“Fish Fri” vs “Chick Fri” Essay

Please use the following very simple template for doing your case analysis

Fact: You can present any five numbers between 0 and 10 to represent a set of facts: 3, 2, 9, 6, 4

Issue: Whether the number 2 is greater than 9 (2 > 9)?

Rule/Law: A prescribed mathematical method for performing a calculation or solving a problem.

Analysis: because of 3 > 2, therefore 2 < 3, …. etc. 2 < 3 < 4 < 6 < 9, therefore 2 < 9

Conclusion: the number 2 is not greater than 9, you have answered the issue statement by rejection.

Common Mistakes:

In fact section: to present too many facts that are irrelevant, or assume something that is not qualified as a fact, e.g., “I think there should be a number of 20 there or there should be a B letter there, etc.

In issue section: to formulate an issue that cannot be answered, or to specify the scope of an issue either too narrow or tangential, or fail to see an issue at a conceptual level, etc.

In rule/law section: to put some conflicting laws, or to use a non-applicable law, or to conduct analysis here.

In analysis section: to add something that has not been introduced in fact, issue-statement, and/or law sections, to use your own standard in analysis, e.g., to say something wrong or right, whether to be wrong or right is relative.

“Fish Fri” vs “Chick Fri”

Background info: Zatarain’s, Inc started a product named “Fish Fri” many years ago. Another company imitated with a similar product named “Chick Fri” afterwards. Zatarain’s, Inc sued and won. Now it owns both trademarks of “Fish Fri” and “Chick Fri”. Many years after, the similar issue repeated again. The company sued again, and here is the case brief: Zatarain’s, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, Inc (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.. Please read the case brief and try to learn the following:

1. Product naming rule: It is on a sliding scale from generic, descriptive, suggestive, to arbitrary/fanciful. Very often, two products’ substantiveness are quite similar to each other (i.e., fungible in product’s attributes, features, and functionalities), but their trademarks must be made different. Court only protects the one that first came out and is considered to have a “secondary meaning” as perceived in marketplace (i.e., a stronger and wider “brand” effect) on being descriptive, perhaps on being suggestive as well, but never on being generic. This is why when someone wanted an “Aspirin,” and she really means a pill (e.g., a Tylenol) for her headache, because Aspirin has transformed to become a generic name to mean all the pills that can cure a headache.

2. Be knowledgeable of what can be protected by law, and what does not have a legal protection when you deals with the issues of product development in doing business