Blog

¶ J, lines 60-62. Chef Garcon filed suit against Pru in the federal district court in Peoria for violation of federal trademark and patent law, also known as The Lanham Trademark Act of 1946, which is in the code book of U.S. laws in Volume 15 U.S.C. §1051 et seq. Garcon claimed that PruBerrys Bombe Tart recipe was stolen from his “Tarte bombée au chocolat.”  This law mentioned here is an example of what type of law:

¶ F. The Tazewell County State’s Attorney brought charges against Chef Liverpool who was accused of adding the anthrax powder to Pru’s flour. Liverpool was charged with battery and intentional murder in the injury and death of  the celebrity judge. Chef Liverpool lost his job at ICC because of the accusation, so he was provided an attorney to represent him. During jury selection for the trial, Chef Noel Leith happened to be called for jury duty, but did not serve on the jury because of his familiarity with the parties and many of the facts of the case. Prof. Paulsen was also called for jury duty, but he was not selected by either attorney because, although he could be fair and unbiased, they both believed he is a “know-it-all-professor” and no one wants one of those on a jury. [Note: ¶ F will be used as part of the next three questions, but will not be repeated in the text of those questions.] The Tazewell County State’s Attorney is the:

¶ J . Chef Garcon filed suit against Pru in the federal district court in Peoria for violation of federal trademark and patent law, also known as The Lanham Trademark Act of 1946, which is in the code book of U.S. laws in Volume 15 U.S.C. §1051 et seq. Garcon claimed that PruBerrys Bombe Tart recipe was stolen from his “Tarte bombée au chocolat.” He sought in excess of $75,000 in damages, and an order against the production of Bombe Tarts. Once again, attorney Legalsee defended Pru, while Chef Garcon was represented by celebrity lawyer Jullian Child.  Jurisdiction is proper in federal court for two reasons.  The first, as shown in lines 60-62, is because of:

¶ O.  The jury in Garcon v. Berry found for Garcon and awarded damages in the amount of $100,000, and ordered PruBerrys to never again make and sell the Bombe Tart.  As a result of this jury decision, why was Pru not considered for jail time, or sent to jail?

¶ Q , lines 112-116. However, the third judge filed a separate opinion, suggesting that regardless of any law cited by the attorneys or the other two judges, that “baking is a fundamental right” and that the court should find for PruBerrys and Pru because that fundamental right needed to be strengthened, and the federal Trademark and Copyright laws “failed to keep up with the times, where the internet allows recipes to be shared freely, and the Covid pandemic has led to more people baking to survive, let alone create.” [Note: the question that follows will refer to this same paragraph, but the content will not be repeated.] When a judge or judges believe the law should be extended. and previous case decisions should not be followed, as illustrated in lines 112-116, it could be said that those judges are following the doctrine of: 

¶ N.  The parties may want to call an expert witnesses to testify during the trial.  What is the purpose of an expert witness?

¶ J, line 63. He sought in excess of $75,000 in damages, and an order against the production of Bombe Tarts. Jurisdiction is proper in federal court for two reasons.  The second, as shown in line 63, is because of:

¶ M, line 87. Asking the American Baking Association to consider the dispute and issue a binding order resolving the case.   This attempt to resolve the case is known as:

¶ J – ¶ N.  If a defendant wants to allege a cause of action against another party who may or may not yet be in the lawsuit, alleging that the other party shares some blame or fault in the case, the defendant would file

¶ Q.  If all of the judges in the panel would agree, they would issue a _____ opinion.