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.


Need your ASSIGNMENT done? Use our paper writing service to score good grades and meet your deadlines.

Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper