I’m studying and need help with a Business question to help me learn.
(Respond with 100 words) Danielle – The case of Nike, Inc v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc was created due to the possible infringement upon Nike, Inc by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Nike claims that Wal-Mart intentionally committed patent infringement on Nike’s Shox Shoe line with Wal-Mart’s shockingly new and very similar shoe, the Detra. Both shoes show exposed springs in the heels, which Nike has very clearly patent. Unfortunately for Nike, this particular patent was given to Nike to protect the style and the look of the heel, but not the functionality of the heel (Lau & Johnson, 2014). If a random customer were to compare both shoes side by side, it would be very hard to tell the difference. Both shoes are so similar that most customers would agree that both shoes are exactly the same, but Wal-Mart’s shoe is much cheaper than Nike. Nike patent this particular style back in 2004 and it has 14 years of being effective. Wal-mart has end up creating the shoes from Nike’s design and making a huge profit. In order for Nike to take legal action,
Nike had to officially apply to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. This did not stop Wal-Mart in challenging the claim on validity of the patent by claiming that the patent drawings are not really unique.
Just by looking at both shoes and the case as a whole, I believe that there is clear proof that Wal-Mart had taken Nike’s design in order to profit off of it. Nike has every right to fight for their own patent, which is why they have such a patent to prevent situations such as this. Wal-Mart should be held liable and thoroughly examined in order to halt the creation and selling of the stolen product with possible payout to Nike for lost profit.
(Respond with 100 words) Rebecca – This case is a very interesting case for a few different reasons. I do not see in the complaint where it says the Wal-Mart actually produces the shoe. I do not think Wal-Mart can be sues for copyright if they are not the ones manufacturing it. Yes they can get in-trouble for selling something that infringes on the patent but I think Nike would have to give them a chance to pull the product from their shelves. I also do not know if there is a law against selling like shoes. I know that the manufacturing company could get in a lot of trouble but I do not believe Wal-Mart as a seller only would really be a fault in this case. Looking at the pictures on the complaint, the shoes do look identical. Part of Nike’s argument is that they printed the patent numbers on the bottom of their shoes but there would be no way to be sure the anyone else knew that. Multiple times it suggests that Wal-Mart is intentionally doing this. I think I would personally need more information about the company making the shoe. I know that at one-point Wal-Mart sold Nike branded shoes. I am curious if that was while all of this happened or after Wal-Mart stopped carrying its product. That would influence the case in my opinion.
(Respond with 100 words) Nancy – Yes, this was a unilateral contract in which the offeree acted upon the offer by performing the terms of the offer, thus creating a binding contract.
That advertisement includes an implied covenant embodying in which is the promise the law requires in all contracts, regardless of whether the parties state it or not. Plus, the fact that the retailer advertises it, it became a legally enforceable promise.
By not considering their advertisement, the retailer in in breach of their obligation to the young woman. Beside, the terms of the marketing promotion have quantity (purchased a car in 2013…did not get at least 50 miles per gallon during the first 60 days…), second there is a price ($10,000 cash from company), third, there is a time for performance (purchased a car in 2013…did not get at least 50 miles per gallon during the first 60 days…). Therefore, the woman has every right to receive that money.
Furthermore, that advertisement contain, and all the elements consists in a contract: offer, acceptance, consideration. Plus, the retailer had an invitation to bargain when they advertise the promotion regarding the hybrid sedan.
The female would have a standing not only under common law and the UCC as well. Therefore, the retailer is in breach for failure to perform their duties of giving the $10,000.00 cash because the car did not give the 60 miles promise by them.
Although the contract was unilateral, the female did accept through her action by purchasing the car.
The retailer could have substantial performance, or standard of performance however according to their advertisement, it appears as if they use the strict performance therefore, they must adhere to what they
(Respond with 100 words) Guilson – Under all common – contracts, yes, this was a unilateral contract in which the offeree acted upon the offer by performing the terms of the offer, thus creating a binding contract. Chapter 6, in The Legal and Ethical Environment of Business textbook, states that “a unilateral contract is one in which the accepting party may only accept through an action” (pg. 184). For example, an offeror stating that he/she will sell the bike to the first person who puts $100 in his/her hand and the offeree without saying a word puts $100 in the offeror’s hand becomes a legal binding contract. A unilateral contract is based on the action of the accepting party, just like the female who purchased the hybrid model sedan. The Offeror stated clear terms, that who ever purchased the car in 2013 and did not get at least 50 miles per gallon average gas mileage during the first 60 days they are subject to receive a payment of $10,000. The female followed and met the requirements, which is why she is subject to receive the $10,000 because the contract between the female and the dealer is legally binding and enforceable. There was a bargain for exchange of an act. The dealer made a promise for an action and the female with valid proof met that action. The dealer not paying the female the $10,000 is a breach of contract because they are failing to perform the terms that is under the legal binding contract that they themselves listed.