Case Review and Principles Governing Application of Privacy Related Essay

Case Review and Principles Governing Application of Privacy Related Torts - Essay ExampleIn the previous history of the geek, the complainant, Wentworth, lodged an amendment complaint against Settlement Funding, the defendants asseverate that the defendant took part in actions that amounted to copyright violation, earmark dilution, injury to the business reputation and false representation in breach of sections 32 (1) and 43 (a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C pursuant to section 114 (1) and 1125 (a) (2006) (ONeill 1). The plaintiff also claimed trademark violation and unfair competition under Pennsylvanian state law. The plaintiff claims originate from the defendants so-called use of plaintiffs emblems in two ways through Googles Adwords program and the meta-tags for defendants webpage (ONeill 2). The plaintiff alleged that the two usages of the plaintiffs brand fig guarantees that a link to defendants webpage will appear instantly adjacent to a link to defendants webpage when peo ple carry out internet searches for J.G. Wentworth or JG Wentworth (ONeill 4). The plaintiff further claimed that the use of the plaintiffs emblems constitute violating deeds that were aimed at confusing the consumers and to diverge prospective customers away from the plaintiffs webpage (ONeill 6). Plaintiff noted that this also would steal their potential customers and wear down the uniqueness of plaintiffs emblems, therefore, resulting to a considerable loss of profits. In its judgment, the court granted the defendants the motion to dismiss and, therefore, the plaintiffs claims were dismissed (ONeill 8). ... In the previous history of the case, the plaintiff had go to court and lodged claims against trademark violation and false advertisement. The plaintiff relied on sections 32 (1) and 43 (a) of the Lanham Act. The plaintiff claims originate from the defendants supposed use of plaintiffs emblems next to the defendants name in the search results. The plaintiff noted that the app earance of the trademark next to the defendants name could indicate a relationship with the defendant. In the first circuit, the court had discharged charges on trademark violation relating to material on the defendants webpages since no(prenominal) of the rings were branded dating rings, the trademark of the plaintiff. However, the court permitted trademark violation linking to purchase to survive and dismissed the false advertisement claim. In the bit circuit, the court established that this type of entry of the search results next to the plaintiffs emblem included a use under the Lanham Act. In the case J.G Wentworth, S.S.C. Limited Partnership vs. Settlement Funding LLC, in order to determine breaches of section 32(1) and 43(a) of the Lanham Act, the court, as according to Fisons Horticulture, Inc. vs. Vigoro Indus, Inc., 30F.3d 466, 472 (1994), required the plaintiff to demonstrate that the plaintiffs emblem is lawful and protected by law, that the plaintiff is the rightful o wner of the mark and that the defendants use of the emblem to recognize goods or serve was most probable to generate confusion regarding the origin of the goods (ONeill 5). Additionally, as according to the claims of the defendants, the plaintiff would not meet the third aspect of the Lanham Act on trademark