katetutor
Tomkins v. Public Service Electric & Gas Co. 141
Bundy v. Jackson 146
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson 148
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton 151
Ellison v. Brady 156
Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. 159
Techniques for Preventing Sexual
Harassment 163
II. Pay Equity 165
The Earnings Gap 165
The Equal Pay Act 168
Corning Glass Works v. Brennan 169
Occupational Segregation 172
Telling Stories about Women and Work 173
Working While Mother: The Mommy
Penalty 178
III. Benefits 182
Family and Medical Leave Act 182
Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 183
Same-Sex Benefi ts 184
Martinez v. County of Monroe 185
IV. Affirmative Action 187
Grutter v. Bollinger 189
Recommendations of the Federal Glass Ceiling
Commission 195
I. The Marital Relation 251
The Heritage of Coverture 251
McGuire v. McGuire 251
Glover v. Glover 254
Kline v. Ansell 256
Kirchberg v. Feenstra 258
Contemporary Marriage Models 261
Issues of Marital Discord and Marriage Policies
of Today 263
Intimate Partner Violence 264
Mandatory Arrest and Prosecution Policies for
Domestic Violence: A Critical Literature Review
and the Case for More Research to Test Victim
Empowerment Approaches 265
U.S. v. Morrison 268
Brzonkala v. Morrison 268
Name of case: Gucci America, Inc. v. Wang Huoqing (2011)
Court it was decided in: The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Facts: Gucci America, Inc. is a NY corporation headquartered in NYC. Gucci produces and distributes high quality luxury goods such as footwear, belts, sunglasses, handbags, and wallets. They sell those items worldwide. Gucci uses twenty-one federally recorded trademarks. Gucci also has boutiques in California. Wang Huoqing who is a resident of Republic of China, operates many websites. It turned out that Wang was selling some of Gucci’s products. Gucci hired a private investigator in San Jose, CA, to buy products from the website. The investigator buys items from the website and receives them. Later on, they opened up a trademark infringement lawsuit against Wang. The court took place at the U.S District Court for the Northern District of California. They were seeking damages and injunctions to prevent further infringement. Wang notified via mail to show up on his case; however, he failed to appeal. Still, court had to determine whether it had personal jurisdiction over Wang based on the Internet sales.
Legal Question: Is the filed trademark infringement lawsuit against Wang Huoqing seeking damages and an injunction to prevent further infringement valid? Did Gucci’s claim determined whether it had personal jurisdiction over Wang Huoqing based on the Internet sales?
Decision: The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California decided that it had personal influence over the overseas offender, Wang. The court entered a default decision against Wang and granted Gucci an injunction.
Best,
