Freeessaysample

Property Right Analysis Sample Essay

Property Right Analysis Sample Essay.

Property Right Analysis Sample Essay

• Kindly read the attached document ( task requirements & explication ) .

• Maximum 2000 words.

• Please include the following information about each company will be discussed :

Dates, Judgments, Amounts , Parties involve , Nature distribution .

• Add the following: Introduction & Conclusion & References & Table of content.

Uploaded additional materials:

Property Right Analysis

Student’s Name

Institution Affiliation

Date

Intellectual Properties Rights

Introduction

Intellectual properties represent valuable assets for a company which are somewhat vulnerable and exposed to the risk of pirating by other third parties. The concern of security of the intellectual properties is inevitable hence legally acceptable approaches have been adopted to protect against the loss of their intellectual property. Considerably, the recognition of intellectual property necessitates the acquisition of lawfully bound instruments, such as copyrights, patents, and trademarks (May 2013). Corporations adopt different policies concerning their intellectual assets to ensure that they comply with the legal requirements of the property. The essence of this report is a critical evaluation of legal compliance of Sony Corporation, Nike Inc., Netflix, Toyota and Walmart on intellectual rights.

Company Analysis on Property Rights issues

Toyota Corporation

Toyota corporation ranks as one of the most successful manufacturers and sellers of vehicles around the world. The company is famous for its advanced technology in the manufacture of fuel-efficient vehicles an attributes that enable the company to sell vehicles at lower prices. The technology employed by Toyota is highly efficient and substantial in cost saving by the company. The company has a cumulative 26, 836 granted patent rights with another batch of 19,501 patents stills in the process of application (Smith, 2010). The company also has 812 registered trademark to safeguard its intellectual assets in the form of logos, brand names among others.

According to a report presented by Forbes, Toyota is pushing through legal proceeding concerning the manufacture of hybrid-electric cars. The lawsuit involved Alex Severinsky who made a breakthrough in designing fuel-efficient model going on to patent the hybrid car model. It was found out that Toyota has been using the model since 1997. The legal proceeding was commended on June 8, 2004, the plaintiff being Power assisted internal combustion engines (Paice) company. Paice had been founded in 1992 by Alex Severinsky mainly focusing on further development of the hybrid-electric car model (Muller, 2010). In December 2005 the jury hearing the case of Toyota found out that the manufacture of the hybrid electric cares infringed patent 5,343,970 (Smith, 2010). Paice was awarded past damages amounting to $4,269,950 based on the sales of Prius Highlander and Lexus RX400h between June 2004 and November 2005 in the US.

Furthermore, the legal struggle involves several rounds whereby Paice has been emerging as the victor. On August 31, 2006, the federal court turned down Toyota’s request and ordered a payment of $25 to Paice for every Prius II Highlander and Lexus RX400h hybrid built for the life of patent 5,343,970 (Smith, 2010). Later in September 2006, Paice was awarded the patent 7,104,347. The company also filed a second lawsuit alleging the willing infringement of the patent 5,343,970. The court also granted Paice paten 7,237,634 in June 2007 (Smith, 2010). Toyota has been continually in compliance to pay royalties to Paice and a numbered of rejection by the court has been evident.

Sony Corporation

Sony Corporation is a mega company in the line of electronics manufacturing industry. Considerably, the company investment in advanced technologies to facilitates efficient production of electronics. In addition, the investment in the structuring and designing of different categories of electronics necessitates the adoption of the high level of innovative plans. Sony specializes in the design, structure, manufactures and distribution of high-quality phones, cameras, television, fridge and sound system among other electronics (Sony Corporation Intellectual Property & Lawsuits. 2005). It is paramount to provide sufficient security for its intellectual properties to ensure the company runs its operation with a guarantee of full ownership and possession rights of the intellectual rights. The company thus strictly observes the legal requirement for the registry of the intellectual assets to attain instruments and rights, such as copyrights, patents and trademarks.

Sony corporation holds a number of intellectual instruments which provide legal protection of their intellectual assets. A trademark for the slogan “It’s a Sony” “like.no. Other” ensured the company enjoyed exclusive rights of ownership and use of the slogan and no other individual or company can utilize the slogan. However, Sony dropped the previous slogan and secured trademarks for the new slogan “Make. Believe.” The slogan helps the company in its marketing distinguishing it exclusively from any other company (Sony Corporation Intellectual Property & Lawsuits. 2005). The company also has patent rights for all their technological devices including DVCAM, Memory stick, Universal media disc, HDV with JDV, DVD with other companies, Blue-ray with Panasonic and Digital8 among others.

Considerably, the company has in the past faced legal proceeding concerning intellectual rights and instruments. In 2003, immersion corporation sued Sony computer entertainment America for infringement of patents while developing the PlayStation (PS). The court rule in favour of Immersion corporation whereby the federal court awarded damages of $82 million. Moreover, Sony entertainment filed a lawsuit in 2011 against George Hotz who had published a technique for hacking the PlayStation 3 making it vulnerable (Sony Corporation Intellectual Property & Lawsuits. 2005). The association of hackers responded in a somewhat awkward way by forcing the pull-down of the PSN following successful hacking and theft of 77 million account holders’ information. Subsequently, the corporation has suffered a series of attacks and loss of crucial customers’ information such as passwords.

Netflix Inc.

Netflix Inc. operates in the entertainment industry and engages in the production and showcasing of films. The company has invested heavily in the entertainment industry to ensure that they reach out to the fans in the best way possible. Considerably, the firm integrates the greats of technology and innovative film techniques to offer their market, high quality, and exceptional films (May 2013).  Netflix Inc. owns some intellectual property rights as a reservation for the ownership and use of intellectual assets. All the contents delivered by Netflix Inc. is copyrighted alongside trade secret and other intellectual property rights. In addition, Netflix is a registered trademark of the Netflix Inc. company whereas there are a large number of patent rights granted for various intellectual properties.

Considerably, Netflix Inc. has already been granted 119 patents grants which serve as the security for an extensive range of film contents. Furthermore, the company has an ongoing application for patents amounting to 42. The company has also acquired 110 trademarks which serve the purpose of identifying the filming products of the company. Netflix Inc. company adopts a stringent property rights policies that target to enhance the protection of the company’s intellectual assets. In the film and entertainment industry, it is crucial that each company adopts its form of linking to their fans (Mead-Batten Et Al., 2017). The provision of the intellectual property rights ensures that Netflix Inc. stands out among its competitors in a distinct manner.

The company has not been without legal disputing involving disputes in the violation of a number of its intellectual property rights. The reputation of Netflix Inc. has been on the spotlight considering the news on multinational companies coming down on small firms with issues of legal proceeding for the infringement of the trademarks among other property rights (Mead-Batten Et Al., 2017). The most notable of Netflix Inc. tussle on the violation of property right involves the setting up of a themed pop-up bar in Chicago relating to the hit show “stranger things.” The company took a lighter note while approaching the issue since a small business was on the receiving end and in return, turning in support of the company (Mead-Batten Et Al., 2017). Nevertheless, Netflix Inc. only allowed for six weeks for the bar to be removed.

Nike Inc. Company

Nike Inc. company engages in the design, production and the marketing of footwear, apparel, equipment and other accessories. Considerably the firm enjoys quite a number of intellectual property rights which serves as a guarantee for their virtual assets. Nevertheless, Nike Inc. has been rocked in a number of a legal proceeding involving the violation of the rights. At present, the company faces up to three legal suits where one involves copyright infringement, and the rest involves other property rights (Bain, 2018). First, the company has been served a lawsuit for its “jump man logo” which is alleged to be an infringement of the Jordan sneakers which is associated to the famous basketball superstar Michael Jordan (Bain, 2018). Notably, the reputation of Nike’s brand is on the line considering the outcome of the lawsuits.

There has also a common interest in the technology of Knit upper runners shoes which saw the light of day in 2012. Nike moved in first before its principle competitor Adidas to patent the technology behind the production of the game-changing sneakers. Nike Inc. went on to accuse Adidas of infringement of its patented technology. Nike ended up suffering blows whereby it lost the case in Germany despite a series of court battles (Bain, 2018). The ground later switched whereby Adidas filed a suit in the US patent and trademark office to invalidate Nike’s patent on “footwear having a textile upper.” Adidas employed the same argument as in Europe implying that Nike was patenting a technology that was already in use (Bain, 2018). The court gave the judgment to Adidas although Nike has not let the case go.

The tussle with Adidas only got worse and intense in September 2014 where Adidas went onto recruit Nike’s best talent and offered them a better employment package. The team of three specialists including Denis Dekovic, Marc Dolce and Mark Milner were high ranking designer for the company and were later assigned the new design in Brooklyn for Adidas. Nike retaliated by filing a lawsuit worth $10Million against the three designers accusing them of violating their contract terms and takin proprietorial secrets to their new employer (Bain, 2018). A couple of allegations was made against the designer and their new employer Adidas with nothing other than an embarrassment to the defendants and the company. A temporary injunction was granted against the designers and as it remains the tussle continues between the two giants.

Walmart

Walmart operates in the retail industry where it engages in physical stores marketing as well as online marketing. The company has enjoyed great success in the local and international market making it among the top global retailers. Notably, Walmart complies with intellectual property right requirement, and as its standards, it possesses a large number of property rights (McNaughton, 2015). Walmart has a total of 2,294 trademarks, 350 patents granted and another 501 patents applications. The issuance of trademarks and copyright ensures that the security of the company intellectual assets is guaranteed. Evidently, Walmart has been caught up in the mix of tussles involving the violation of property rights in a different capacity. The disputes are sooner resolved through a court proceeding or agreement amongst the parties.

Walmart was sued for an infringement of copyright involving a contract of manufacturing spring and summer children’s clothing. Walmart shared a photograph to the contracted party, Judy-Philippine, Inc. (J-P) which were used in the manufacture of the ordered clothing (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc. | Case briefs – Part 2. 2018). The photographs in question were copyrighted property of Samara Brothers, Inc. (Samara). The contractor copied Samara’s garment while making a minor alteration to manufacture clothing that earned Walmart in excess of $1.5 million in gross sales. The plaintiff acted by issuing a cease and desist order to Walmart and then filing a suit for copyright infringement (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc. | Case briefs – Part 2. 2018). Despite getting a judgment at the lower court, the decision was reversed and remanded by the supreme court. The supreme court argued that Samara failed to demonstrate any unique attributes in its line of children clothing and hence holding that Walmart did not infringe its copyrights.

In addition, Walmart was also engaged in another off the court issue involving American built. American built established as a small company found out that Walmart was engaging in the sales of t-shirts that infringed America built federal trademark registration (McNaughton, 2015). The issue was resolved mutually between the two parties agreeing to cease the sales, and the provision of restitution for America built. Evidently, Walmart has invested heavily in the development of the company through innovative technologies necessitating the application of patents right for such properties. The company has a large number of patent application lined up, all targeting to securing innovative technologies that the company is currently deploying in its management.

Conclusion

To sum it all, the companies have made incredible steps to ensure compliance with legal requirement on intellectual property rights. However, legal issues are inescapable, especially for the large corporations. The settlement of cases involving property rights constitutes a lengthy tangle which would cause damage to the reputation of the companies involved as well as financial loss in damages and royalties’ payment.

References

Bain, M. (2018). Nike is fighting three legal battles to protect the brand’s design soul. Quartz. Retrieved 27 January 2018, from https://qz.com/365948/nike-is-fighting-three-legal-battles-to-protect-the-brands-design-soul/

Sony Corporation Intellectual Property & Lawsuits. (2005). Smit & Van Wyk, Inc. Retrieved 27 January 2018, from http://www.svw.co.za/sony-corporation

McNaughton, J. (2015). American Built, Walmart, And You – Intellectual Property – United States. Mondaq.com. Retrieved 27 January 2018, from http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/413378/Trademark/American+Built+Walmart+And+You

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc. | Casebriefs – Part 2. (2018). Casebriefs.com. Retrieved 27 January 2018, from https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/intellectual-property-law/intellectual-property-keyed-to-merges/trademark-law/wal-mart-stores-inc-v-samara-brothers-inc-2/2/

Muller, J. (2010). Forbes Welcome. Forbes.com. Retrieved 27 January 2018, from https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0628/outfront-ford-litigation-patent-toyota-other-legal-mess.html#5ef7b3b74031

Mead-Batten, N., Thomas, R., Figueiredo, N., Hoecherl, M., & Newton, M. (2017). Netflix makes light of IP infringement (via Passle). Passle. Retrieved 27 January 2018, from http://comment.capital-law.co.uk/post/102egx6/netflix-makes-light-of-ip-infringement

May, C. (2013). The global political economy of intellectual property rights: The new enclosures? (Vol. 3). Routledge.

Smith, S. (2010). JALOPNIK. Jalopnik.com. Retrieved 27 January 2018, from https://jalopnik.com/5592533/this-man-fought-toyota-for-stealing-his-hybrid-tech-and-won?skyline=true&s=i

Browse more products here

Order Here

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.