Show Less
Restricted access

Case Analyses for Intellectual Property Law and New Media


Steven L. Baron, Edward Lee Lamoureux and Claire Stewart

This text is a companion to the 2 nd edition of Intellectual Property Law And New Media: Free for a Fee. Moving the coverage of case analysis to this separate volume, enables the authors to focus their attention on important trial and legal procedures that apply extant law to, largely, new circumstances.
Readers can focus on history and concepts while reading the main text, allowing them to bring understandings derived there to bear on the cases found in this analytic text. The approach offers relief from information overload and allows time and space to «shift gears» between concepts and cases. To aid understanding and learning, the authors provide focused interpretations and analysis throughout.
The coverage allows these books to serve as an excellent resource for undergraduates studying interactive media, as well as being a primer for first year IP law students, a handbook for entrepreneurs, a guidebook for general lawyers to assist in referrals, and an interesting read for those simply curious about the field.
The books are supplemented by, a blog providing textual updates, online links to bibliographic materials, and extensive resource aggregation. Learning objectives for each chapter and a glossary of key terms are provided within the texts.
Show Summary Details
Restricted access

Chapter Eight: International Intellectual Property Laws and Systems Cases


| 116 →


International Intellectual Property Laws and Systems Cases

New Media Cases Illustrating International Intellectual Property Law

Jurisdiction over Foreign Trademark Infringers

Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, No. 04–15577, 2006 WL 1897091 (9th Cir. July 12, 2006).

International cases almost always raise jurisdiction questions. Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy shows that using trademarks in countries other than where they are established (and/or registered) is contentious but still depends on the uses made of the mark(s).

The corporation behind the famous US golf course, Pebble Beach , filed suit against a small British inn named Pebble Beach Bed & Breakfast for trademark infringement and dilution. The accused, Michael Caddy, moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficiency of service of process. Although Caddy could have simply stayed in England and refused to appear (in which case the Court might have found against him for non-appearance), he came to the United States and fought the claims. The trial court granted Caddy’s motion to dismiss, ← 116 | 117 → noting that Caddy’s business did not conflict with that of the Pebble Beach golf course because he did not direct his business toward the US or California. Pebble Beach appealed, and the Court of Appeals upheld the trial verdict, finding that Pebble Beach had not satisfied the three-factor “effects test” that would show that a defendant committed an...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.

Do you have any questions? Contact us.

Or login to access all content.