Trademark & Servicemark: Court Ruling on Case Involving Trademark - Essay Sample

Trademark and Servicemark and the Difference Between Them. A Case Involving a Trademark and How the Court Ruled

A trademark is a legal right that protects business operators from being infringed based on their intellectual property. When someone applies for a trademark or has a registered trademark he or she is guaranteed protection by the court because it is easier to defend registered trademarks in courts of arms. Based on this light of assumption, logos, business slogans, and all the forms of business branding are typical examples of trademarks (Keyngnaert et al., n.p). On the other hand, a service is envisioned to be offering the same forms of protection as in trademarks. However, instead of identifying a source of products as with the trademark, a service mark identifies a business organization that is fortified to provide the required services. One of the most popular cases regarding and the international controversy over trademark happened 50 years ago in Canada. In this case, Hilton Hotels reported a case of an organization using its trademark in Canada. However, hitherto, the Hilton Hotel was not in any possession of any Canadian trademark registration because they did not have a Hilton Hotel in the nation. The Court, therefore, instructed the offender's use of the trademark belonging to Hilton based on the established marks of the regulation. Further, the Court held that the Hilton mark was famous in Canada hence finding the accused company guilty.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Erin Andrews v. Marriot Case and Lessons to Be Learned About Ensuring Guest Privacy at a Hotel

The particular case was about Erin Andrews who happened to be a guest Blackwell Inn. situated in Columbus. The Blackwell Hotel was under the ownership of Ohio State University. Before Erin Andrews arrived at the Hotel, a resident from Illinois reached out for the same Hotel to be assured whether Erin had booked up the Blackwell Hotel. The Illinois resident then decided to book the room next door to Erin Andrews. Upon reaching her assigned room, Michael Barret made a peephole on the door of Andrews' hotel room. In succeeding to make the peephole, Michael Barret had a chance of recording the videos of Erin Andrews in her hotel room privacy. The videos were inclusive of how she changed and dressed while still in the Hotel. Michael Barret proceeded and posted the videos on the internet. Andrews's case was not about celebrity or money but privacy and security. It is undisputed that hotel rooms should be private places for the agreed period (Boella et al., n.p). Michael Barret agreed that he had succeeded in recording ten other women who had used the Blackwell Inn. in a similar method of making peepholes in their hotel room doors. It is thus a lesson to be learned that securities at any hotel should be upheld to avoid violation of the guest's privacy. Due to this negligence of the Blackwell Hotel, they were compelled to pay Erin Andrews a total of $55 million.

The Meaning of a Copyright and How to Get One

Copyright is a right that cuts across a larger ranger of creative works existing in the form of material (Hobbs, 6). The right gives the founders of the original ideas the authority to monitor the use of their production by other people for a given period. Having registered copyright is essential in protecting the works and ideas of creative workers from being violated by the third parties who sometimes steal such ideas and make and sell them as their new works. To avoid such misfortunes, creative workers should have their copyrights registered and this can be done through the fortified and official Copyright.gov sites. To have a registered copyright, one needs to visit the eCO online services and create an account. Thereafter, the online forms are filed then a basic fee of $35 for the online filing is made to complete the process. The online system is faster though the eFiling should last for three or four months. For the other alternative, one can simply download the forms or just pick at their business administration office and create a mail in it. A typical instance of copyright violation was manifested in Rodgers v. Koon's case where Koon stole Rodgers' initial ideas in his photograph to produce a different photograph. The Court compelled Koo n to pay some agreed money to Rodgers for creating similar photographs as with Rodgers' case.

The Liability of a Hospitality Business for Serving Someone Who Is Intoxicated and What Bartenders and Servers Should Do About Nevada’s Statutory Law

The Nevada's statutory law for alcohol liability asserts that any person who will serve or sell and furnish any alcoholic drink to any person below 21 years of age and above will not be held accountable for any form of damages caused by the intoxicated individual (McLeod et al., 9). However, the hotels that serve intoxicated customers are envisioned to carry their crosses without any blame game. The fact that the intoxicated person spends a night or so in a hotel does not give the hotel owner any hope of a reduction of risk causes. However, the hotel owners may not be held responsible for any damages that the intoxicated people bring to their lives, for instance, deaths and injuries. The hotel managers should, therefore, ensure the safety of their property in the event of serving any intoxicated customer. The Nevada statutory law protects the bartenders and servers to some points for any kind of destruction caused by customers between the ages of 21 and above. Such destruction will be settled by the accused customers as long as they are found guilty. The bartenders and service providers in various bars should be strict in giving alcoholic beverages to individuals who are under the umbrella of the right ages to mitigate risks and damages caused by the intoxicated person. The bartenders should acknowledge that they will be held liable for any damage caused by minor customers.

Two General Tests for Food Liability and the Test Adopted by the Nevada

In the hospitality business, the safety of customers is a number one priority. Hence, the business should always uphold and safeguard the well-being of its customers in all aspects such as food and accommodation. Safe foods and beverages should be paramount more so in highly reputed hospitality business organizations (Cavico et al., 68). The paramount tests for food liability are however the Alfa chemistry tests and composition analysis tests. Both tests for food liability ensure that the tested meals are safe for consumption by people to mitigate any hazardous scenario about food poisoning. However, the Alfa chemistry test for food liability has been largely helpful by the Nevada organization because the test covers larger varieties of foods.

The Important Rights of a Hotel Guest and the Important Rights of Hotel Operators

The most significant right of guests in any hotel is the right to uphold their security and privacy (Bauer, 14). Even though most of the hotels function under established local laws, they should also operate under standards of care obligation. It is thus obligatory for hotels to ensure their customers are safe in their hotel rooms and that no one infringes with their privacy as in Elin Andrews v Michael case. The hotel operators should also guarantee full protection of luggage belonging to their customers to mitigate case cases that have increased in recent years. Hotel guests have been in the past been in the spotlight for paramount theft cases because they are perceived to be celebrities and that they are wealthy. Upholding human rights does not become relevant to hotel guests per Se but also to the hotel operators. The hotel operators are also human beings just like the hotel guests, hence, the need to observe some of their privileges. One of the most significant rights that hotel operators enjoy is related to intoxicated customers. The hotel operators should not be held responsible for any destruction caused by the customers rather than a particular customer should be accountable for his misdemeanor.

Why Playing Music Freely in a Hospitality Business is Prohibited and how one can Safely Play Music in Hospitality Business

It is undisputed that hotels accommodate customers from different cultural backgrounds and this substantiates the prohibition of playing music in the hospitality business. Some cultures are against particular music and so when hotel operators play such songs, they will be violating the cultural rights of such customers (Karim et al., 159). Besides, there is some music genre that is associated with the youths while others are envisioned to be entertaining the older generation. It is therefore hectic to balance between the music genres that can suit both generations assuming a hotel accommodates both the old and the youths. However, to safely play music in a hospitality business, hotel operators should restrict the music volume to mitigate any interference that may befall the customers. The music should be cool soothing, unlike the popular music genre.

Works Cited

Bauer, Theresa. "Human Rights Obligations of International Hotel Chains." Sustainability in Hospitality. Routledge, 2017. 8-24.

Boella, Michael J., and Steven Goss-Turner. Human Resource Management in the Hospitality Industry: A Guide to Best Practice. Routledge, 2019.

Cavico, Frank J., et al. "Restaurant Liability for Contaminated Food and Beverages Pursuant to Negligence, Warranty, and Strict Liability Laws." Global Journal of Social Sciences Studies 3.2 (2017): 63-100.

Hobbs, Renee. "Copyright and Fair Use." The International Encyclopedia of Media Literacy (2019): 1-16.

Karim, Mohd Hyrul Abu, Rozila Ahmad, and Noor Azimin Zainol. "Differences in Hotel Attributes: Islamic Hotel and Sharia Compliant Hotel in Malaysia." Journal of Global Business and Social Entrepreneurship 1.2 (2017): 157-169.

Keyngnaert, Peter, et al. "System and Methods for Automating Trademark and Service Mark Searches." U.S. Patent No. 9,965,547. 8 May 2018.

McLeod, Brendan, et al. "To Bail or Not to Bail: Protecting the Presumption of Innocence in Nevada." Nev. LJF 3 (2019): 9.