhiloti sold at high prices and made hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenues. Each piece of fake Cartier jewelry bore the Cartier stylized “C” design trademark and other Cartier design trademarks. Each piece of fake Van Cleef & Arpels jewelry bore the Van Cleef & Arpels or “VCA” design trademark and other Van Cleef & Arpels design trademarks. The counterfeit jewelry used stones of inferior quality, and inferior cuts, chains, and clasps compared to the authentic pieces. The counterfeit jewelry contained serial numbers simi- lar to those used by Cartier and Van Cleef & Arpels. Kazhiloti supplied fake certificates of authenticity with each piece of jewelry. Eventually, Kazhiloti’s scheme was uncovered. In total, 24 pieces of counterfeit Cartier and 83 pieces of Van Cleef & Arpels jewelry were purchased or seized from the jewelry stores. Cartier International AG and Van Cleef & Arpels S.A. brought suit against Kazhiloti for trademark infringement. The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against Kazhiloti engag- ing in such activity and to recover monetary damages. Kazhiloti asserted his Fifth Amendment constitutional right against self-incrimination and refused to speak to authorities or produce any documents. Is Kazhiloti liable for trademark infringement? Cartier International A.G. and Van Cleef & Arpels S.A. v. Kazhiloti, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 145278 (United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, 2013) Instructions: If you remember the Syllabus (Section 15), you will recall that I want a Signature Assignment. What’s that? The Syllabus says it’s “a written analysis using IRAC format of one of the chapterend cases. This analysis should be approximately 3-5 pages in length.” Well, okay, but what’s that mean? I want a short paper on any case in the textbook, although preferably from a chapter we covered in this class, and please give me a citation: the case name and either the official reporter (e.g., 131 S.Ct. 1207 (2011)) or the edition of Cheeseman that you are using and the page number. I want to be sure I can find your case. And I want IRAC. What are the parties are really fighting about? That’s the Issue. What law or laws do you need to decide that Issue? Those are the Rules. How do you apply those Rules to the facts? That’s the Analysis. Finally, tell me your Conclusion. The Issue is the critical question, so it should end in a question mark. The Rules are laws, and should usually be able to complete the sentence, “The relevant law states […]” The Conclusion is the answer to the critical question. If you look in the Week 1 discussion, you can find an example by me of doing this kind of IRAC analysis, using the case of Brown v. EMA. There are also some fine examples in the weekly discussions by your fellow students. You are welcome to pull up the actual opinion online. In fact, I encourage it. Can you follow the court’s analysis? Do you agree with it? But do your own analysis in your paper. I do not want a summary of what the court said. I can read the opinion for myself. I want your analysis, although obviously you can borrow from the court’s language, where you agree with it. I had one student a year or so back assure me that it was impossible to write 3 – 5 pages of analysis. I want to assure you that it is very possible, and I have posted in Week 8 a rather long – too long – example of what the analysis can look like, using the case of Snyder v. Phelps. If you get hung up on the length of the paper, you can always cut and paste from the online opinion, but put the quoted material in quotation marks. The part I will be looking at the most closely is the Analysis. Show me you can do that. If your Rule says you need X (maybe duty in a negligence case, or reliance in a fraud case), show me where that X is in your facts

Click here to request for this assignment help

Powered by WordPress | Designed by: photography charlottesville va | Thanks to ppc software, penny auction and larry goins