Tiffany, inc. vs ebay, and inc. a.v. vs iparadigms case study

We're the ideal place for homework help. If you are looking for affordable, custom-written, high-quality and non-plagiarized papers, your student life just became easier with us. Click either of the buttons below to place your order.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

  

Review the following 2 cases separately.

· Tiffany, Inc. v. EBay, Inc.

· A.V. v. Iparadigms

You will write a 4–5-page paper in current APA format that focuses on 2 case studies from each week’s reading. Each paper must include at least 4 references in addition to the course textbooks and the Bible. Each week there is a different set of cases for you to review. You must review them separately following the instructions below: 

  1. State the facts of the case
    • What       happened in this case? 
    • Who       are the parties? 
    • What       motivated the parties to take this action?
    • List       the facts by level of importance.
  2. Discuss      the Issue:  Discuss the issues or      problems presented by the case. The legal issue is the question of law on      which resolution of the case turns. An issue should be presented in the      form of a question. While most cases revolve around a legal issue, you      should also consider issues of public policy, values in conflict, and      practical reality. For example, a case study involving abortion might      involve the following issues: 
    • Legal:       Is abortion legal? If so, under what circumstances? 
    • Public       Policy: Should abortion be legal? Why or why not? 
    • Values       in Conflict: Which value is more important, a woman’s right to privacy or       an unborn child’s right to life? Why? 
    • Practical:       What are the options open to someone faced with an unwanted pregnancy?       Where can someone in this situation go for help and advice?   

3. Discuss the Arguments:  Now that you have defined the facts and issues, develop and discuss the arguments that can be made for each of the various points of view. For example, what are the arguments, both Pro and Con, for each point of view, which side provides the most compelling argument, and why, and what are the consequences? 

  1. Conclusion:  Each of these cases has a court ruling. Do you      agree with the court’s decision (why or why not?). From a Christian      prospective, how does this decision impact Christianity and society? If      the impact is negative, what recommendations would you make to overcome      that impact?
  2. References

BMIS 570

Case Study Instructions

Module/Week 3:

Review the following 2 cases separately.

· Tiffany, Inc. v. EBay, Inc.

· A.V. v. Iparadigms

You will write a 4–5-page paper in current APA format that focuses on 2 case studies from each week’s reading. Each paper must include at least 4 references in addition to the course textbooks and the Bible. Each week there is a different set of cases for you to review. You must review them separately following the instructions below:

1. State the facts of the case

· What happened in this case?

· Who are the parties?

· What motivated the parties to take this action?

· List the facts by level of importance.

2. Discuss the Issue:  Discuss the issues or problems presented by the case. The legal issue is the question of law on which resolution of the case turns. An issue should be presented in the form of a question. While most cases revolve around a legal issue, you should also consider issues of public policy, values in conflict, and practical reality. For example, a case study involving abortion might involve the following issues:

· Legal: Is abortion legal? If so, under what circumstances?

· Public Policy: Should abortion be legal? Why or why not?

· Values in Conflict: Which value is more important, a woman’s right to privacy or an unborn child’s right to life? Why?

· Practical: What are the options open to someone faced with an unwanted pregnancy? Where can someone in this situation go for help and advice?  

3. Discuss the Arguments:  Now that you have defined the facts and issues, develop and discuss the arguments that can be made for each of the various points of view. For example, what are the arguments, both Pro and Con, for each point of view, which side provides the most compelling argument, and why, and what are the consequences?

4. Conclusion:  Each of these cases has a court ruling. Do you agree with the court’s decision (why or why not?). From a Christian prospective, how does this decision impact Christianity and society? If the impact is negative, what recommendations would you make to overcome that impact?

5. References

1

Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay, Inc.

A.V. v. iParadigms

Bernadette Gibson

Liberty University

BMIS 570: Ethics and Legal Issues

Professor Dwight Elliott

April 1, 2020

Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay, Inc.

2

Parties

Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay, Inc. (eBay)

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 2008

Facts

eBay, Inc. (“eBay”), through its eponymous online marketplace, has revolutionized the online

sale of goods, especially used goods (Berntsen, 2010 p. 102-104). eBay has eased the online

buying and selling process for millions of people and business entities. eBay has been hugely

successful and more than six million new items are posted on its site daily (Reder & Darrow

2015, p. 140-141). eBay’s marketplace allows users to purchase and sell goods to one another.

eBay provides the setting for its auction and listing services for the sale of goods and generates

revenue by charging a final value fee that ranges from 5.25%-10% (Reder & Darrow 2015, p.

140-141). eBay does not physically handle the goods nor do they sell the items. The users are

responsible for selling the items. “The online marketplace is sometimes employed by users as a

means to perpetrate fraud by selling counterfeit goods. As a result, eBay blossomed into the

world’s largest marketplace where anonymous sellers offer unseen and unexamined merchandise

to distant buyers” (Berntsen, 2010 p. 102-104). “The effect of counterfeiting takes a toll on a

large number of people; for example, counterfeit merchandise is estimated to be directly

responsible for the loss of almost one million jobs in the United States alone. Counterfeit goods

sold over the Internet have consequences not only for buyers but also for businesses operating

the websites that facilitate the fraudulent sales” (Bailey, 2009 p. 131). Internet auction sites are

responsible for nearly half of the reported online fraud and an estimated 29% happens on eBay

(p. 102-104). “They account for approximately 15% of known fraud on the Internet. Fraud on

eBay occurs twice as frequently as online identity theft and credit card fraud put together, and

3

amounts to an estimated annual loss of 32 million dollars” (p. 102-104). To try and reduce the

amount of fraudulent activity, eBay has been controlling and implemented the Verified Rights

Owner “VeRO” Program – a “notice and takedown system” that allows owners of intellectual

property rights to report to eBay any fraudulent or potentially infringing items (Reder & Darrow

2015, p. 140-141). As a result eBay removes the listings or users from the site. “Tiffany & Co

(“Tiffany”) the luxury jewelry maker, realized that considerable quantities of counterfeit jewelry

were being sold on eBay and wrote to eBay in 2003 in an attempt to curb the problem”

(Berntsen, 2010 p. 102-104). After contacting eBay and having numerous conversations, Tiffany

was still unhappy with their actions to control the counterfeiting problem. “Tiffany filed suit in

2004 claiming that eBay was committing contributory trademark infringement by facilitating the

sale of counterfeit Tiffany jewelry on its website” (p. 103). Tiffany conducted surveys known as

“Buying Programs” by buying Tiffany items off of eBay and determining how many products

they purchased were counterfeit. “Tiffany found that the number of counterfeit products that they

purchased off eBay was 73.1% in 2004 and 75.5% in 2005” (Reder & Darrow 2015, p. 140-141).

The district court, however, decided that these “Buying Programs” were professionally flawed

and questionable in value.

Issue

Is eBay liable for contributory trademark infringement?

Decision

The district court declined to hold eBay contributorily liable.

Reasoning

Tiffany has a long history of selling luxury goods such as jewelry and watches under the Tiffany

Marks. “The Tiffany Marks are “indisputably famous,” and maintaining the integrity of Tiffany’s

4

brand is essential to the company’s reputation and success. In an effort to retain its reputation for

quality, Tiffany requires its goods to pass exacting quality checks and closely controls its

distribution channels. In fact, since 2000, new Tiffany goods must be purchased directly through

Tiffany, and are never sold at a reduced price” (p. 108). “The Supreme court most recently dealt

with the subject of contributory trademark infringement in Inwood Laboratories inc. v. Ives

Laboratories” (Reder & Darrow 2015, p. 140-141). According to Inwood, a contributory

infringer is liable when “it continues to supply its product to one whom it knows or has reason to

know is engaging in trademark infringement” (Berntsen, 2010 p. 102-104). “Tiffany argued that

eBay continued to supply its services to sellers of counterfeit Tiffany goods while knowing or

having reason to know that such sellers were infringing Tiffany marks” (Reder & Darrow 2015,

p. 140-141). eBay argued that they have no responsibility for prescience issues of counterfeit and

are not obligated to monitor its site for these issues. Tiffany has a duty to proactively protect its

marks because they boast about how a Tiffany mark can be distinguished between authentic and

counterfeit. eBay also argued that Tiffany has the tools to distinguish between authentic and

counterfeit and eBay does not have the same comparable knowledge (Berntsen, 2010 p. 113).

eBay’s practice regarding counterfeit vendors is to remove challenged listings from its website,

warn sellers and buyers, cancel fees it earned from the listing, and direct buyers not to

consummate the sale of the disputed item. eBay began using special messages that instructed the

seller to make sure that the item they were selling was authentic and that they do not tolerate

counterfeit items. These violations could suspend the user’s account. eBay also instructed a three

strict policy and users would be suspended immediately if they listed multiple counterfeit items

for sale. Repeated offenders were also suspended from the site. “In brief, the court concluded

that “the burden of policing the Tiffany mark appropriately rests with Tiffany” (p. 116). Because

5

of eBay’s willingness to stop and shut down counterfeiting vendors, the district court declined to

hold eBay contributorily liable.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I believe that the court ruling was fair and justified. eBay has general knowledge

about infringement but they did not have specific knowledge about these issues. eBay is only

responsible for providing a venue for users to sell their products. Because eBay doesn’t

physically see the products, the ability to determine that goods are being counterfeit is slim to

none. Determining whether an item is counterfeit or not would require an expert which could be

expensive. eBay did not act unethical and tried to correct the fraud issues surrounding the

company. They took the appropriate actions to control fraud and trusted the users to act ethically.

A.V. v. iParadigms

Parties

A.V. v. iParadigms (Turnitin)

United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, 2008

Facts

“iParadigms, LLC (“iParadigms”) owns and operates Turnitin Plagiarism Detection Service, an

automated online service that evaluates written works to discover potential plagiarism” (Kim,

2010 p. 95). High school and college students are required to use Turnitin when submitting

papers to ensure they have used original ideas. Failure to submit a paper to Turnitin would result

in a zero for the assignment. The participating school subscribes to iParadigms’ services and

requires students to submit papers using a class ID number and his or her own password (Reder

& Darrow 2015, p. 180). Each student must also verify that they accept the terms and agreements

6

with Turnitin. When a paper is submitted, Turnitin performs a comparison of the paper with other

available online content. This includes databases of scholarly journals and student papers that

have been previously submitted to Turnitin. They then produce a report indicating the likelihood

that the paper was plagiarized. “Schools that subscribe to Turnitin may opt to have their students’

papers “archived,” which means that they are added to Turnitin’s database of student papers.

When this happens, Turnitin retains digital copies of the essays to be “archived,” but the

“employees of iParadigms do not read or review the archived works” (Gingerich, 2010 p. 346).

Four high school students submitted their papers on Turnitin as required by their schools. One of

the students submitted his paper online using a college-level password he found on the internet

instead of using the password he was assigned. When iParadigms uncovered the prohibited

access by the student, they investigated the action as a breach of contract. The student agreed to

specific terms when the paper was submitted but went against these agreements. “In 2007, the

four high school students brought a copyright infringement claim in the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against iParadigms for archiving their papers without

their permission. In response, iParadigms counterclaimed against the plaintiff-student who

gained unauthorized access to Turnitin under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the

Virginia Computer Crimes Act” (Kim, 2010 p. 95).

Issue

Did iParadigms violate the students’ copyrights in their class papers?

Decision

“The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment on the students’ copyright

infringement claim, concluding that iParadigms’ use of the students’ work was fair use” (p. 96).

Reasoning

7

The court examined the four fair use factors in determining whether the notion of fair use

allowed iParadigms’ to utilize the students’ papers. The four fair use factors are: “(1) the purpose

and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit

educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of

the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon

the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work” (p. 96). Looking at the first factor, the

court stated that although the use of copyrighted material that has a commercial purpose tends to

weigh against the finding of fair use, a use of character or purpose could outweigh the

significance of that use (Reder & Darrow 2015, p. 180). iParadigms business purpose was to

detect and prevent plagiarism. These findings were enough to be transformative. The court

rejected the Plaintiffs’ arguments because iParadigms was not altering or changing the students’

work (p. 180). The second factor did not favor either party. The court noted that, “fair use is more

likely to be found in factual works than in fictional works,’ whereas ‘a user is less likely to be

deemed fair when the copyrighted work is a creative product” (Gingerich, 2010 p. 349).

Although the students’ papers submitted were highly creative, the court expressed that Turnitin

only kept the papers on the database for comparative purposes. Turnitin wanted to confirm that

students were using their own ideas, not diminishing the students’ creativity. After analyzing the

third factor, the court again did not favor either party. “Generally, the greater the amount of the

copyrighted material copied, the less the likelihood that its use is a fair use. However, courts

must also consider the “‘ quality and importance’ of the copyrighted materials used” (p. 351). The

third factor overlays the first factor because iParadigms used the students’ papers for comparative

purposes, which is completely unrelated to the creative content in the students’ work. “The court

also noted that the third factor required evaluating not only the quantity but also the quality and

8

importance of the original work used by iParadigms” (Kim, 2010 p. 97). The use of the students’

work was limited in range and for comparison purposes only. “Lastly, the court found that the

original works’ marketability was not affected because iParadigms’ use did not serve as a market

substitute and did not harm the market value of the works at any level” (p. 97). Even though

there was a potential market for the four students to sell their papers to other classmates, they

stated that they had no plan to sell their work. The students did not want to be involved with

cheating. After viewing all of the evidence, the use of the students’ work was under fair use.

The recoveries regarding the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Virginia Computer Crimes

Act were decided on the same basis. “The court held that iParadigms could recover for the

consequential damages resulting from the student who gained unauthorized access to iParadigms’

computer system. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine potential

recovery” (p. 97).

Conclusion

After reading the case and doing my own research, I believe the court made the right decision.

Students are required in all schools to submit their papers through an online site to check for

plagiarism. These sites are meant to stop students from copying work from other classmates and

prevent them from copying and pasting information from other sources. Why should a student

who spends hours on a paper putting out original ideas receive the same grade as someone who

copied their entire paper? It’s not fair to the students who continue to work hard and put their

own ideas on paper. Not every idea is original and most students gain information from scholarly

articles. If they are cited correctly, the information is very valuable. Teachers are very

understanding and want students to cite papers. If a paper does not include citations, that’s

generally a red flag. The one high school student who used a college student’s password when

9

submitting his assignment must have plagiarized his paper. If the student wasn’t worried about

plagiarism, he would have used his designated high school password. There’s no reason he

should have used a different password. Jeremiah 23:30 it states, “Therefore, behold, I am against

the prophets, saith the LORD, that steal my words every one from his neighbour” (Stamps &

Adams, 2003 p. 1117). Stealing original ideas from another person is unethical and the bible

abides by these rules in all aspects. Having rules set in place for students encourages them to

work harder and become more intelligent.

References

Bailey, S. (2009). Fighting an anonymous enemy: The uncertainty of auction sites in the face of

Tiffany v. eBay and lvmh v. eBay. California Western International Law Journal, 40(1),

129-176. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?

h=hein.journals/calwi40&i=131&a=bGliZXJ0eS5lZHU

Berntsen, M. C. (2010). Knowledge and misfeasance: Tiffany v. eBay and the knowledge

requirement of contributory trademark infringement. Boston University Journal of

Science & Technology Law, 16(1), 102-129. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?

h=hein.journals/jstl16&i=104&a=bGliZXJ0eS5lZHU

10

Gingerich, J. (2010). A.v. ex. rel. vanderhye v. iparadigms, llc: Electronic databases and the

compartmentalization of fair use. IDEA: The Intellectual Property Law Review, 50(2),

345-366.https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?

h=hein.journals/idea50&i=349&a=bGliZXJ0eS5lZHU

Kim, M. (2010). A.v. ex rel. vanderhye v. iparadigms, llc 562 f.3d 630 (4th cir. 2009).

Intellectual Property Law Bulletin, 15(1), 95-98. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?

h=hein.journals/iprop15&i=95&a=bGliZXJ0eS5lZHU

Reder, M. E., Darrow, J. J., Melvin, S. P., Chang, K. K. (2015). Cyberlaw: Management and

entrepreneurship. New York, NY: Wolters Kluwer.

Stamps, D. C., & Adams, J. W. (2003). Life in the spirit study Bible: King James Version. Grand

Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Running Head: WEEK THREE CASE STUDY 1

Week three Case Studies

Case Study 1: Tiffany Inc. v Ebay Inc.

Case Study 2: A.v. vs. Iparadiagrams

Jazman Richardson

Dr. Byran

BMIS 570

Liberty University

This study source was downloaded by 100000771637443 from CourseHero.com on 04-06-2021 14:46:18 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/74892563/Week-Three-Case-Studydocx/

Th
is

stu
dy

re
so

ur
ce

w
as

sh
ar

ed
v

ia
C

ou
rs

eH
er

o.
co

m

Running Head: WEEK THREE CASE STUDY 2

Introduction about Case Study 1

Throughout reading this case study, it was interesting to figure out what the outcome

would be since I use to be a seller on EBay. There are two parties within this study: Tiffany

Incorporated and EBay incorporated. According to the reading, Tiffany Incorporated is a high-

end jewelry chain, discovered that counterfeit Tiffany jewelry was being sold on eBay (Ferrera,

Reder, Lichtenstein, & Darrow, 2012). EBay Inc. is a multinational e-commerce corporation,

facilitating online consumer-to-consumer and business-to-consumer sales (Dan Morales, 2015).

The key reason for this lawsuit against eBay is because consumers were selling Tiffany’s product

using her trademark and selling product that was counterfeit.

Facts about the Case

Since the defendant eBay is an Internet marketplace that permits registered sellers to

sell various items to registered buyers without eBay ever taking possession of the item

(Bradley & Porter, 2000). EBay has become an effective and successful company in the

market that makes its money by charging sellers to list goods and charging a percentage of the

final sale price. EBay was able to make even more profit for their company because of the

ownership they have with Paypal. They are able to charge a percentage and small flat fee for

eBay users to process purchases (ebay inc., 2015). Since the plaintiff Tiffany a world-famous

jeweler, sells its goods exclusively through its own retail stores, catalogue, and website. It does

not sell overstock, discontinued, or discontinued merchandise. Plaintiff learned of counterfeit

Tiffany sales on eBay (Defendant) and alerted Defendant about the problem. eBay initiated a

variety of anticounterfeit sales measures, including a fraud engine, a notice-and-takedown

system so rights holders could complete a Notice of Claimed Infringement Form and request the

takedown of a particular sellers allegedly counterfeit goods, and cancellation of seller accounts

This study source was downloaded by 100000771637443 from CourseHero.com on 04-06-2021 14:46:18 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/74892563/Week-Three-Case-Studydocx/

Th
is

stu
dy

re
so

ur
ce

w
as

sh
ar

ed
v

ia
C

ou
rs

eH
er

o.
co

m

Running Head: WEEK THREE CASE STUDY 3

of repeat offenders. Plaintiff also put a buyers’ notice on the eBay (Defendant) site informing

buyers of the potential danger in purchasing Tiffany products on the second-hand market.

Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant, claiming inter alia, eBay’s (Defendant) conduct constituted

direct and contributory trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising. The

district court found for eBay (Defendant) on all counts. Plaintiff appealed.

Issues

Throughout reading this case studies, one of the main legal issues against ebay was not

paying taxes for their product. One of the key questions that I wanted to know was, Does

service provider liability for contributory trademark infringement require a showing of intentional

incentive to infringe or “knows or should have known” of the direct infringement and a continued

providing of the service to the infringer? Service provider liability for contributory trademark

infringement requires a showing of intentional incentive to infringe or “knows or should have

known” of the direct infringement and a continued providing of the service to the infringer. The

district court was correct in its finding that eBay’s (Defendant) use of Tiffany’s (Plaintiff)

argument that Defendant knew or should have known of the counterfeit sales and thus directly

infringed upon its mark for failing to identify and remove the illegitimate goods fails. It would

unduly limit the resale of legitimate second-hand Tiffany goods to impose liability on Defendant

for an inability to guarantee the genuineness of all claimed Tiffany products. Next, Plaintiff

argues eBay’s conduct constitutes contributory trademark infringement, which is a more difficult

argument.

The assesses liability for contributory infringement on service providers if the provider:

(1) intentionally encourages the infringement; or (2) knows or has reason to know of

infringement and continues to supply its service to the offending party. Tiffany (Plaintiff) argues

the second factor applies to eBay (Defendant). Plaintiff argues the second factor applies to

This study source was downloaded by 100000771637443 from CourseHero.com on 04-06-2021 14:46:18 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/74892563/Week-Three-Case-Studydocx/

Th
is

stu
dy

re
so

ur
ce

w
as

sh
ar

ed
v

ia
C

ou
rs

eH
er

o.
co

m

Running Head: WEEK THREE CASE STUDY 4

Defendant. Plaintiff does not challenge the district court’s finding that Defendant was not liable

for those sales it terminated upon receipt of notice from Plaintiff about allegedly offending

products. Tiffany (Plaintiff) does challenge the district court’s finding eBay (Defendant) had

insufficient knowledge about infringement of other nonterminated listings because its

generalized knowledge of counterfeit products on its site did not trans late into sufficient

knowledge under Inwood. It is a high burden to prove “knowledge” of contributory infringement.

Tiffany (Plaintiff) argues here that generalized knowledge and specific knowledge of particular

sellers is the same under Inwood and creates liability.

eBay (Defendant) had no such knowledge here. Tiffany (Plaintiff) argues “willful

blindness” cannot be permitted to overcome liability. If eBay (Defendant) shielded itself

deliberately from knowledge of offending sales, it could become liable under the Inwood second

prong. However, that is not the case because Defendant had only general knowledge and did

not ignore the issue. Finally, Tiffany’s (Plaintiff) dilution claims fail because eBay (Defendant)

did not use the Tiffany mark to associate it with its own products but to identify Tiffany products

on its site. [False advertising analysis is omitted from the casebook excerpt.] Affirmed as to the

trademark infringement and dilution; remand as to false advertising.

Arguments

There are several different pros and cons within the case study. One of the pros is that

Onex was able to win the legal case because they had enough information to prove that they

were engaging in manufacturing during the period that the organization did not pay use taxes.

Another pro is Onex was able to get their product successfully done. The con is that they had to

go through two different organizations in order to the product accomplished which was IBM and

TransSwitch Corporation. Another con is the organization had to source out because they did not

have the equipment which semi cause them to lose some revenue.

This study source was downloaded by 100000771637443 from CourseHero.com on 04-06-2021 14:46:18 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/74892563/Week-Three-Case-Studydocx/

Th
is

stu
dy

re
so

ur
ce

w
as

sh
ar

ed
v

ia
C

ou
rs

eH
er

o.
co

m

Running Head: WEEK THREE CASE STUDY 5

Conclusion

Consumer advocates worried a victory for Tiffany (Plaintiff) would require online

merchants to prohibit even lawful uses of trademarks on their sites because of the fear of

liability for contributory trademark infringement. eBay’s (Defendant) existing safeguards and

rapid response to notifications of counterfeit products gave it a significant advantage in this

case, but not many online retailers are so responsive. Trademark infringement is rampant

online and rights holders must be vigilant about policing the use of their marks. This case did

not offer the hoped-for protection for trademark holders.

This study source was downloaded by 100000771637443 from CourseHero.com on 04-06-2021 14:46:18 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/74892563/Week-Three-Case-Studydocx/

Th
is

stu
dy

re
so

ur
ce

w
as

sh
ar

ed
v

ia
C

ou
rs

eH
er

o.
co

m

Running Head: WEEK THREE CASE STUDY 6

Introduction Case Study 2

Within the case study Iconix, INC. vs. Tokuda; simply because certain proprietary

agreements were being expected seeing that integrations plus the former employees’ says that

they are instructed your legal agreements would probably not be employed from them.

Consequently, this might be unreliable along with the proprietary agreements them selves, those

people says the propriety legal agreements couldn’t survive employed from all of them were

being prohibited from the parole information rule. Additionally, the former employees

unsuccessful in order to reach your parts of the agreement. The program company confirmed

likely good results for the benefits of their says; additionally amongst the former employees,

seeing that a former officer on the company, to be paid them your fiduciary duty. A company

displayed persuading information of any break the rules of regarding fiduciary accountability

using the company option doctrine plus the former employees breached your comparison to its

their proprietary agreements which results in your trademark inside the revolutionary software.

Facts of Case Study 2

Throughout reading this case study, it was interesting to figure out what the outcome

would be. There are two parties within this study: Iconix Incorparated vs. Tokuda. Inconix

decides to take a lawsuit out on Tokuda because the organization felt like source-code and the

slideshow program was made while Tokuda was working for the organization. According to the

text, the organization felt like there was a breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and copy

right infringement (Ferrera, Reder, Lichtenstein, & Darrow, 2012). Throughout this case study

there were a lot of different portion to the lawsuit. Each section was detailed and informational.

This study source was downloaded by 100000771637443 from CourseHero.com on 04-06-2021 14:46:18 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/74892563/Week-Three-Case-Studydocx/

Th
is

stu
dy

re
so

ur
ce

w
as

sh
ar

ed
v

ia
C

ou
rs

eH
er

o.
co

m

Running Head: WEEK THREE CASE STUDY 7

With a lot of the cybercrimes; emails has started to become more sensible to become an

easy target (Herath, Chen, Wang, banjara, Wilbur & Roa, 2012). Iconix Incorporated is a design

communications company that provide specialized services that successfully address clients’

messaging objectives. With the organization principle they are able to provide more safely

measures for another company. There are many type of email frauds but one of the main one is

called phishing. According to Jansson, & Von Solms(2013), Phishing is a form of email fraud

where senders impersonate legitimate businesses and organizations to try to get recipients to

divulge personal information such as passwords and account numbers .

Issue

Within this case study, there were a lot of legal concerns because it is dealing with

Tokuda copying Iconix Incorporated. According to Hutchison (2016), Copyright means that the

author has complete control over, and profited from the sale of, copies of the expressive content

of their work. Since Iconix Incorporated has a copyright that would mean anything that was

produced at their location would mean that it is theirs. Unfortunately, that is not the case here

because Tokuda decided to have his own domain for his organization. I feel as just because

someone makes another organization for his profit then I do not see an issue.

According to Chapdelaine (2013), copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted

work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work

without the permission of the copyright owner. The plaintiff made sure that there was an

agreement sign so if anything was to not go as plan then they could sue. Therefore, in this case

they were able to file a lawsuit because they had instant messages and where the defendants were

able to get the idea for their company.

This study source was downloaded by 100000771637443 from CourseHero.com on 04-06-2021 14:46:18 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/74892563/Week-Three-Case-Studydocx/

Th
is

stu
dy

re
so

ur
ce

w
as

sh
ar

ed
v

ia
C

ou
rs

eH
er

o.
co

m

Running Head: WEEK THREE CASE STUDY 8

Arguments

There are several different pros and cons within the case study. One of the pros is that

Tokuda was able to start and organization and become successful. Building a feature that would

be beneficial for organizations to use especially with email fraud. With this case study I am

neutral because I do not see where there is a copyright fraud or anything because what I see is an

organization coming up with an ideal off of a project. One of the key consequences is that there

is evidences that the contracts there were sign were breach since the former employees did not

say anything.

Conclusion

Throughout the research, Tokuda was able to build a product right under Iconix

Incorporated without necessary having a copyright issue. The reason I say that is because that

product was not already made with Iconix. I feel like you cannot say something belongs to you if

the product was not produce with the supervision. According to the Bible, “Do not trust in

oppression And do not vainly hope in robbery; If riches increase, do not set your heart upon them

(Psalm 62:10, King James)”. I feel that this Bible verse can be used to explain a plaintiff stating

that something is their but on the other hand the defendant feels like there was nothing wrong

with what they did.

This study source was downloaded by 100000771637443 from CourseHero.com on 04-06-2021 14:46:18 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/74892563/Week-Three-Case-Studydocx/

Th
is

stu
dy

re
so

ur
ce

w
as

sh
ar

ed
v

ia
C

ou
rs

eH
er

o.
co

m

Running Head: WEEK THREE CASE STUDY 9

References

Bradley, S. P., & Porter, K. A. (2000). eBay, inc. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 14(4), 73-97. Retrieved

from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/229669527?accountid=12085

Dan morales – CIO, eBay inc (2015). . San Francisco: Boardroom Insiders, Inc. Retrieved from

http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/1695034403?accountid=12085://search-proquest-

com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/1470792310?accountid=12085

eBay inc.; eBay inc. board of directors approves completion of eBay and PayPal separation.

(2015). Investment Weekly News, , 78. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?

url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/1694738978?accountid=12085

Ferrera, G. R., Reder, M. E., Lichtenstein, S. D., Bird, R., & Darrow, J. J. (2012). CyberLaw:

Text and cases (3rd ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western College/West. ISBN:

9780324399721.

Redman, J. (2009). POST TIFFANY (NJ) INC. V. EBAY, INC.: ESTABLISHING A CLEAR, LEGAL

STANDARD FOR ONLINE AUCTIONS. Jurimetrics, 49(4), 467-490. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/29763022

This study source was downloaded by 100000771637443 from CourseHero.com on 04-06-2021 14:46:18 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/74892563/Week-Three-Case-Studydocx/

Th
is

stu
dy

re
so

ur
ce

w
as

sh
ar

ed
v

ia
C

ou
rs

eH
er

o.
co

m

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Writerbay.net

Do you need academic writing help? Our quality writers are here 24/7, every day of the year, ready to support you! Instantly chat with a customer support representative in the chat on the bottom right corner, send us a WhatsApp message or click either of the buttons below to submit your paper instructions to the writing team.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper
Writerbay.net