Business Law Case Study: Examining Vicarious Liability & Trademark Law

This case study delves into two distinct legal issues within a business law context. The first issue examines whether an employer incurs vicarious liability for the reckless actions of an employee that resulted in injuries to another employee. It analyzes the necessary conditions for vicarious liability, focusing on the employer-employee relationship and whether the employee's actions were within the scope of their employment. The study concludes that the employer is not vicariously liable because the harmful act was outside the scope of employment. The second issue concerns an alleged trademark infringement, specifically whether the Milwaukee Bucks infringed on Jagermeister's trademark. The analysis identifies the courts with jurisdiction over trademark disputes and applies relevant criteria from US Court of Appeal rulings to determine if infringement occurred. The study finds that while there are similarities between the logos, they do not meet the criteria for trademark infringement, and Jagermeister's claim is likely baseless. Desklib provides students with access to similar solved assignments and past papers to aid in their studies.

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
Business Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1BUSINESS LAW
Question 1
Issue
Whether any vicarious liability will be incurred by the employer for the loss sustained by
Mr. William for the act committed by Mr. Lee. Additionally, the relationships that are necessary
to create vicarious liability are to be determine.
Rule
Vicarious Liability implies a liability incurred by an employer by the acts or omissions of
an employee, which causes distress to a third party in the course or furtherance of his
employment. Another employee may also imply a third party (Luntz et al. 2017). The same can
be illustrated with the case of Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280 (2003). To come under the purview
of Vicarious Liability, two requirements are needed to be fulfilled. Firstly, there must be an act
or omission committed by the employee causing harm or damage to a third party. Secondly, the
act or omission committed by the employee must be in the course or furtherance of his
employment. Hence, an employer-employee relationship must exist and the act must be
committed in pursuance of or in connection with the employment.
An Employer-Employee relationship or Principal-Agent relationship is necessary to
establish vicarious liability where the person committing the wrongful or negligent act is under
the control of the person incurring the liability. It assumed that employee is acting on behalf of
the employer.

2BUSINESS LAW
Application
In this present case both Mr. Williams and Mr. Lee are employees of the same employer.
Apart from being colleagues, they were also engaged in friendly relationship with each other.
The spraying of thinning agent on Mr. Williams overalls was a reckless act of Mr. Lee. Although
an inflammable thinning agent was easily accessible to Mr. Lee for his being an employee in the
bodywork mechanic shop, but spraying it on Mr. Williams overalls and setting the said overall
on fire was not in pursuance of his employment. It was an act outside the scope of and remote to
his employment.
Conclusion
Therefore, the employer will not be held vicariously liable for the acts of Mr. Lee causing
loss to Mr. William. The relationship that creates vicarious liability have been discussed above.

3BUSINESS LAW
Reference:
Luntz, Harold, David Hambly, Kylie Burns, Joachim Dietrich, Neil Foster, Genevieve Grant, and
Sirko Harder. Torts: cases and commentary. LexisNexis Butterworths, 2017.
Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280 (2003)

4BUSINESS LAW
Question 2
Issue
The issue is to determine the court that has the jurisdiction to hear the matter pertaining to
the alleged trademark infringement. In addition, it is to be determined whether the Milwaukee
Buck infringes Jagermeister’s trademark.
Rule
The US Patent and Trademark Office could only receive registrations for trademarks and
issue them; it is not authorized to enforce them in case of disputes. The Patent and Trademark
Appeal Board initially hears the dispute (Trademarks 2018). The Lanham (Trademark) Act 60
Stat. 427 governs the trademark law in the US. It strives to prohibit trademark infringement,
dilution, and false advertisement. The US Court of Appeal has the jurisdiction over a trademark
case when it moves higher for appeal from the Patent and Trademark Board.
In the case of AMF, Inc v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (C.A.9) 1979, the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeal held that Trademark infringement cases are required to meet the following
criteria:
 Strength of the mark
 Similarity of the trademark
 Similar nature of the goods in question
 Marketing channels used to promote the goods
 Evidence of confusion between the marks

5BUSINESS LAW
 Type of the goods
 Intention of the defendant for using such mark
 Probability of the expansion of the goods and the mark in question
Application
The given case study refers to an allegation brought by Jagermeister against Milwaukee
Buck pertaining to trademark infringement would be dealt by the Patent and Trademark Appeal
Board. On further appeal, the US Court of Appeal would deal with it.
In this case, although there are certain similarities of the logos, yet they do not match
with the above-mentioned criteria held by the US Court of Appeal, which constitute absolute
trademark infringement. In addition, there is no severe similarity of the marks even though
Jagermeister alleges that Milwaukee Buck copies their logo ‘in bad faith’ with an intention to
confuse, deceive and establish false association with Jagermeister, in order to use their fame and
popularity for promoting their team. However, the allegation does not fulfill the trademark
infringement criteria and therefore stands baseless.
Conclusion
Therefore, the Patent and Trademark Appeal Board and on appeal the US Court of
Appeal would have jurisdiction to hear the matter pertaining to trademark infringement. While,
for the given case, Jagermeister would not be able to enforce the alleged trademark infringement
carried out by Milwaukee Buck.

6BUSINESS LAW
Reference
AMF, Inc v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (C.A.9) 1979
Lanham (Trademark) Act 60 Stat. 427
Trademarks. 2018. Uspto.Gov. https://www.uspto.gov/trademark