pleg 235 midterm

docx

School

Bryant and Stratton College, Buffalo *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

235

Subject

Business

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by BaronCaterpillarMaster621

Kristine Hubbert PLEG 235 Midterm 11/25/2023 MEMO To: Lisa Howard, Attorney From: Kristine Hubbert, Paralegal Date: 11/25/2023 Subject: Sweet Lorriane’s Bakery- Analysis of complaint. Dear Mrs. Howard, I am writing to inform you that I have completed the letter to our client Mrs. Donnelly about the summons complaint she received from Mr. Sawyer for you to review and sign. In the letter, I have provided a detailed analysis of each of the causes of action raised against her for trademark infringement. I have identified and summarized all the potential defenses that we can raise in our answer to the complaint. I have thoroughly evaluated the possible merit of each defense and provided a detailed explanation of the legal basis behind each. Lastly, I have provided a summary of the preliminary strategy and explained the next steps we need to take in this process. I have included a timeline for these steps and have ensured that the strategy aligns with our client's interests. If you need anything else, please let me know. Sincerely, Kristine Hubbert, Paralegal

Dear Miss Donnelly, We are writing to inform you that we have received a Summons and Complaint in the matter of Sweet Lorraine’s Systems, LLC v. Sweet Lorraine’s Bakery, LLC, filed in Wayne County Circuit Court in the State of Michigan. As your legal representatives, we have conducted a comprehensive analysis of the case and would like to provide you with a more detailed overview of the situation. The plaintiff, Sweet Lorraine’s Systems, LLC, is alleging that Sweet Lorraine’s Bakery, LLC, has infringed on its trademark and trade dress by using a similar name and logo in its business. The plaintiff claims that this has caused confusion among consumers and has resulted in a loss of revenue for their business. After a thorough review of the case, we have identified potential merits, potential defenses, and an outline of our preliminary litigation strategy. 1.Causes of Action: 1. Trademark Infringement: (15 U.S.C. § 1114) Trademark law is governed by the federal Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1114), which protects a trademark owner's exclusive right to use a symbol, name, or identifier that distinguishes and protects goods or services in the marketplace. Infringement can occur when the unauthorized use of a similar trademark leads to confusion among consumers about the source of the goods or services. The likelihood of confusion among consumers is a key factor in trademark infringement cases 2. Federal Trademark Dilution (15 U.S.C. § 1114) Dilution is when a famous trademark loses its uniqueness or value due to its association with another product or service. There are two types of dilution: blurring and tarnishment. For a trademark to be famous, it must have a high level of recognition and distinctiveness. Factors that determine this include advertising and sales volume. 3. False Designation of Origin : (15 U.S.C. § 1125) False Designation of Origin is a provision within the Lanham Act that aims to protect consumers from being misled or deceived about the true source of products or services in the marketplace. This provision makes it illegal to use false or misleading information about the origin, sponsorship, or approval of goods or services. Its main goal is to ensure that consumers are not confused or misled about the true source of products or services they buy and that they can make informed decisions based on correct information. 4. Common Law Trademark Infringement : C ommon law trademark rights are established by being the first to use a trademark in commerce within a specific geographic region. This allows exclusive rights to use the trademark in sales, marketing, production, and other aspects of the business within that region. However, these rights are generally limited to the geographic area where the mark is used and require the trademark to be capable of distinguishing the goods or services from those of another.

. 5 .Common Law Unfair Competition : A central element of unfair competition is the likelihood of confusion among consumers. If a competitor's actions are likely to confuse consumers about the source, origin, or sponsorship of goods or services, it may be considered unfair competition. Unfair competition includes a wide range of unfair or deceptive acts, including false advertising, misrepresentation of products, passing off (presenting one's goods or services as those of another), and other misleading practices. 2.Merit to the actions: need to make shorter 1. Trademark Infringement: Sweet Lorraine’s Systems, LLC alleges that SLB's use of the name "Sweet Lorraine’s" is trademark infringement. They claim that SLB intentionally and knowingly manufactured, distributed, and sold the infringing products without authorization or consent, directly competing with their business in interstate commerce. Sweet Lorraine’s Systems, LLC argues that Sweet Lorraine’s Bakery's use of the name constitutes trademark infringement, violating their exclusive rights. They state that the use of the name has caused confusion among consumers and harm to their business interest. The validity of the claim depends on whether it is likely to cause confusion with Sweet Lorraine's Systems, LLC's trademark, considering factors such as industry similarity and potential customer confusion. 2. Dilution: The plaintiff claims that Sweet Lorraine's Trademarks are highly renowned and that SLB products have been infringing on them, resulting in dilution by blurring and tarnishment with consumers. The plaintiff alleges intentional infringement to benefit from their reputation, causing irreparable damage to their goodwill and reputation. To prove their case, the plaintiff must demonstrate that their trademark is both famous and distinctive, and that the defendant's use of the mark is likely to cause dilution by blurring or tarnishing. This requires providing evidence of actual harm to the distinctiveness of their mark or establishing a high likelihood of such harm. 3. False Designation of Origin: The plaintiff alleges that SLB's use of the name falsely designates the origin of its products, causing confusion among consumers about the source of the goods. They assert that the use of the name misleads consumers into believing that the products offered by SLB are associated with Sweet Lorraine’s Systems, LLC. The plaintiff will need to prove that SLB's use of the name misleads consumers about the source of the products and believes the two are associated with each other. The plaintiff is arguing that SLB's use of the name is misleading customers into thinking that the products offered by SLB are associated with Sweet Lorraine’s Systems, LLC, which is not the case. 4. Common Law Trademark Infringement- The Complaint alleges that SLB's use of the name infringes on Sweet Lorraine's Systems, resulting in common law trademark infringement. The plaintiff asserts that Sweet Lorraine's Trademarks have gained a reputation for quality and excellence, and that SLB were fully aware of this reputation when using the trademark. They claim that SLB has misled the public about the source of the products and falsely associated SLB with theirs, leading to unfair competition under common state law. To assess the validity of the claim put forward by Sweet Lorraine's Systems, LLC, it is essential to establish the common law trademark rights that the company holds. This involves a detailed examination of whether SLB has been using the trademark in question in commerce, whether the trademark has acquired a secondary meaning among consumers, and if there is any evidence of confusion in the marketplace. Furthermore, the likelihood of confusion is a critical factor that will be considered in evaluating the claim . 5. Unfair Competition : The complaint alleges that SLB's use of the disputed name has resulted in unfair competition by causing confusion among consumers and negatively affecting Sweet Lorraine's Systems, LLC's business interests. The plaintiff claims that this confusion has led to a likelihood of deception, mistake, and difficulty for consumers in distinguishing between the two businesses, causing harm to the

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

plaintiff's reputation. To successfully prove their claim, the plaintiff needs to provide evidence showing that SLB's actions have caused or are likely to cause confusion among consumers, potentially damaging the plaintiff's business reputation or goodwill. This evidence must demonstrate that SLB's use of the trademark has created a likelihood of confusion in the minds of consumers regarding the source of the goods or services being offered. Additionally, the plaintiff must show that they have suffered actual or potential harm to their business due to SLB's use of the trademark. 3.Defenses to the claims: 1.Trademark Infringements claim: The argument can be made that there is no likelihood of confusion between the defendant's and SLB’s marks among the relevant consumers, thus no infringement has taken place. Factors considered are the similarity of the marks, the similarity of the goods or services, the strength of the plaintiff's mark, and evidence of confusion. It is important to note that the likelihood of confusion must exist in the marketplace, as similarities alone are not sufficient to prove confusion. The strength of evidence proving the absence of confusion determines the strength of this defense. 2. Dilution: One defense is to contest the fame or distinctiveness of the plaintiff's mark. This can be done by providing evidence that the plaintiff's mark is not widely recognized or lacks inherent distinctiveness, which weakens the merit of a dilution claim. No Actual Dilution or Likelihood of Dilution: Defense: Another defense is to argue that there is no evidence of actual dilution or a likelihood of dilution in the future. This can be supported by showing the absence of harm to the plaintiff's mark or the absence of factors indicating a dilution. Differentiation in Products or Services: Defense: Emphasizing the differences in products or services offered by Sweet Lorraine’s Bakery, LLC and Sweet Lorraine’s Systems, LLC can be a strong defense. This can be supported by providing evidence of distinct markets, customer bases, and the dissimilarity of goods and services offered by each business. 3.False Designation of Origin: For this claim we will argue that the statements made about the origin of goods or services are truthful and accurate. demonstrate that there is no likelihood of confusion among consumers regarding the source of the goods or services, I can show that the use is non-commercial or not in connection with the sale of goods or services. 4.Common trademark infringement: Regarding the geographic distinction, it can be emphasized that there are clear geographic distinctions between the businesses to reduce the likelihood of confusion about the origin of their respective products. As for the supporting evidence, evidence can be provided of the localized nature of Sweet Lorraine's Bakery, LLC's operations, and the absence of overlap with Sweet Lorraine's Systems, LLC. Clear evidence can be presented to show that there is no confusion between the two businesses, and that they operate in different regions. This will help establish that there is no likelihood of confusion among customers regarding their products' origin. 5. Unfair competition: We can argue that Sweet Lorraine's Bakery, LLC has always conducted its business with transparency, honesty, and ethical standards. The company has always followed industry regulations and standards and has never engaged in any unfair, deceptive, or unethical business practices. As for the supporting evidence, we can present proof of the company's compliance with regulations and standards, including truthful marketing practices. The company has always been transparent in its dealings with customers and has never engaged in any shady business practices. Furthermore, we can assert that there was no intent to deceive consumers or engage in unfair competition. Sweet Lorraine's Bakery has always conducted its business operations with good faith and without any malicious intent to harm competitors or deceive the public. We can also argue that both businesses can coexist in the market

without causing any harm to the plaintiff's business. There is a peaceful coexistence between the two businesses, and there is no confusion among customers. Additionally, there is no negative impact on market share or reputation. Next Steps: The first thing we will do is file a motion to remove the case from the Michigan State court to the Federal Court. Then our next steps in this process will include:  Investigation - We will investigate how to obtain necessary proof to find supporting evidence for your side of the argument.  Pleadings - Both parties will file pleadings that explain the basic arguments of each side, this will include two parts, the complaint and answer. The plaintiff has already filed the complaint, now we must file an answer to the allegations they are alleging.  Discovery- This is the part of the process that each side will discover as much information about the case. This involves legal research, reviewing the documents, interviewing witnesses, and more. This is usually the longest part of the case and will last all the way up to the trial. Depositions are conducted during this stage and obtaining witnesses. Motions are also filed.  Pre-trial- This stage is where meetings and negotiations are held between attorneys for both sides of the case. Many times, settlements are reached during this process.  Trial- If a settlement isn't reached the trial will begin where both sides argue their case before the court. We believe the plaintiff's claims may not have sufficient legal basis, as there are differences between the two entities that should be considered. We also believe that we have a strong defense against the plaintiff's allegations, and we will work to gather evidence to support this defense. We understand the importance of this matter and are committed to providing you with the best legal representation. Please contact us if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Lisa Howard, Attorney

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

pleg 235 midterm

Related Documents