Walt Disney Co. V. Beijing Publishing Press Essay

Walt Disney Co. V. Beijing Publishing Press - Essay Example Although Beijing Publishing Press had entered into contract with and paid Maxwell which has intellectual property rights from Disney, it violated Disney IPR. The contract details form Disney did not give Maxwell the right to subcontract its intellectual properties to third parties, which means that the contract between Maxwell and Beijing was void. The fact that the contract was illegal makes it void. Disney enjoys copyright protection of its products from the Chinese law. Therefore, any third parties who wish to utilize its intellectual properties must enter into a contract with Disney. In this case, there existed no contract between Disney and Beijing Publishing. Before paying IPR, a party should conduct careful due diligence to assure that it is paying for enforceable IPR. This case illustrates concept in that Beijing Publishing Company had an obligation to carry out proper investigations to ascertain the legality of the contract with Maxwell Company and Children Press. The department of state copyright administration requires companies to conduct an inquiry and implement registration procedures with the relevant authorities before actual use of IPR. Although Beijing Publishing Company had exempted itself in the working agreement with the Children press, where it stated that Children press would bear any responsibilities arising because of non-registration with the copyright authority; it failed to ascertain that Children Press is not an independent legal person and thus had to bear the responsibility. Beijing Company has a lawsuit against Maxwell. The contract between Disney and Maxwell stated, â€Å"Disney Company licenses to Maxwell Comp any exclusive rights to publish and sell within China its publications based on Disney world characters.† The contract expressly states that the license given should not be granted to third parties (Shaffer, Agusti, and Earle 574). Beijing Publishing can sue Maxwell on the ground that it breached the initial contract, which led to it incurring damages. Champagne V. Wines Worth Group Ltd This case involves an Australian company by name Wines Worth Group against French Department of Champagne that sought an injunction to prevent Australians from â€Å"passing off† their wine as produced from France. French Department of Champagne filed on the basis that they own the trademark. A trademark is a distinctive sign used by businesses to speak a message to their consumers to specify the origin of the product and henceforth dictate the target markets. It is a name, word, phrase, logo, or symbol and the owners of