DOCSLIB.ORG

Table of Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Table of Contents Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Equity .................................................................1 Equity ................................................................................1 Historical Background ..................................................................2 Fusion of Law and Equity ..............................................................4 Maxims of Equity ......................................................................5 (a) Equity Follows the Law ...........................................................6 (b) Equity will not Suffer a Wrong to be Without a Remedy . ..........................6 (c) Equity Acts in Personam ..........................................................6 (d) He Who Seeks Equity Must Do Equity ............................................7 (e) He Who Comes into Equity Must Come with Clean Hands . 7 (f) Delay Defeats Equity .............................................................8 (g) Equality is Equity . ...............................................................8 (h) Equity Looks to the Intent Rather than the Form ....................................8 (i) Equity Looks on that as Done Which Ought to have been Done ......................9 (j) Equity Imputes an Intention to Fulfill an Obligation .................................9 (k) & (l) Where the Equities are Equal, the First in Time Prevails; Where the Equities are Equal, the Law Prevails ........................................................9 Equitable Interests and Equities . .......................................................10 CHAPTER 2 Injunctions ...........................................................................11 Principles Governing the Grant of Perpetual Injunctions ..................................12 Introduction .......................................................................12 Adequacy of Damages . ......................................................13 Conduct of the Parties ..............................................................14 Laches and Acquiescence ............................................................16 Effect on Third Parties .............................................................17 Damages in Lieu of Injunction ......................................................18 Principles Governing the Grant of Interlocutory Injunctions . 19 Introduction .......................................................................19 The Test for the Grant of an Interlocutory Injunction . ................................20 Circumstances in Which a Departure from Campus Oil Guidelines Justified . 23 Where the Trial of the Action is Unlikely . 23 Where There is no Arguable Defence to the Plaintiff’s Claim ............................24 Where an Interlocutory Injunction is Sought in the Context of a Trade Dispute . ..........24 Where an Interlocutory in Junction is Sought in Proceedings for Defamation or Where the Right to Freedom of Expression is at Issue ..................................25 Where an Interlocutory Injunction is Sought to Restrain the Presentation of a Petition for the Winding Up of a Company . 27 Where an Interlocutory Injunction is Sought in a Public Law Context . 27 Principles Governing the Grant of Mandatory Injunctions . ........................28 Principles Governing the Grant of Quia Timet Injunctions ..............................32 V vi Table of Contents Specific Situations in which an Injunction will be Granted ................................33 To Restrain a Breach of Contract ....................................................33 Contracts for Personal Services . ......................................................34 Employment Injunctions . ..........................................................35 To Restrain the Commission or Continuance of a Tort . ..............................37 To Restrain a Breach of Constitutional Rights . 37 To Protect Public Rights . ..........................................................38 Mareva Injunctions .................................................................39 Anton Pillar Orders ................................................................43 Bayer Injunctions . 46 CHAPTER 3 Specific Performance .................................................................49 General Principles . ....................................................49 Damages in Lieu or in Addition to Specific Performance ................................50 Specific Performance of Particular Types of Contracts .....................................51 Contracts Requiring Supervision . 51 Contracts to Build or Repair . .....................................................53 Sale of Land . ....................................................................55 Sale of Personal Property . 57 Defences to an Action for Specific Performance .......................................58 Lack of Mutuality . ................................................................58 Misrepresentation . 59 Mistake . ........................................................................60 Laches............................................................................61 Hardship ..........................................................................62 Illegality . .......................................................................63 Impossibility and Frustration . ....................................................63 CHAPTER 4 Rescission ............................................................................67 Principles Governing Rescission . 67 Grounds for Rescission ................................................................68 Mistake . ........................................................................68 Misrepresentation . 69 Undue Influence ...................................................................70 Undue Influence and Third Parties ...................................................73 Unconscionable Bargain ............................................................77 Loss of Right to Rescind . ............................................................78 Affirmation, Laches, Acquiescence . 78 Where Restitutio in Integrum is Not Possible ...........................................79 Rights of Third Parties . 79 CHAPTER 5 Rectification ..........................................................................81 Principles Governing Rectification ......................................................81 Common Mistake . 81 Unilateral Mistake . 84 Table of Contents vii Onus of Proof . .......................................................................86 Discretionary Factors ..................................................................87 Types of Instruments Which can be Rectified . ..........................................87 CHAPTER 6 Equitable Estoppel ...................................................................89 Promissory Estoppel ..................................................................89 Proprietary Estoppel ..................................................................91 Assurance . 91 Reliance . .........................................................................92 Detriment . .......................................................................92 Categories of Cases in which Proprietary Estoppel may Arise . ............................93 Imperfect Gifts .......................................................................94 Common Expectation .................................................................94 Unilateral Mistake . 96 Unconscionability . ..................................................................97 Overlap between Promissory and Proprietary Estoppel . .................................100 CHAPTER 7 Tracing ..............................................................................103 Tracing at Common Law . ..........................................................103 Tracing at Equity ....................................................................104 General Principles . 104 Tracing in Accounts .................................................................106 Fiduciary Relationship ...............................................................108 Loss of Tracing Rights . ............................................................109 CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Equity IN THIS CHAPTER Equity . ...............................................................[1–01] Historical Background . [1–07] Fusion of Law and Equity . [1–15] Maxims of Equity . [1–19] (a) Equity Follows the Law . [1–21] (b) Equity will not Suffer a Wrong to be Without a Remedy . ........................[1–24] (c) Equity Acts in Personam .......................................................[1–26] (d) He Who Seeks Equity Must Do Equity . ....................................[1–29] (e) He Who Comes into Equity Must Come With Clean Hands ......................[1–31] (f) Delay Defeats Equity . [1–34] (g) Equality is Equity . [1–38] (h) Equity Looks to the Intent Rather than the Form . ................................[1–40] (i) Equity Looks on that as Done Which Ought to have been Done . [1–42] (j) Equity Imputes an Intention to Fulfill an Obligation ..............................[1–45] (k) & (l) Where the Equities are Equal, the First in Time Prevails; Where the Equities are Equal, the Law Prevails . ...........................................[1–46] Equitable Interests and Equities . [1–48] EQUITY Equity is a body of rules and principles which were developed and administered by the Court of [1–01] Chancery in England prior to the enactment
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Doctrine of Clean Hands
    LITIGATION - CANADA AUTHORS "Clean up, clean up, everybody clean up": the Norm Emblem doctrine of clean hands December 06 2016 | Contributed by Dentons Introduction Origins Bethany McKoy Recent cases Comment Introduction On occasion, in response to a motion or claim by an adverse party seeking equitable relief, a party will argue that the relief sought should be denied on the basis that the moving party has not come to court with 'clean hands'. This update traces the origin of what is often referred to as the 'doctrine of clean hands' and examines recent cases where: l a moving party has been denied equitable relief on the basis that it came to court with unclean hands; and l such arguments did not defeat the moving party's claim. Origins The doctrine of clean hands originated in the English courts of chancery as a limit to a party's right to equitable relief, where the party had acted inequitably in respect of the matter. In the seminal case Toronto (City) v Polai,(1) the Ontario Court of Appeal provided some insight into the origins and purpose of the doctrine: "The maxim 'he who comes into equity must come with clean hands' which has been invoked mostly in cases between private litigants, requires a plaintiff seeking equitable relief to show that his past record in the transaction is clean: Overton v. Banister (1844), 3 Hare 503, 67 E.R. 479; Nail v. Punter (1832), 5 Sim. 555, 58 E.R. 447; Re Lush's Trust (1869), L.R. 4 Ch. App. 591. These cases present instances of the Court's refusal to grant relief to the plaintiff because of his wrongful conduct in the very matter which was the subject of the suit in equity."(2) Although the court declined to use the doctrine to dismiss the appellant's action for an injunction in that case, it did set the stage for the maxim's future use in Canadian courts.
    [Show full text]
  • The Restitution Revival and the Ghosts of Equity
    The Restitution Revival and the Ghosts of Equity Caprice L. Roberts∗ Abstract A restitution revival is underway. Restitution and unjust enrichment theory, born in the United States, fell out of favor here while surging in Commonwealth countries and beyond. The American Law Institute’s (ALI) Restatement (Third) of Restitution & Unjust Enrichment streamlines the law of unjust enrichment in a language the modern American lawyer can understand, but it may encounter unintended problems from the law-equity distinction. Restitution is often misinterpreted as always equitable given its focus on fairness. This blurs decision making on the constitutional right to a jury trial, which "preserves" the right to a jury in federal and state cases for "suits at common law" satisfying specified dollar amounts. Restitution originated in law, equity, and sometimes both. The Restatement notably attempts to untangle restitution from the law-equity labels, as well as natural justice roots. It explicitly eschews equity’s irreparable injury prerequisite, which historically commanded that no equitable remedy would lie if an adequate legal remedy existed. Can restitution law resist hearing equity’s call from the grave? Will it avoid the pitfalls of the Supreme Court’s recent injunction cases that return to historical, equitable principles and reanimate equity’s irreparable injury rule? Losing anachronistic, procedural remedy barriers is welcome, but ∗ Professor of Law, West Virginia University College of Law; Visiting Professor of Law, The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law. Washington & Lee University School of Law, J.D.; Rhodes College, B.A. Sincere thanks to Catholic University for supporting this research and to the following conferences for opportunities to present this work: the American Association of Law Schools, the Sixth Annual International Conference on Contracts at Stetson University College of Law, and the Restitution Rollout Symposium at Washington and Lee University School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • MARSHALLING SECURITIES and WORDS of RELEASE
    MARSHALLING SECURITIES and WORDS OF RELEASE Note on Hill v Love (2018) 53 V.R. 459 and Burness v Hill [2019] VSCA 94 © D.G. Robertson, Q.C., B.A., LL.M., M.C.I.Arb. Queen’s Counsel Victorian Bar 205 William Street, Melbourne Ph: 9225 7666 | Fax: 9225 8450 www.howellslistbarristers.com.au [email protected] -2- Table of Contents 1. The Doctrine of Marshalling 3 2. The Facts in Hill v Love 5 2.1 Facts Relevant to Marshalling 5 2.2 Facts Relevant to the Words of Release Issue 6 3. The Right to Marshal 7 4. Limitations on and Justification of Marshalling 9 4.1 Principle 9 4.2 Arrangement as to Order of Realization of Securities 10 5. What is Secured by Marshalling? 11 5.1 Value of the Security Property 11 5.2 Liabilities at Time of Realization of Prior Security 12 5.3 Interest and Costs 14 6. Uncertainties in Marshalling 15 6.1 Nature of Marshalling Right 15 6.2 Caveatable Interest? 17 6.3 Proprietary Obligations 18 7. Construction of Words of Release 19 7.1 General Approach to the Construction of Contracts 19 7.2 Special Rules for the Construction of Releases 20 7.3 Grant v John Grant & Sons Pty. Ltd. 22 8. Other Points 24 8.1 Reasonable Security 24 8.2 Fiduciary Duty 24 8.3 Anshun Estoppel 25 This paper was presented on 18 September 2019 at the Law Institute of Victoria to the Commercial Litigation Specialist Study Group. Revised 4 December 2019. -3- MARSHALLING SECURITIES and WORDS OF RELEASE The decisions of the Supreme Court of Victoria in Hill v Love1 and, on appeal, Burness v Hill2 address the doctrine of marshalling securities and also the construction of words of release in terms of settlement.
    [Show full text]
  • Order of Permanent Injunction
    ~ I() / ClOSFri IN TH UNTED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ~ :-~:~~rx:: FI'l'. ,.¡lÕ '-- . ...'íF=~ ,::,.~-'--'f;~."' ._---, ,,~.-,.' UNTED STATES ) H ii ii,; l' C( r ) ~t'rA~~ c" C\ f Plaintiff ) ) v. Civil No. 02-5340 (JAti O:30_,_~~~!'~ ) \:ViUJMfi T. 'vLt::Rh ) RICHA HA a/a ) RICK BRYAN, d//a TAXGATE, ) ENTERED ON ) THE DOCKET ) Defendant. ) MAR 3 1 2003 ORDER OF PERMNENT INJUNCTION 8~!AM T....WALSH,Y .--CLERK " (Deputy Cierk) Plaintiff the United States, has filed a Complaint for Permanent Injunction against the defendant, Richard Haraka, aIa Rick Bryan d//a Taxgate. Haraka does not admit the allegations of the complaint, except that he admits that the Court has jurisdiction over him and over the subject matter of this action. By his Consent, which has been previously filed, Haraka law, and consents to the entry of waives the entry of findings offact and conclusions of this Permanent Injunction. A. The Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.c. Sections 1340 and 1345, and under 26 U.S.C. Sections 7402 and 7408. B. The Court finds that Haraka has neither admitted nor denied the United States' allegations that Haraka is subject to penalty under 26 U.S.C. Sections 6700 and 6701. C. It is hereby ORDERED that Richard Haraka, a/a Rick Bryan d//a Taxgate, and, in addition, his associates, senior members, purported "tax experts," representatives and other affliates, and all others in active concert or participation with him who receive actual notice of i 1 .~ this Order, are permanently restrained and enjoined from directly or indirectly: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • ERISA Fiduciaries Cross-Dress Legal Remedies As Equitable
    Liberty University Law Review Volume 3 Issue 1 Article 6 March 2009 Not-So-Equitable Liens: ERISA Fiduciaries Cross-Dress Legal Remedies as Equitable Brandon S. Osterbind Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lu_law_review Recommended Citation Osterbind, Brandon S. (2009) "Not-So-Equitable Liens: ERISA Fiduciaries Cross-Dress Legal Remedies as Equitable," Liberty University Law Review: Vol. 3 : Iss. 1 , Article 6. Available at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lu_law_review/vol3/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Liberty University School of Law at Scholars Crossing. It has been accepted for inclusion in Liberty University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholars Crossing. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMMENT NOT-SO-EQUITABLE LIENS: ERISA FIDUCIARIES CROSS-DRESS LEGAL REMEDIES AS EQUITABLE Brandon S. Osterbindt I. INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court of the United States has the unfortunate role of finding the law' and determining what it is.2 While this may seem to be a simple and intuitive task, interpreting the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) 3 inevitably results in a "descent into a Serbonian bog wherein judges are forced to don logical blinders and split ' the linguistic atom to decide even the most routine cases. The average personal injury plaintiff does not appreciate the nature of the litigation' that results in the achievement of the plaintiff's ultimate goal: t Brandon S. Osterbind graduated from Liberty University School of Law in May 2008 and is a judicial clerk to the Honorable William G. Petty of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of India Civil Appelalte Jurisdiction
    Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELALTE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 9949-9950 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.35800-35801 of 2011) Rathnavathi & Another Appellant(s) VERSUS Kavita Ganashamdas Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The plaintiff filed two suits, one for specific performance of agreement and other for grant of permanent injunction in relation to the suit house. The trial court vide common judgment and decree dated 16.10.2001 dismissed both the Page 1 suits. The first appellate court, i.e., the High Court, in appeal, by impugned judgment and decree dated 08.09.2011 reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed both the suits in appeal, against the defendants. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the High Court, Defendants 1 and 3 have approached this Court in the instant civil appeals. 3. The question arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the High Court was justified in allowing the first appeals preferred by the plaintiff, resulting in decreeing the two civil suits against defendants in relation to suit house? 4. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the civil suits, and now in these appeals, it is necessary to state the relevant facts. 5. For the sake of convenience, description of parties herein is taken from Original Suit No.223/2000. 6. Defendant no.2 is the original owner of the suit house and defendant no.1 is the subsequent purchaser of the suit house from defendant no.2.
    [Show full text]
  • Remedies: Appropriate Equitable Relief Under ERISA After Montanile
    ACI’s 13th National Forum on ERISA Litigation October 27-28, 2016 Remedies: Appropriate Equitable Relief Under ERISA After Montanile R. Joseph Barton Eric G. Serron Stephen Rosenberg Partner Partner Partner Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC Steptoe & Johnson LLP The Wagner Law Group Tweeting about this conference? #ERISA Hot Topics in Remedies •What is “appropriate equitable relief” under ERISA § 502(a)(3)? •Claims against participants & non-fiduciaries •Claims against fiduciaries for individual recovery #ERISA ERISA § 502(a)(3) “a civil action may be brought by a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary (A) to enjoin any act or practice which violates any provision of this title or the terms of the Plan, or (B) to obtain other appropriate equitable relief (i) to redress [] violations [of ERISA or the terms of the plan] or (ii) to enforce any provisions of this subchapter or the terms of the plan.” #ERISA Claims Against Participants and Non- Fiduciaries • Montanile v. Bd. Of Trustees of Nat. Elevator Indus. Health Benefit Plan, 136 S.Ct. 651 (2016): • 502(a)(3) does not permit equitable lien by agreement against beneficiary’s general assets. #ERISA Montanile continued • ERISA health plan paid for Montanile’s medical expenses after he was hit by drunk driver. Montanile received a $500k settlement from drunk driver. • Plan has subrogation clause and health plan sought reimbursement; attorney refused the request and paid the settlement to Montanile. • Plan sued under 502(a)(3) for equitable lien. • Held: Where funds are completely dissipated on non- traceable items, no 502(a)(3) suit allowed to attach to participant’s general assets.
    [Show full text]
  • In Re Billman: Disposition of Substitute Assets Possessed by Third Party and Subject to Rico Forfeiture May Be Enjoined Charles Szczesny
    University of Baltimore Law Forum Volume 21 Article 14 Number 2 Spring, 1991 1991 Recent Developments: In re Billman: Disposition of Substitute Assets Possessed by Third Party and Subject to Rico Forfeiture May Be Enjoined Charles Szczesny Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Szczesny, Charles (1991) "Recent Developments: In re Billman: Disposition of Substitute Assets Possessed by Third Party and Subject to Rico Forfeiture May Be Enjoined," University of Baltimore Law Forum: Vol. 21 : No. 2 , Article 14. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf/vol21/iss2/14 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Forum by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. the bringing of an action." Id. at 257, medical malpractice. Where a physician rary restraining order (TRO) prohibit­ 577 A.2d at 68. The court explained that repeatedly misdiagnoses his patient's ing McKinney from disposing of the the Joneses could only succeed in their condition due to negligence, each visit $550,000. McKinnEry, 915 F.2d at 919. suit if they could prove that Dr. Speed with the doctor may constitute a separ­ The court subsequently held a hearing had been negligent within the five years ate cause of action and thus, begin a new to determine the validity of the TRO, prior to filing the complaint.
    [Show full text]
  • The Preliminary Injunction Standard: Understanding the Public Interest Factor
    Michigan Law Review Volume 117 Issue 5 2019 The Preliminary Injunction Standard: Understanding the Public Interest Factor M Devon Moore University of Michigan Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Civil Procedure Commons, Courts Commons, and the Jurisprudence Commons Recommended Citation M D. Moore, The Preliminary Injunction Standard: Understanding the Public Interest Factor, 117 MICH. L. REV. 939 (2019). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol117/iss5/4 https://doi.org/10.36644/mlr.117.5.preliminary This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION STANDARD: UNDERSTANDING THE PUBLIC INTEREST FACTOR M Devon Moore* Under Winter v. NRDC, federal courts considering a preliminary injunction motion look to four factors, including the public interest impact of the injunc- tion. But courts do not agree on what the public interest is and how much it should matter. This Note describes the confusion over the public interest fac- tor and characterizes the post-Winter circuit split as a result of this confu- sion. By analyzing the case law surrounding the public interest factor, this Note identifies three aspects of a case that consistently implicate the direction and magnitude of this factor: the identity of the parties, the underlying cause of action, and the scope of injunctive relief.
    [Show full text]
  • An Economic Analysis of Law Versus Equity
    AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF LAW VERSUS EQUITY Henry E. Smith* October 22, 2010 I. INTRODUCTION Like “property,” the terms “equity” and “equitable” are hardly missing from legal discourse. They can refer to fairness, a type of jurisdiction, types of remedies and defenses, an owner’s stake in an asset subject to a security interest and other ownership interests, as well as a set of maxims, among other things. These uses of “equity” and “equitable” all trace back to courts of equity, which, with some exceptions, ceased to exist as separate courts or even as a distinct form of jurisdiction by the early twentieth century.1 So the term “equity” might seem to be an etymological curiosity. This paper challenges that view. It argues that the notion of equity is functionally motivated and can be given an economic analysis under which it makes sense to have a separate decision making mode that is loosely identified with historical equity jurisdiction and jurisprudence. * Fessenden Professor of Law, Harvard Law School. Email: [email protected]. I would like to thank Bob Ellickson; Bruce Johnsen; Louis Kaplow; Steve Spitz; and audiences at the Fourth Annual Triangle Law and Economics Conference, Duke Law School; the George Mason University School of Law, Robert A. Levy Fellows Workshop in Law & Liberty; the Harvard Law School Law and Economics Seminar; the Workshop on Property Law and Theory, New York University School of Law; the University of Notre Dame Law School Faculty Workshop; the International Society for New Institutional Economics, 14th Annual Conference, University of Stirling, Scotland; and the Carl Jacob Arnholm Memorial Lecture, Institute of Private Law, University of Oslo Faculty of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Imagereal Capture
    EQUITABLE ADEMPTION WITHIN THE FAMILY Introduction A parent's generosity towards a child may often cause a family dispute. In particular, if one child has received a substantial gift of money or other material benefits during the parent's lifetime, other children will often look to the parent's will, and may invoke the law with regard to its provisions, in order to redress what they perceive as an injustice to themselves. A parent, it is said, has a duty to treat children equally. This is not, of course, in any sense a legal duty; but the law nevertheless recognizes that in some cir- cumstances a child benefited by a parent should account for that benefit to his or her brothers and sisters. The mechanism available for this purpose is the equitable doc- trine of ademption,' otherwise known as the doctrine of satisfac- *R.A , LI,.B., LL.M. Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Western Australia 1. The word "ademption" in its legal usage applies to three quite different situations: first, where the subject-matter of a specific legacy is disposed of by a testator inter uluos or otherwise ceases to exist so that it forms no part of his estate at death; second, where a legacy is glven for a particular purpose and is followed by a gift tnter u~uosby the testator to the legatee for substantially the same purpose; third, where a portion given Inter L'ZUOS is regarded in equity as an adernption of a prior testamentary portion. This article is concerned only with the third of these situations.
    [Show full text]
  • Fully, Even If Are Not Essential to the Use Or Purpose of the to His Web Site and Allowing Downloads There Is No Finding of Bad Faith Or Fraud
    NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL MONDAY, APRIL 15, 2002 was not fair use, because it was not that attorney’s fees may be awarded in a tectable. While those features were not func- transformative, and was likely to harm the trademark action under the Lanham Act tional in the “traditional sense,” in that they market for Kelly’s work by reducing visitors where the defendant acted willfully, even if are not essential to the use or purpose of the to his Web site and allowing downloads there is no finding of bad faith or fraud. goods and do not affect their cost or without payment of a license fee. Tamko Roofing Products, Inc. v. Ideal Roofing quality, they were functional because pro- Resolving what it described as an issue of Co., Ltd., 282 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2002). With hibiting their use would impose a “significant first impression under the 1976 Copyright that holding, it aligned itself with the Eighth non-reputation-related disadvantage” on Act, the Ninth Circuit held that an and Tenth Circuits, and against the Second, American Eagle. Denying competitors access exclusive licensee does not have the right to Fourth and Fifth. Section 35(a) of the to elements of the claimed trade dress, which transfer its rights without the consent of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1117(a), allows for included use of words such as “performance” licensor. Gardner v. Nike, Inc., 279 F.3d 774 a fee award in “exceptional” cases. The court and “outdoor” and certain primary color (9th Cir. 2002). In 1992, Nike signed an found that the legislative history of the act combinations, would “prevent effective agreement giving Sony the exclusive right to indicates that “deliberate” and “willful” competition in the market.” use a cartoon character in connection with conduct may make a case “exceptional.” In sound recordings and associated promotional the case before it, a fee award was justified Patents activity.
    [Show full text]