Answered You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
I will pay for the following article Overview of Andrew C. Brown v. Robert G. Woolf. The work is to be 14 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citations and a reference page.
I will pay for the following article Overview of Andrew C. Brown v. Robert G. Woolf. The work is to be 14 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citations and a reference page. Case 1 started at the district court where the plaintiff was granted the go-ahead with the case. After several months of court sessions, the district court gave the defendants a friendly judgment. Immediately, the plaintiff appealed the decision in .the Court of Appeals and stated: “commercial nature of the parody rendered it presumptively unfair under the first of four factors” (LII p.4). However, the Supreme Court ruled that the Appeals Court had an error in its judgment. Therefore, case the case went from the district court to the Appeals court and eventually to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reasoned that the decision ought to be reached upon consideration of several factors. One, the character and even the purpose of that use. two, the amount of the work used in the creation of a parody. Finally, the effects and the nature of the copyrighted material.
This case was filed at the district court in Texas involving two firms where mascot characters were the center of the issue. Barney was a character associated with the Lyons partnership while Ted Giannoulas had a chicken as its mascot. The plaintiff complained that the defendant had false association trademark-dilution as well as unfair competition (Texas paralegal Journal p.2).
In the first hearing, the district judge ruled that the plaintiff was not able to prove beyond reasonable doubts how the defendant had infringed on the trademark. The plaintiff’s concern was that the defendant’s portrayal of Barney as weak and relied on the chicken for dancing lessons was tantamount to unfair competition. When the judgment was delivered, the plaintiff was dissatisfied and appealed the ruling (Texas paralegal Journal p.4).
The issues raised by the plaintiff at the district court included by using a Barney-like mascot, there would be consumer confusion hence unfair competition. Additionally, the firm complained of portraying it in a bad light by misusing a barney-like mascot on the stage. Apparently, the mascot would be slapped, kicked and even stood on.