Reference no: EM132201545

1. Keller, a professor of legal studies at Rhodes University, is a diligent instructor. Late one night, while reading a newly published, copyrighted treatise of one thousand eight hundred pages written by Gilbert, he came across a three-page section discussing the subject matter he intended to cover in class the next day. Keller considered the treatment to be illuminating and therefore photocopied the three pages and distributed the copies to his class. One of Keller’s students is a second cousin of Gilbert, the author of the treatise, and she showed Gilbert the copies. May Gilbert recover from Keller for copyright infringement? Explain.

2. Jennings conceived a secret process for the continuous freeze- drying of foodstuffs and related products and constructed a small pilot plant that practiced the process. However, Jennings lacked the financing necessary to develop the commercial poten- tial of the process and, in hopes of obtaining a contract for its development and the payment of royalties, disclosed it in confi- dence to Merrick, a coffee manufacturer, who signed an agree- ment not to disclose it to anyone else. At the same time, Jennings signed an agreement not to disclose the process to any other person as long as Jennings and Merrick were considering a contract for its development. Upon Jennings’s disclosure of the process, Merrick became extremely interested and offered to pay Jennings the sum of $1.75 million if, upon further development, the process proved to be commercially feasible. While negotia- tions between Jennings and Merrick were in progress, Nelson, a competitor of Merrick, learned of the process and requested a disclosure from Jennings, who informed Nelson that the process could not be disclosed to anyone unless negotiations with Mer- rick were broken off. Nelson offered to pay Jennings $2.5 million for the process, provided it met certain defined objective per- formance criteria. A contract was prepared and executed between Jennings and Nelson on this basis, without any prior disclosure of the process to Nelson. Upon the making of this contract, Jennings rejected Merrick’s offer. The process was thereupon disclosed to Nelson, and demonstration runs of the pilot plant in the presence of Nelson’s representatives were con- ducted under varying conditions. After three weeks of observing experimental demonstrations, compiling data, and analyzing results, Nelson informed Jennings that the process did not meet the performance criteria in the contract and that for this reason Nelson was rejecting the process. Two years later, Nelson placed on the market freeze-dried coffee that resembled in color, appearance, and texture the product of Jennings’s pilot plant. What are the rights of the parties?

3. Stella, a chemist, was employed by Johnson, a manufacturer, to work on a secret process for Johnson’s product under an exclu- sive three-year contract. Johnson employed Dabney, a sales per- son, on a week-to-week basis. Stella and Dabney resigned their employment with Johnson and accepted employment in their respective capacities with Washington, a rival manufacturer. Dabney began soliciting patronage from Johnson’s former cus- tomers, whose names he had memorized. What are the rights of the parties in (a) a suit by Johnson to enjoin Stella from working for Washington and (b) a suit by Johnson to enjoin Dabney from soliciting Johnson’s customers?

4. Conrad and Darby were competitors in the business of dehair- ing raw cashmere, the fleece of certain Asiatic goats. Dehairing is the process of separating the commercially valuable soft down from the matted mass of raw fleece, which contains long coarse guard hairs and other impurities. Machinery for this process is not readily available on the open market. Each company in the business designed and built its own machinery and kept the na- ture of its process secret. Conrad contracted with Lawton, the owner of a small machine shop, to build and install new improved dehairing machinery of increased efficiency for which Conrad furnished designs, drawings, and instructions. Lawton, who knew that the machinery design was confidential, agreed that he would manufacture the machinery exclusively for Con- rad and that he would not reproduce the machinery or any of its essential parts for anyone else. Darby purchased from Lawton a copy of the dehairing machinery that Conrad had specially designed. What are Conrad’s rights, if any, against (a) Darby and (b) Lawton? Explain.

5. Sally, having filed locally an affidavit required under the assumed name statute, has been operating and advertising her exclusive toy store for twenty years in Centerville, Illinois. Her advertising has consisted of large signs on her premises reading “The Toy Mart.” Bob, after operating a store in Chi- cago under the name of “The Chicago Toy Mart,” relocated in Centerville, Illinois, and erected a large sign reading “TOY MART” with the word “Centerville” written underneath in substantially smaller letters. Thereafter, Sally’s sales declined, and many of Sally’s customers patronized Bob’s store, think- ing it to be a branch of Sally’s business. What are the rights of the parties?

6. Ryan Corporation manufactures and sells a variety of house- hold cleaning products in interstate commerce. On national television, Ryan falsely advertises that its laundry liquid is biodegradable. Has Ryan violated the Lanham Act?

7. Gibbons, Inc., and Marvin Corporation are manufacturers who sell a variety of household cleaning products in interstate commerce. On national television Gibbons states that its laundry liquid is biodegradable and that Marvin’s is not. In fact, both products are biodegradable. Has Gibbons violated the Lanham Act?