Protecting Property Rights
Date of Submission
In this action, plaintiffs, Wrench LLC, Joseph Shields, and Thomas Rinks, have a complaint stating that the defendant, Taco Bell Corp typically misappropriated the own creative work, knowledge, and designs for its consumption without compensating them for utilization of their property. The talked about the property, in this case, is the plaintiff’s knowledge of featuring a live Chihuahua with an aggressive intention to encourage Taco Bell food in some commercials. Plaintiffs argue that their work and ideas were strategically inspired by their Chihuahua caricature referred to as “Psycho Chihuahua.” On June 1998, the court gave out a ruling and an order granting in part and denying in part Taco Bell’s opinion to disregard all counts of plaintiffs’ initial complaint except count. The court dismissed the counts II and IV with the reasons that the state copyright rule preempted them.
Type of Intellectual Property
In this scenario, the intellectual property that emerged as the problem was typically the act of marketing materials of the Chihuahua with the aggressive attitude of gaining trade stability of Taco Bell food in some commercials. All the marketing knowledge was meant for protection purposes as outlined under the law as it was safeguarded under the Wrench industry and the brand. A contract is considered as an agreement where the parties involved generates mutual understanding and conclude the appropriate terms and conditions (Tsai & Wright, 2015). The implied in law contract enables a court to give out monetary damages to any plaintiff for giving out services to a defendant even if there is no agreement existing between the parties engaged. Regarding protection under the law, copyright issues are protected when they accompanied with enough evidence and proper statements of the claim as this will give the courts clear evidence regarding the alleged crime.
Implied-in-Law and Implied-in-Fact
The implied-in-law contracts are different from the implied-in-fact agreements in that the implied-in-law contracts are generated not through any written or oral promises of the parties and are initiated as the policy demands its formation without regard to parties aims mainly to support justice. The implied-in-law system is strategically entangled with rules of unjust enrichment and restitution; for example, if the defendant gains advantage from anything the defendant is not rightfully entitled to keep, then the regulation imposes upon the defendant to get back such unjust enrichment. On the other hand, implied-in-fact agreements create, in full or in part, via operations of the parties and not their general exchange of promises through words (Nguyen, 2012). These kinds of agreements generate as parties intend and jointly agree to a given deal. Centered on case law, implied-in-fact contracts can be used in violation of literally operations and ideas and for the plaintiff to prevail; it ought to be displayed with other requirements include the plaintiff providing the defendants with the activities or concept for sale. The type of contract in this scenario is that of the implied-in-law as it talks about unqualified enrichment and compensation.
Protecting Rights of the Two Companies and Recommended Terms
All organizations are required to be more cautious and protective towards their properties as well as the lawsuits that are likely to emerge based on grave mistakes and negligent operations. This is essential as the case between Taco Bells and Wrench LLC could have been stopped had the needed actions been initiated initially (Tsai & Wright, 2015). The two organizations would have come up with an agreement or some form of approval from the start as this would have led to proper operations and smooth business operation. When Taco Bell decided to have Rinks and Shield manage their marketing materials, it is the point when the contract should have been formed to avoid future disputes. Moreover, nothing more could have been initiated without proper documentation and writings as an actively written contract would have saved the situation and avoided confusion.
For the agreement to have been valid, one ought to have incorporated an understanding, acceptance, and consideration (Tsai & Wright, 2015). Any legal agreement or contract should have clearly outlined phases to be taken in avoiding policy issues arising similar to the discussed scenario. Welch ought to have initiated proper agreements of what Taco Bell was giving out and would have in turn offered something more substantial. Shield and Ranks would have then acknowledged, and consideration would have sealed the agreement. When a business needs to carry out a deal or as a more significant interest in selling what another industry has to offer, the appropriate consideration ought to be taken to stop penalties associated with illegal trading.
Elements of a Valid Contract
One of the appropriate factors that could have been utilized in this scenario includes an offer where this ought to have been incorporated into the situation (Nguyen, 2012). A proposal or a promise should be in any agreement as it is a legal requirement as outlined in the contracts policy of 1950 as it is ensured that the deal is legally valid or acknowledged. In a contract, it is essential that a party would make an offer.
Nguyen, J. (2012). A Preemptive Copyright Ghost Lurking in Breach of Contract Claims: Resolving the Copyright Preemption Analysis. Chap. L. Rev., 16, 437.
Tsai, J., & Wright, J. D. (2015). Standard setting, intellectual property rights, and the role of antitrust in regulating incomplete contracts. Antitrust Law Journal, 80(1), 157-188.