Intellectual Property Protection is used in cases where somebody wants to protect inventions, work of an artist, symbols and in some cases images. All these are creations of the mind. The methods that can be used in protecting these creations of the mind include using: Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks, and Trade Secrets (Prime, 2017). This law is for protecting unique items which are your creations from unfair competition. Most of these properties have an economic benefit. With the help of a professional and experienced attorney for proper advice on what to protect under Intellectual Property laws. Summary of the Wrench LLC v. Taco Bell Corporation case in the "Ethics: Implied-In-Fact Contract Prevents Unjust Result" section of Ch.9 is an example of the use of contracts to Protect Property Rights. In this paper, we will look into the court opinion and research done on the case.
The Intellectual property issue, in this case, is the idea misappropriation. In this case, was of Taco's Chihuahua where Wrench made allegations of Taco's misappropriation of ideas that were inspired by Chihuahua character "Psycho Chihuahua" of which two Taco employees had an arrangement with Wrench to discuss character licensing of which Taco Bell started using without a license. These ideas were entitled to protection because they had a financial benefit and could earn income to the rightful owner.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Under intellectual property, there is an implied-in-law contract also known as Quasi-contract and implied-in-fact control. Implied-in-law contract refers to an imaginary agreement that is imposed by the court as a legal solution in the prevention of injustice. The law is done in favor of the party that has been aggrieved and against the party which has obtained gains at the expense of the other ( Dratler & McJohn, 2018) . The accused is considered to be under onus to make compensation. An implied-in-fact refers to an implied contract that is created by non-verbal conduct, rather than by apparent words. It involves the intent to promise and may arise from the conduct of the parties. The case of Wrench vs. Taco the contract that was at issue was an implied-in-fact contract with a focus at why will another party disclose an idea yet they know that another party uses the same design intending to gain compensation.
In avoiding this kind of dispute, the two parties could have done their research on the ideas that fall under specific protection option. The options that they have include patents, which is an option for granting property rights to work of innovations (Dutfield, 2017). Before they filed for this patent, they could have agreed who is supposed to be the rightful owner of the ideas. Under patent, they can individually take a utility patent that could allow the idea not to be used by anybody else. With this patent protection, the holder can take legal action against any party that tries to duplicate or try using the same ideas.
A property written contract must include the following elements; offer and acceptance, which is the promise that constitutes particular terms while approval comes after two parties have agreed on an offer (Drahos, 2017). This can be done in writing or an oral agreement. There is also consideration whereby one party has to give back something in return. The exchange is made between a promise and a promisor. There is also the creation of Legal regulations. The element has an agreement which is not a contract in the harsh sense of the law unless the parties agree legally.
In conclusion, the Wrench LLC v. Taco Bell case was a disagreement on an issue of the implied-in-fact contract could have been averted if the two parties had agreed on patents. The rights of the idea which was in contention could have had the specific owner and not resulted in a legal tussle.
References
Dratler, Jr, McJohn, SM (2018) Intellectual Property Law : Commercial, Creative and Industrial Property - books.google.com
Drahos, P (2016) A philosophy of intellectual property - taylorfrancis.com
Dutfield, G (2017) Intellectual property rights and the life science industries: a twentieth-century history- taylorfrancis.com
Prime, T (2017) European intellectual property law - taylorfrancis.com
