What is the Rule & application in this brief

1

BRANDT BUSINESS LAW

Case Brief #1 Assignment Sonja Smacks v. Kiley K (2017)*

Sonja Smacks is a Arkansas corporation with headquarters in Arkansas.

Sonja Smacks is a very well known popular trademarked brand that specializes in selling neon lipstick in brick and mortar stores in Arkansas, as well as around the United States

Kiley K is a resident in the state of Hawaii. Kiley K owns a shopping center as well as a boutique store in that shopping center in Hawaii that sells cosmetics. In this boutique store, Kiley K sells both authentic and non-authentic products. Included in Kiley K’s products for sale in her boutique and online are counterfeit Neon lipsticks that bear the Sonja Smacks trademark, but which are not authentic Sonja Smacks product.

Sonja Smacks was on Instagram one day noticed under the hashtag #neonlips that Kiley K was selling counterfeit lipstick bearing the Sonja Smacks trademark, including to Hawaii and Texas. Sonja Smacks decided to see for herself if Kiley K was selling counterfeit products, and called up Kiley K's store in Hawaii and purchased both the neon orange and neon green “Sonja Smacks” lipstick from Kiley K, to be delivered in to her in Arkansas Fake Sonja Smacks neon orange, but authentic neon green lipstick was delivered to her in Arkansas. Sonja Smacks filed a lawsuit against Kiley K in federal court in Arkansas, in the US District Court for the Northern District of Arkansas, alleging Kiley K committed trademark infringement. Kiley K moved to dismiss the lawsuit, saying that the Court did not have federal court jurisdiction over Kiley K. The Due Process Clause of the Constitution allows Arkansas courts to exercise jurisdiction on out of state defendants. Under the Due Process Clause, federal courts can exercise jurisdiction over a defendant where “minimum contacts” in the forum state occur. Such minimum contacts can be proven by applying the following 3-part test: (1) the non resident defendant must do some act or commit a transaction within the forum state, or perform an act by which they purposefully avail themselves to the privileges of the forum state; (2) the claim must arise out of or result from the defendant’s forum-related activities; (3) exercising jurisdiction is reasonable. To commit purposeful availment, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant engaged in conduct that either promoted or allowed the transaction of business within the forum state. Sonja Smacks has the following evidence that she provided to the court: Kiley K sold both genuine and counterfeit Sonja Smacks lipstick in its boutique store in Hawaii, but also shipped outside of Hawaii. Kiley K argued that the counterfeit product was not even her best seller, and that Sonja Smacks products did not do that well in general in her store. Kiley K said that the counterfeit lipstick netted her less than $200 a year on average. Sonja Smacks countered that all over Instagram she could see "thousands" of people using counterfeit Sonja Smacks neon lipstick, and

2

she blamed Kiley K for this. Kiley K moves to try to dismiss Sonja Smacks' lawsuit saying that she is a resident of Hawaii who only sells goods out of a store in Hawaii, so a Arkansas court has no jurisdiction. The US District Court for the Northern District of Arkansas takes the above facts under submission to evaluate whether to grant Kiley K’ request to dismiss the lawsuit due to the court lacking jurisdiction over Kiley K. The judges of the US District Court are you the students in the Business Law Class. INSTRUCTIONS:

Your case brief assignment is as follows: Using the above case, prepare a Modified Case Brief (different from regular case brief as it requires your personal perspective, see instructions and sample below), similar in structure to the sample case brief of Bad Frog Brewery and rubric in the two pages following, including headers, identifying Facts, Issue, Rule, Application, and Conclusion. However, in addition to identifying and listing the Facts, Issue and Rule, you are to prepare your own original Application of the facts applying the law to the facts, and you are also to come up with your own original Conclusion, meaning how would you rule on the Issue you identified? * All names and courts and story are fictional. Modified Case Briefs Description Understanding case law is essential to success in any law related class. Consequently, students will provide an analysis of three assigned cases to help their development and understanding of the legal issues presented. These case analyses, better known as ‘case briefs,’ will help students develop legal issues spotting techniques and provide an overview of how law applies to specific fact patterns.

The case briefs should be written in the following format:

1. Facts: The facts briefly indicate (1) the reasons for the lawsuit, (2) the identity and arguments of the parties, and (3) the lower court’s decision (if applicable).

2. Issue: The issue is the question before the court. The issue must be phrased as a question. Cases often have more the one issue (i.e., the court answers more than one question). If so, those questions should be listed here in chronological order.

3. Rule: The rule is simply the law the court uses to answer the question presented in the issue.

4. Application: This section requires you the student to apply the rule to the facts to answer the question presented in the issue. In brief, the application provides the reason(s) for your decision on the Issue identified. This part should be the longest as you are applying the facts to the law.

5. Conclusion: Your decision on how to the resolve the Issue identified, after your application of the law to the facts.

3

* * * Modified Case Brief Sample * * *

Bad Frog Brewery, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority (1998) (p. 78), (with Application and Conclusion modified to author’s own personal views on how the author would rule if they were the judge.)

FACTS Bad Frog Brewery wants the NYSLA to approve an application to

allow BFB to sell its alcoholic beverages in New York. The NYSLA denied BFB’s application in part because of the label of a frog “giving the finger,” as NYSLA didn’t want to allow such beverages to be in grocery stores exposing children to such graphic labels. BFB filed lawsuit in federal district court challenging NYSLA’s ruling, and the federal court sided with NYSLA. BFB is appealing the federal district court’s ruling to the US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit. BFB argues that NYSLA’s denial of BFB’s application in protection of children is overly isolated as it applies to labels on a product children can’t even purchase, and there are less restrictive alternatives to advancing the same state interest of protecting children from vulgarity.

ISSUE Was the NYSLA’s denial of BFB’s application for a liquor license proper? Was the federal district court’s ruling supporting the NYSLA denial proper?

RULE “A state must demonstrate that its commercial speech limitation is part of a substantial effort to advance a valid state interest, not merely the removal of a few grains of offensive sand from a breach of vulgarity.”

APPLICATION If I were a judge in this case, I would apply the law to the facts as follows: the state of New York, through the NYSLA, is trying to advance a state interest of “preventing exposure of children to vulgar displays,” by banning the sale of BFB’s alcohol with the label of a frog giving the middle finger. While I do see that there is a valid state interest of protecting children from vulgarity, the denial of BFB’s use of such labels was “excessive,” for a few reasons, including that many of the BFB bottles would be sold in in bars and taverns where minors will not frequent, and if they do enter, they will enter with parental supervision. As far as more common areas like grocery stores, I think less intrusive actions can be taken, such as restricting areas within the grocery store, including the liquor area, to people adult age only.

CONCLUSION Based on the above, I would choose to side with BFB, and return the case to the lower court, since NYSLA did not adequately consider less restrictive alternatives to the ban, which I think was excessive.