3.06.2010

free counters

The most comprehensive coverage on the construction of Statutes. It includes parts of statutes,Extrinsic-Aids,Intrinsic aids, Reading down, Amendments,Repeals,codifications,Quasi-Judicial agencies,Non-obstante clause,Mandatory/Declatory provisions,Tax ,Beneficial, Criminal,Fiscal Statute's Interpretation and sub-ordinate legislations.Besides it contains the Rules of Interpretation and the Role of Judiciary.Citations are in abundance.



Thursday, June 24, 2010

Resolution of Ambiguity-Reference to Judicial Pronouncements

The following is an example to illustrate the principle of resolving the ambiguity and that is to refer to the earlier judicial decisions made by some other courts. If one circuit court has no precedent it can always refer to the case decided by the other sister courts.This approach is the simplest of all and it results in saving a lot of time and also helps the litigant the logic on which the courts has proceeded to arrive at a particular conclusion that is contained in the ruling.[blogger]
Because we are confronted with this ambiguity concerning the remedies available under section 43, we must resort to the legislative history of the Lanham Act. Our task remains constant--to ascertain the will of Congress and to apply it. As we have already noted, it was manifestly the intention of Congress that the Lanham Act be a self-contained statute. Congress viewed unfair competition cases as an integral component of that Act. A strong argument thus can be made that we should follow those circuits that have concluded that all the remedies under section 35 should be available to section 43 claims. See Brunswick Corp. v. Spinit Reel Co., [1987] USCA10 249; 832 F.2d 513, 528 (10th Cir.1987); Centaur Communications v. A/S/M Communications[1987] USCA2 838; , 830 F.2d 1217, 1229 (2d Cir.1987); WSM, Inc. v. Wheeler Media Servs.,[1987] USCA6 423; 810 F.2d 113, 116 (6th Cir.1987); U-Haul Int'l v. Jartran, Inc., [1986] USCA9 1298; 793 F.2d 1034, 1042 (9th Cir.1986); Rickard v. Auto Publisher, Inc., [1984] USCA11 958; 735 F.2d 450, 453-58 (11th Cir.1984); Metric & Multistandard Components Corp. v. Metric's Inc., [1980] USCA8 665; 635 F.2d 710, 715 (8th Cir.1980). However, we need not decide that broader issue because the legislative history of the 1974 amendment to section 35 that enacted the attorneys' fees remedy leaves no doubt that Congress intended for attorneys' fees to be available in section 43 actions. The Senate report speaks directly to the issue:Nupulse Inc v Schlueter Co a [1988] USCA7 525; 853 F.2d 545; 7 U.S.P.Q.2d 1633 (28 July 1988)

No comments:

Post a Comment