标签：currently proc sub close cli read field col secondary
Creative Group Project -- Part III
Sunlight Chat v. Sunny light Online
Table of Contents
4. Nexus Uni Case Bank and Analysis
5. Witness Bank
Mock Trial Description
Background/Scenario (Depth):
David Jackson (Plaintiff) first met Thomas Thomson (Defendant) several years ago when both were working in an IT business in Arlington, Virginia. Both Mr. Jackson and Mr. Thomson were employees of Online Service Corporation International (OSCI), one of the nation‘s largest IT services. Mr. Jackson planned to leave OSCI and go into business for himself as a provider of AI services. Toward that end, on October 14, 2018, Mr. Jackson incorporated his business in Virginia under the name of "Sunlight Chat" and registered domain name “sunlightchat.com”.
In December 2018, Mr. Jackson left the employ of OSCI and began in earnest to establish his business. In May 2019, Sunlight Chat registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the "USPTO") the service mark of “Sunlight Chat" for AI online services. His application was a "use application" meaning that he was already using the mark at that time. The USPTO accepted that registration. Mr. Thomson left the employ of OSCI in June 2019. Sometime prior to August 31, 2019, Mr. Thomson and Mr. Jackson discussed the possibility of their partnership. However, the partnership did not happen.
In November 2019, Mr. Thomson incorporated "Sunny light Online" and registered “SunnylightOnline.com.” He filed an "intent-to use" service mark application with USPTO for the name "Sunny light Online." Although "Sunny light Online" was incorporated in November 2019, it did not start to do business until May 2020.
Mr. Jackson first learned that Mr. Thomson was using the mark "Sunny light Online" in May 2020 and in June 2020, Mr. Jackson‘s attorney sent Mr. Thomson a "cease and desist" letter.
Mr. Jackson is suing Mr. Thomson, under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) of 1999 and also under LANHAM Act. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, damages, and attorney‘s fees.
Legal Basis for Trial:
Mr. Jackson is suing Mr. Thomson for injunctive relief, damages, and attorney‘s fees under Lanham Act for trademark infringement because Mr. Jackson believes that the mark "Sunny light Online" infringed “Sunlight Chat" in the field of online AI services.
Legal Elements:
In order to be held liable under the Lanham Act for a trademark infringement, certain facts should be proved by the plaintiff:
(1) “Sunlight Chat” is a valid and legally protected mark.
(2) David Jackson (Plaintiff) is the owner of the trademark “Sunlight Chat”.
(3) The use of "Sunny light Online" to identify the defendant‘s online AI service is likely to cause confusion or other reasons of bad faith.
(4) David Jackson (Plaintiff) is likely to suffer damages from the use of "Sunny light Online"
(5) David Jackson (Plaintiff)’s trademark was distinctive or famous when it was registered.
For Thomas Thomson to be found innocent of trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, the defendant shall prove that the use of “Sunny light Online”:
(1) will not cause any confusion.
(2) will not show any intent of bad faith.
(3) will not cause any damage to Jackson’s business.
Witness Lists and Descriptions:
Plaintiff Key Witness: David Jackson, CEO of Sunlight Chat – David Jackson is founder and he also served as the CEO of Sunlight Chat. After acknowledging the use of similar service marks and domain name of the Sunny light Online, he decided to hire a lawyer and bring this case to the court. He claimed that Sunny light Online’s use of a service mark and domain name that are identical to his company could possibly generate customer confusion and a likelihood of irreparable harm to his company’s reputation and goodwill.
Defendant Key Witness: Thomas Thompson, CEO of Sunny light Online – Thomas Thompson is the CEO and founder of Sunny light Online. Before becoming the CEO of Sunny light Online, Thompson was employed at OSCI, an IT service provider, along with David Jackson. After parting away from OSCI, Thompson established an Artificial Intelligence service provider for numerous businesses to assist sales and management.
Defendant Supporting Witness: Hannah Thompson, Creative Director of Sunny light Online – Hannah Thompson is the wife of Thomas Thompson and business partner. She was present prior to Sunny Light Online establishment and during the start of Sunlight Chat, when Thompson and Jackson were still in partnership. She can testify that her husband has used the name Sunlight Chat before in a published private prototype of the service prior to the final release of Sunlight Chat, and by using a variation of the name, they have not made any infringement since they were prior owners.
Plaintiff Supporting Witness: Winfrey Jones, Sunlight Chat Investor – Winfery Jones, a long-time friend of David Jackson and the first investor of Sunlight Chat, claimed that Sunlight Chat was the first to market and provide such services as well as the name Sunlight Chat to the public with proper trademark registration.
Legal Foundation - Lanham Act
Nexis Uni Case Bank and Legal Elements Analysis:
Cardservice Int‘l, Inc. v. McGee
● This is a case based on the Lanham Act. Defendant McGee was found using a domain name that infringed on a copyright owned by Plaintiff Cardservice International. TMcGee argued that because he was able to register on Network Solutions Incorporated, which works on a first-come, first-serve basis, before the plaintiff, he deserves to keep ownership of the domain name “cardservice.com” - which represents his business “Card Service on the Caprock”. However, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff by confirming the validity of their trademark, as ‘holders of valid trademarks are not subject to company policy’. The defendant was found guilty of violating the Lanham Act, and the plaintiff was awarded a permanent injunction
● This case is pro-plaintiff because the plaintiff can use it to argue that he deserves the ownership of the domain name "sunlightchat.com" because he first registered with "Sunlight Chat Inc." and "sunlightchat.com," which works on a first-come, first-serve basis.
● It supports the legal elements of proving the plaintiff had a valid and legally protected trademark.
● LexisNexis Link: Cardservice Int‘l, Inc. v. McGee, 950 F. Supp. 737
MicroStrategy Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.1
● In this case, the producer of a communication software failed to show that it had a valid and protectable trademark, since it did not consistently use the mark to identify and distinguish itself as the source of its goods or services.
● This case is pro-defendant if the defendant can prove that Mr. Jackson did not consistently use the "Sunlight Chat" to identify and distinguish itself as an online AI service.
● Nexis Link: MicroStrategy Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 245 F.3d 335, 2001
Payless Shoesource Worldwide, Inc. v. unforgetablemoments.com
● In this case, the plaintiff, Payless Shoesource Worldwide Inc. (PSWI), hold trademark rights as well as priority usage of the web domain “unforgettablemoments.com” which is effective nationwide. The defendant, Belize Domain WHOIS Service Lt. (BDWSL) established a similar commerce model as that of PSWI in which they use the domain “unforgetablemoments.com” to sell shoes.
● The court found that BDWSL established their site despite knowledge of PSWI prior right of use and used the misspelling of the domain to cause confusion.
● The court ruled that in violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), the defendant has to forfeit, cancel, or transfer the domain name to the owner of the mark.
● The plaintiff requested that the ownership of the infringing domain name be transferred to be registered under the plaintiff.
● This case is pro-plaintiff because Mr. Jackson may find this case useful in claiming ownership of his trademark by arguing that Mr. Thomson could knowingly cause confusion as he was allegedly aware of Mr. Jackson’s plans.
● This case supports the legal element of proving the plaintiff is the owner of the trademark.
● Nexis Link: Payless Shoesource Worldwide, Inc. v. unforgetablemoments.com
Ciphertrust, Inc. v. Trusecure Corp.
● In this case, the defendant, Trusecure Corp. (TC) use of the mark CYBERTRUST is in violation of trademark infringement. Despite that, the court found that TC have used the CYBERTRUST mark 4 years prior to CI’s registration of CIPHERTRUST and therefore holds seniority over the mark under prior use rights.
● When two or more individuals claim for exclusive rights of an unregistered trademark, the one who gained priority would be the one to first use the mark in a commercial transaction since ownership in rights to a mark is deemed by prior use instead of actual registration of said mark.
● This case is pro-defendant because despite the similarity in names, if Thompson has evidence that he used a similar name for a commercial transaction, he would have ownership over the trademark considering prior rights overrules trademark rights.
● Nexis Link: Ciphertrust, Inc. v. Trusecure Corp.
Harrods Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names
● A company acted with a bad faith intent to profit when it registered 60 Internet domain names that were similar to a trademark by a famous department store and were intended to divert customers without a bona fide offering of goods or services.
● This case is pro-plaintiff as Mr. Jackson may find this case useful to prove that the use of the trademark by Mr. Thomson was intended to divert customers, which can be considered intent of bad faith.
● Nexis Link: Harrods Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names, 157 F. Supp. 2d 658, 2001
Swatch AG v. Beehive Wholesale, LLC
● In a trademark infringement action under 15 U.S.C.S. §§ 1114, 1125, the district court properly found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the marks of two watch producers, "SWAP" and "SWATCH," despite the fame of SWATCH and the similarity of the goods, because the marks were dissimilar and there was no evidence of actual confusion.
● This case is pro-defendant because the defendant can use this case to argue that despite the fame of “Sunlight Chat”and the similarity of the AI services, because the marks were dissimilar and there was no evidence of actual confusion.
● Nexis Link: Swatch AG v. Beehive Wholesale, LLC, 739 F.3d 150, 2014
SARA LEE CORP. V. KAYSER-ROTH CORP.
● In this case, Plaintiff hosiery manufacturer was entitled to injunction against a competitor in a trademark infringement action where its mark was strong and distinctive and there was significant evidence of customer confusion.
● This case is pro-plaintiff.
● Mr. Jackson may find this case useful to prove that his trademark has already become strong and distinctive in the market of online AI service so that the presence of the trademark “Sunny light Online” would cause customer confusion.
● LexisNexis Link: Sara Lee Corp. v. Kayser-Roth Corp., 81 F.3d 455, 1996
PETRO SHOPPING CTR., L.P. v. JAMES RIVER PETROLEUM
● In this case, judgement for defendant because there was no trademark infringement and unfair competition since plaintiff‘s mark had not acquired secondary meaning and there was no likelihood of confusion between parties‘ marks.
● This case is pro-defendant.
● If Mr. Thomson is able to provide evidence that plaintiff’s “Sunlight Chat” had not acquired secondary meaning and users can distinguish defendant’s trademark from “Sunlight Chat”, then this case can be used to disprove plaintiff’s accusation.
● LexisNexis Link: Petro Shopping Ctr., L.P. v. James River Petroleum, 1997
Witness Statements:
Defendant Client Witness: Thomas Thompson, CEO of Sunny light Online
Thomas Thompson is the chief executive officer of Sunny light Online, a newly established company that is an Artificial Intelligence (AI) service provider for businesses to assist their sales and management. Before being the founder of Sunny light Online, Thompson was employed as software engineer at an IT service provider called Online Service Corporation International (OSCI). During his career as OSCI’s software engineer, Thompson was recognized for his professional attitude and honesty. These traits of Thompson were acknowledged and approved by everyone at the company including David Jackson, who was OSCI’s junior software engineer and Thompson’s co-worker at that time.
Thompson showed his strong interest in the field of AI while working at OSCI; however, his main desire was to develop and provide an AI service that could help multiple businesses in their sales and management. While working at OSCI, Thompson realized that Jackson was also extremely interested in the subject of AI and they both formed a strong bond with each other due to similar interest.
Before leaving his job at OSCI, Thompson was also famous for his invention of an app called SunnyLitAI that helps predict UV index. His invention was later sold to AI Merch Corp for approximately $10,000, and his invention was used for the implementation of the company’s solarimeter.
After the departure of his close friend from OSCI in December 2018, Thompson has always been admiring Jackson for his popularity and success after establishing his own company that provides online AI chat called Sunlight Chat. However, Thompson’s desire was to provide an AI service that assists numerous companies in their sales and management. Therefore, not only until June 2019, when Thompson decided to leave the OSCI to pursue his dream with the encouragement from his wife, who is currently the creative director of Sunny light Online and the one who suggested the name of the company. In December 2019, Thompson filed an intent-to-use service mark application to the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the name “Sunny light Online” and he also registered the domain name “SunnylightOnline.com” to be used for his company. Thompson’s company was established in December 2019; however, it did not go into operation until May 2020 due to lack of investors.
Pro-plaintiff Knowledge:
Thompson acknowledged the service mark that is used by Jackson even before establishing Sunny light Online. However, it was a coincidence that his daughter’s name is Sunny, which happened to sound similar to Jackson’s service mark. Therefore, he intended to gain some popularity from using the service mark that contains his daughter’s name, which initially was proposed by his wife.
Pro-defendant Knowledge:
Thompson’s company was established to provide AI service to broader types of customers rather than just providing AI online chat to only business’s customer services and self-therapy apps. Also, he can argue that the word “Sunny” is his daughter’s name, while the word “light” described his service as being fast. Therefore, his company’s service mark has nothing in relation with the one that is being used by Jackson. Thompson thinks that having trademarks that are identical for their first few letters does not create any confusion for conscious customers.
Defendant Friendly Witness: Hannah Thompson, Creative Director of Sunny light Online
Hannah Thompson is the wife of Thomas Thompson and business partner. Like her husband, she has an entrepreneur spirit. It was due to her encouragement and support that led to Thompson’s departure at OSCI to start his own business.
With a bachelor’s degree in business and a minor in organizational communication, she volunteered as the creative director of Sunny Light Online. She was the one to come up with the “Sunny” part of their business name as it is done so in remembrance of their daughter, Sunny. Before the establishment of Sunny Light Online, her husband has created an AI app in 2016 called SunnyLitAI that collects data of sun intensity to predict UVA/UVB index and was then sold off to AI Merch Corp. which was then implemented to their solarimeter. Mr. Jackson was there to congratulate the couple on their $10,000 deal with AI Merch Corp.
She can testify that prior to the fall out between Thompson and Jackson, they were great friends working under OSCI for many years. The couple would often have Mr. Jackson over for dinner and the two male friends would talk about the impact of AI on their ever-growing industry. The two would also discuss future business models and the possibility of partnership.
The fallout started around mid-August 2018, before Mr. Jackson’s departure at OSCI in October 2018. The fallout happened due to a disagreement in the type of services that their hypothesized partnership would provide. Mr. Jackson wanted to start a business that provides an online AI chat service that would prove valuable to businesses that have long customer support wait time or apps built with the intent to be used for self-therapy that integrates AI companionship. Mr. Thompson wanted to create a full-on AI provider business that can reach a wider audience and usage, not just as a “chat” service. Mrs. Thompson can testify that the event had occurred at her house on the day before Mr. Thompson severed all ties with Mr. Jackson.
Pro-plaintiff Knowledge:
Thompson plans to provide all aspects of AI services which includes the chat functionality of AIs. This means to say that Thompson does have intent to rival Jackson in this aspect.
Pro-defendant Knowledge:
Jackson has knowledge of Thompson’s usage of the name SunnylitAI that was sold in a commercial transaction in 2016. This name is similar to that of Jackson’s business model; however, Thompson’s established business goes by the name of Sunny Light Online which was named after the couple’s daughter.
Plaintiff Client Witness: David Jackson, CEO of Sunlight Chat
David Jackson is the chief executive officer of Sunlight Chat, which is a well-known company that provides online Artificial Intelligence (AI) chat service that assists companies’ customer services and self-therapy app designers. Before establishing the Sunlight Chat, David had been working at one of the largest Information Technology service providers called Online Service Corporation International (OSCI) for nearly 20 years. Jackson worked as a Junior Software Engineer along with Thomas Thompson, who is currently the chief executive officer of Sunny light Online. While working at the OSCI, David has become extremely passionate about the topics that related to AI and desired to start his own business in the field. Jackson also shared the same interest with Thompson, which made them become close friends with each other.
In December 2018, Jackson officially left his position at OSCI and established a company that provides AI services under the name “Sunlight Chat” and the domain name “sunlighchat.com”. After establishing for approximately 6 months, the company has quickly gained its popularity in the business as an AI services provider. Since then, the company has constantly increased its customer base and received numerous investments from well-known organizations.
In May 2019, Jackson officially registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office his company’s service mark as “Sunlight Chat” in order to distinguish its service from the competitors.
One year later, Jackson was notified by his employees that there was a slight decrease in the company’s customer base. However, Jackson thought it was just a natural incident that could occur to any particular business. One day, while using a search engine to search for his company’s website, Jackson noticed the presence of a domain name called “SunnylightOnline.com” on the result. He felt skeptical about this website, so he decided to have a quick look at the website. Apparently, Jackson found out that domain name is incorporated under an AI service provider with the trademark called Sunny light Online and it was established by his ex-co-worker, Thomas Thompson. Jackson was irritated about his discovery, and he viewed Thompson’s actions as trademark infringement by using a similar service mark that can possibly create customer confusion. Soon after his discovery, the case was brought to the court by Jackson and his attorney.
Pro-plaintiff Knowledge:
During the discussion about the partnership with Mr. Thompson in December 2019, Jackson and Mr. Thompson decided to sever their close relationship due the disagreement in their desired type of business. Jackson also declared that he would file a lawsuit against Mr. Thompson if Mr. Thompson decided to gain profit from the popularity and fame of Sunlight Chat. Since there is similarity in the service mark, it is possible for Jackson to strike for trademark infringement.
Pro-defendant Knowledge:
Jackson could not provide any solid evidence that would prove the loss of his business and customer base was definitely caused by the presence of Mr. Thompson’s company. Although both the service marks that are used by the two companies are quite similar, Jackson does not have any surveys or statistics showing that Mr. Thompson is trying to divert his customers by using a similar service mark. Also, Jackson also acknowledged that the name of Mr. Thompson’s daughter is Sunny.
Plaintiff Friendly Witness: Winfrey Jones, Sunlight Chat Investor
Winfrey Jones is a corporate lawyer of Indiana Inc. With her occupation, she does have some knowledge of intellectual property rules and laws, however, her specialty lies in the matters of partnership and deals negotiation. Despite her limited knowledge in the sphere of intellectual property, she does have friends in the field that could aid her if needed.
Ms. Jones met Mr. Jackson on many business occurrences due to the partnership between Indiana Inc. and OSCI. She first became acquainted with Mr. Jackson at the beginning of 2017 at the holiday party hosted by OSCI for its business partners. The two have been friends since and with the knowledge of Mr. Jackson’s departure from OSCI to start his own business, Ms. Jones extended a hand to share her expertise with Mr. Jackson in building a successful business. Seeing Sunlight Chat’s potential, she offered to be the first investor to help get the business started.
Ms. Jones can testify that she was present on August 31, 2019, when the two parties -The Thompsons and Mr. Jackson- came to negotiate on a partnership deal. To Ms. Jones‘ knowledge, the idea of partnership was vaguely discussed beforehand but ended in a dispute. Mr. Jackson, knowing that Mr. Thompson would be a valuable ally, hoped to once again offer Mr. Thompson a role in the creation of Sunlight Chat despite their said previous disagreement. Ms. Jones was the one to help draft the terms and conditions of the negotiation. That said, the partnership deal proposed was rejected and Ms. Jones can testify that Mr. Thompson has stated he would rather start his own business than to join Mr. Jackson.
Around May to June 2020, Ms. Jones when checking the status of Sunlight Chat’s popularity came upon Sunny Light Online. She identified the CEO as Mr. Thompson and notified Mr. Jackson promptly. Seeing the contents on Sunny Light Online and the similarity between the name of Mr. Jackson’s business, Sunlight Chat, she suggested Mr. Jackson to hire an attorney that deals with intellectual property for infringement under the Lanham Act for unfair play.
Pro-plaintiff Knowledge:
The defendant, Thompson, has prior knowledge of the type of business and naming convention of Jackson’s business. Jones can verify that Jackson has legal right over the name Sunlight Chat and its primary owner considering no other business was named similarly to Jackson’s business before the establishment of Sunny Light Online.
Pro-defendant Knowledge:
Jackson knows that Thompson‘s daughter’s name is Sunny and that it is in part similar to that of Sunlight Chat. Jackson and Jones acknowledge that the business model differs in the ways it provides AI services.
Trial Analysis:
A. Detailed analysis of Plaintiff‘s arguments.
The plaintiff needs to prove the following facts in order to win: First, he needs to show that "Sunlight Chat" is a valid and legally protected mark. He can prove this by providing the fact that: In the summer of 2019, Jackson formally registered the service mark of his company with the United States Patent and Trademark Office as "Sunlight Chat" to distinguish his service from the competitors. Secondly, he should provide relevant documents about the establishment of the "Sunlight Chat" business to prove that he is the owner of the "Sunlight Chat" trademark.
Furthermore, he needs to demonstrate that the use of "Sunny Light Online" is likely to cause confusion or other reasons of bad intent. He could argue that Mr. Thomson had a bad intention to divert customers by confusing them with similar domain names, and the plaintiff could demonstrate the argument based on his relationship with Mr. Thomson: they used to work together at OSCI, and after both leaving OSCI they discussed the possibility of their business partnership. After the dispute emerged their relationship was strained, and after that Mr. Thomson registered his trademark.
In addition, David Jackson should show that his company is likely to suffer damage from the use of the defendant’s "Sunny light Online". He can prove it by presenting the data of decreasing in the company‘s customer base, and the decrease was due to the presence of a domain name "SunnylightOnline.com", as the search result would contain "SunnylightOnline.com" of the defendant while searching for the website of plaintiff ’s company.
Lastly, he should claim that by the time Mr. Thomson was able to get his trademark registered, Mr. Jackson’s own trademark was already distinctive and popular. His claim can be proved based on the facts: His company has quickly gained its reputation in the market as an AI service provider after establishing it for about 6 months. Also, the company has continuously expanded its customer base and received numerous investments from well-known organizations.
The cases from the case bank that may be used to support the plaintiff‘s argument are:
1. Cardservice Int‘l, Inc. v. McGee, 950 F. Supp. 737
Reason: Mr. Jackson can use it to argue that he deserves the ownership of the domain name "sunlightchat.com" because he first registered with "Sunlight Chat Inc." and "sunlightchat.com," which works on a first-come, first-serve basis.
2. Payless Shoesource Worldwide, Inc. v. unforgetablemoments.com
Reason: Mr. Jackson may find this case useful in claiming ownership of his trademark by arguing that Mr. Thomson could knowingly cause confusion as he was allegedly aware of Mr. Jackson’s plans.
3.Harrods Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names, 157 F. Supp. 2d 658, 2001
Reason: This case may be useful for proving that the use of the trademark by Mr. Thomson was intended to divert customers, which can be considered the intent of bad faith.
4. Sara Lee Corp. v.Kayser-Roth Corp., 81 F.3d 455, 1996
Reason: This case may help Mr. Jackson proved that his trademark has already become strong and distinctive in the market of online AI service so that the presence of the trademark “Sunny light Online” would cause customer confusion.
B. Detailed analysis of Defendant‘s arguments:
Thomas Thomson claims that he picked the new name without prior knowledge of the Plaintiff company’s name. He argues that he adopted this name in good faith; he picked “Sunny” after his daughter and also the word “light” connotes very speedy internet service. He also points out that he never intended to take business away from Sunlight Chat but solely wanted to promote his own company‘s brand. Although the nature of both companies is AI services, Sunnylight Online provides a wider range of services compared to plaintiffs. He argues the core element of trademark infringement is whether the similarity of the marks is likely to confuse customers about the source of the products or not? He believes since they provide a wider range of services and also their trademark names have different meanings, there will be no confusion and as a result it does not infringe Sunlight Chat tradename.
C. Case Balance:
It does seem that the plaintiff, Mr. Jackson has the advantage of approaching the trademark first, he also has more speculative points to prove. He must first prove the validity of his mark, his consistent use of his trademark, and how distinctive and meaningful his mark has become since starting his business. He should also prove that Mr. Thomson’s “Sunny Light Online” has or will hamper his own business’ success.
The balance in this case is significantly dependent on “secret” facts such as the previous app that Mr. Thomson had created known as SunnylitAI, which establishes a known record as well as a meaningful precedent to Mr. Thomson using the trademark - in honor of his daughter. As opposed to Mr. Jackson, who seems to have chosen “Sunlight” arbitrarily. Furthermore, Mr. Jackson has yet to gather the necessary data, which he may not be able to convince the court without it. However, another secret fact includes that Mr. Thomson’s “Sunny Light Online” includes the same services that “Sunlight Chat” provides, meaning that can be considered rivals.
Feedback:
1.
Even though the the case itself may be in favor of Mr Jackson, I like the surprise element where the case relies a lot on secret facts. It makes the trial a lot more interesting, since it wont be as simple as just listening to the obvious. Another notable things is the way the witness list and description‘s are summarized. It gives a good summary of each of the witnesses backgrounds and helps give a good idea as to who they and their stance.
Overall, the project is well made and well written, but there are a few things that may help with clarity. For the legal elements, it does a good job of explaining what needs to be done for each side, but you may want to consider adding how it ties back to the clauses stated under the Lanham Act. Also for the Legal Basis for Trial, you may want to give a brief summary as to what the Lanham Act is, that way the project flows a bit smoother.
2.
One thing I feel the group did well was how balanced they made the case to be. After reading the entire case, I wasn’t sure who would win because both parties had very good arguments. I also liked how detailed they were with dates because the dates could turn out to be a very important part to who wins the case.
I’m not sure how much value the plaintiff supporting witness, Winfrey Jones, brings to this case because even though she can make a claim that Sunlight Chat was the first to market those types of services, the plaintiff can easily prove that with dated paperwork. I’m also not sure how much MicroStrategy Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. will help the defendant as the case involved a motion for a preliminary injunction against Motorola. Even though the injunction was denied, the court stated that MicroStrategy may still win the infringement case at trial.
3.
One thing I noticed while reading your case was how fleshed out the witness‘ backgrounds were. I was rather impressed with how much work went into them. The secret facts/testimonies that were sprinkled in were interesting to read as well. When I first went through it I didn‘t think the plaintiff had much of a case because the names are fairly dissimilar, but the fact that the defendant‘s company planned to provide services that included the same kind of service as the plaintiff‘s company really leveled the playing field.
That being said, I don‘t think Jackson has a strong enough argument to win the case, even knowing Thompson‘s company is a competitor. I think any reasonable judge or jury would recognize that the names are distinctive enough from each other that a reasonable person would get confused or correlate them. I would also like to see how Thompson‘s company differs in comparison to Jackson. I saw that Sunny light Online (also not sure why the "l" in "light" isn‘t capitalized) provides services beyond an AI online chat bot, but it would be useful to know what those services are to get a better idea of how close or far Sunny light Online is to a "one-to-one" competitor to Sunlight Chat.
Creative Project: Sunlight Chat v. Sunny light Online
标签：currently proc sub close cli read field col secondary
原文地址：https://www.cnblogs.com/JasperZhao/p/13190462.html
