Analysis Of Two Law Suits

Running Head: CASE BRIEFS 1

Analysis of Two Law Suits

Name:

Institution:

CASE BRIEFS 2

Case 1

Title

Bannon V. National Collegiate Athletic Association NCAA, No. 14–16601, 14–17068.

(United States Court Of Appeals, Ninth Circuit September 30, 2015).

Facts

The plaintiff sued the NCAA over its regulation of prohibiting student-athletes in

colleges and universities from being paid when their NILS (names, images, and likenesses) are

used for commercial purposes. The Plaintiff sort clarification from the Court whether the

regulation is contrary to the Section 1 of the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act.

Procedure

The District Court has ruled in favor of the plaintiff arguing that the NCAA amateurism

regulations were illegal in that they restrain trade hence contrary to the provisions Section 1 of

the Sherman Antitrust Act. It further permanently illegalized the NCAA rule that prohibited

student-athletes from being given full scholarships and up to $5,000 deferred compensation by

its member schools.

Issue

Does NCAA amateurism policies, hampering its member institutions from offering

school scholarships and paid compensation of up to $5,000 the student-athletes violate Section 1

of the Sherman Antitrust Act?

Holding

The Court partly reversed and affirmed the verdict of the District Court regarding the

antitrust suit and NILS. The Court argued that the NCAA rules should be scrutinized under the

antitrust laws as well as bound to be interpreted and analyzed in respect to the principles of Rule

CASE BRIEFS 3

of Reason. Following the basis of the rule of reason, the court concluded that the district court

was justified in enjoining the NCAA from prohibiting issuance of full scholarships to student-

athletes, but the paid compensation was erroneous.

Analysis

I am in agreement with the verdict in that it is critical in distinguishing between college

and professional sports. Full scholarships are sufficient to promote competition among college

athletes because college athletes are amateurs and once paid for performance then they shall no

longer be considered as amateurs.

Case 2

Title

Pro-Football, Inc. V. Amanda Blackhorse, et al., No. 1:14-Cv-01043-Gbl-Idd (United

States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division July 8, 2015).

Facts

The plaintiff, Pro-Football Inc. sued the defendants at the Districts Court of Virginia

challenging the legality of the Lanham Act provision under Section 2(a). This was following a

decision of the defendants to cancel the registration of six trademarks by PFI arguing that the

trademarks constituted matters of “may disparage” what are substantially contradict to the Native

Americans hence violated the Lanham Act provisions of Section 2(a).

Procedure

Blackhorse et al. rejected trademark registration by PFI on the basis that it violated the

Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act on “may disparage” on Native Americans. The court verdict at

the Federal Court of Virginia was satisfactory affirming that the defendant was right to cancel

the PFI’s trademark registration.

CASE BRIEFS 4

Issue

Do the Lanham Act provisions under Section 2(a) restrain the Fifth Amendment by

prohibited protected speech hence a liability to the trademark owners?

Holding

The Federal court affirmed that the defendants were justified to cancel the PFI’s

trademark registration in that it contracted with the provision of “may disparage” as outlined by

the Lanham Act. The court aged that the Lanham Act and the registration programs of federal

trademarks do not implicate the Fifth Amendment is government speech hence exempted from

the scrutiny of the Fifth Amendment. PFI failed to show the unconstitutionality of the Lanham

Act in its entire applications; the Act had demarcated warnings of the prohibited content, the act

does not promote discriminatory and arbitrary enforcement, and the statute was not

impermissibly vague as argued by PFI.

Analysis

The decision is very contentious in that it raises question son the escalated burdens

incurred by trademark owners due to the risk of cancellation of trademark registration and their

free speech rights. Equally, the immunity of the government from being affected by the

disparaging marks ensues significant argument on the constitutionality of the Lanham A

CASE BRIEFS 5

References

BANNON v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION NCAA, Nos. 14–16601,

14–17068. (United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit September 30, 2015).

PRO-FOOTBALL, INC. v. Amanda BLACKHORSE, et al., 112 F.Supp.3d 439 (United States

District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division July 8, 2015).

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Paper type

Deadline

Page count

550 words

Total price: $ 15.00

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

USA, Student

"I'm fully satisfied with the essay I've just received. When I read it, I felt like it was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the necessary words. Thank you!"

Ian McGregor

UK, Student

"I don’t know what I would do without your assistance! With your help, I met my deadline just in time and the work was very professional. I will be back in several days with another assignment!"

Shannon Williams

Canada, Student

"It was the perfect experience! I enjoyed working with my writer, he delivered my work on time and followed all the guidelines about the referencing and contents."