Amos was criminally charged with arson and found not guilty…

Amos was criminally charged with arson and found not guilty at trial largely because there was not enough evidence to convince the jury that it really was Amos who committed the crime and not some other arsonist. Six months after the trial concluded, an anonymous source sent the police a cellphone video that clearly shows Amos cover Francine’s house in gasoline and light it on fire. Had the prosecutors been able to show this video at trial, Amos almost certainly would have been found guilty of arson.   Now that this new cellphone video has been discovered, can Amos be subjected to another lawsuit regarding this incident?

Lauren is a marketing student who is working on an assignmen…

Lauren is a marketing student who is working on an assignment for a course where she is asked to make a presentation about the use of slogans in marketing. She prepares a presentation about Subway’s use of the slogan “Eat Fresh” to advertise the company’s use of fresh materials and explains in her presentation that there are risks with using this slogan. Specifically, she mentions that the “Eat Fresh” slogan implies that Subway uses fresh ingredients in all of its food offerings, and Subway might be liable for false advertising if it does not truly use fresh ingredients all the time. During the course of her presentation, she displays multiple Subway logos and says the words “eat fresh” several times. As a result of her presentation, several of Lauren’s classmates decide to stop buying food from Subway because they are now unsure whether Subway is actually providing food made solely from fresh ingredients. Subway has found out about Lauren’s presentation and is frustrated that she did not seek Subway’s permission before using their intellectual property rights to the Subway logo and slogan.   Would Subway be successful if it decides to sue Lauren for her violations of its intellectual property rights?