Q. Does the Kentucky court have jurisdiction over the Arizona defendant?
If so, what type of jurisdiction does the Kentucky court have over the Arizona defendant and why?
BUSINESS LAW CASE STUDY
The main issue, in this case, is regarding the jurisdiction of the Kentucky court. As Bodacious, had filed a case against Flap Jack in United States District court for copying the trademarks of Bodacious regarding the sale of goods like Chinese Finger traps and eye patches sold to the resident of Kentucky, Flag Jack challenges that the court in Kentucky does not have jurisdiction to hear the case regarding violation of trademark rules.
According to US law, the state courts have full jurisdiction to hear each and every case if the defendant lives in the state or serves people in the state irrespective of the place but if a case falls under the category of violating copyright or patent rights, the state court would not have the power to hear the cases (Hetherington, 1958, p.226).
By analysing the rule it law of business regarding violating of intellectual property; it is clear that the court of United States does not have the right to hear the case of Bodacious versus Flapjack because the case is regarding the violation of the trademark rules. If the case issue would be some other matter except copying of trademarks then the district court in Kentucky would have the jurisdiction to hear the case of Bodacious versus Flap jack syrup because a defendant had sold goods at issue to a person living in Kentucky (Babcock and Clemens, 2004).
Place Order For A Top Grade Assignment Now
We have some amazing discount offers running for the students
Place Your Order
From the analysis it is found that district court has the power to hear cases where defendant lives or serves the people belonging to the district but if the case falls under the category of violation of trademark or patent rules, the district courts do not have the power to hear such cases (Bates, 1956, p.127). Similarly, as Flapjack syrup had sold goods in Kentucky but the case was related to trademarks imitation so the Kentucky court does not have the power to hear this issue.
Babcock, B.A. & Clemens, R.L., (2004). Geographical indications and property rights: protecting value-added agricultural products.
Bates, R.K., (1956). Constitutionality of State Fair Trade Acts. Ind. LJ, 32, p.127.
Hetherington, J.A., (1958). State economic regulation and the substantive due process of law. Nw. UL Rev., 53, p.226.