Central Manufacturing, Inc. v. Brett et al. 492 F. 3d 876 (7th Cir. 2007) Central Manufacturing, Inc. (“Central”), the registrar of the “Stealth” trademark for baseballs, brought a Lanham Act and state law infringement action against Brett Brothers Sports (“Brett Bros.”), a baseball bat manufacturer that produced a bat of the same name. Brett Bros. is owned in part by Baseball Hall of Famer George Brett. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment which Central subsequently appealed. The issues on appeal are whether the evidence presented by Central was sufficient for a finding of infringement, whether the district court abused its discretion by ordering cancellation of the registration, and whether the granting of attorney’s fees to Brett Bros. was warranted. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. Central製造公司是有關棒球相關製品“Stealth”商標之所有人，其對Brett Brothers Sports公司，該公司係由棒球名人堂成員George Brett部分持股，提起聯邦商標和州法商標侵權訴訟。美國伊利諾州北區地方法院准予即決判決，Central製造公司隨後提起上訴，上訴的爭點在於，Central所提呈的證據是否足以認定對造侵權，法院是否濫用裁量為撤銷商標註冊令，是否判決應給付Brett Brothers律師費係有正當理由，二審維持一審之判決。 An action for trademark infringement can only succeed if the plaintiff owns the mark. Registration provides prima facie evidence of ownership that can be rebutted by competent evidence. More importantly, the mark must be used in commerce to ensure that entrepreneurs do not reserve brand names, making their competitors’ products more costly. If a court decision raises doubts about the validity of a trademark registration, a court may cancel the mark, so long as there is no abuse of discretion. Attorney’s fees and other costs may be awarded to the prevailing party “in exceptional circumstances.” 一個商標侵權訴訟，只能在原告擁有該商標時勝訴。商標註冊只是證明商標所有權之初步表面證證，其是可被有利的證據所推翻。更重要的是，商標需確保企業無保留於商業上使用該品牌名稱，使其競爭對手之產品更昂貴。假如法院對商標註冊之有效性生疑。只要無濫用其裁量權，法院可撤銷該商標註冊。在特別的情狀下，律師費及其他費用可判賠給勝訴之一造。 In 1984, Central’s owner and sole shareholder, Leo Stoller registered the Stealth mark for a variety of sporting goods and registered the mark for baseball bats in 2001. Brett Bros. sold its first Stealth bat in 1999 and has sold 25,000 since.Stoller has licensed the mark and sent various cease-and-desist letters to business such as Kmart, Panasonic and even the stealth bomber.Similarly, Stoller sent a letter to Brett Bros. demanding $100,000. Brett Bros. argued that the mark was never used in commerce and requested that Stoller produce evidence to the contrary. The district court found that no valid evidence was produced that the mark was ever used in commerce and the court of appeals agreed. The court of appeals also found that there was no abuse of discretion in cancelling the mark as the registrant’s asserted rights to the mark were invalid.Finally, the court of appeals determined that under the Lanham Act there was no clear error in awarding attorney’s fees as Central’s actions in bringing the case were oppressive. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s finding that Central produced no evidence of trademark infringement in that no documents were filed, that Stoller mislead the court with his testimony, and that his documents made a mockery of the proceeding. Therefore, the cancellation of the mark and the grant of attorney’s fees were justified. 1984年Central公司的所有人兼唯一股東Leo Stoller將Stealth標記申請註冊於運動用品，同時於2001年將該標記申請商標註冊於棒球棒。 Brette Bros於1999年售出印有Stealth第一枝棒球棒，從那時起共賣出25,000枝。Stoller有將該商標予以授權，同時發出警告信予諸如像Kmart, Panasonic ，甚至像stealth bomber等廠商。同樣地，Stoller對Brette Bros.發出警告函，要求100,000的賠償金。Brette Bros爭執該標記從未用於商業使用，要求Stoller提出證據。地方法院判決無任何有效證據可證該標記曾用於商業，上訴審亦同此見解。終審法院亦認定撤銷商標註冊無濫用裁量，商標權人主張就該標記有商標權，是無效的。最終，終審法院認定Central's提起本件訴訟判予律師費係苛刻的，在藍能法下並無明顯錯誤。 終審法院確認地院判決Central公司提不出商標侵害之證據，而Stoller用其證詞誤導法院，同時其文件對訴訟程序無助。是故，撤銷該商標及判賠律師費予以判決確定。
assumption of risk 自承風險 assumption of risk 自承風險 風險承擔（assumption of risk、自承風險）屬於英美侵權法中的一種抗辯，如果被告能夠證明原告自願且明知地承擔了他所處的危險活動中所受的損害之固有的風險，則法律就會限制或減少原告對過失侵權行為人(被告)的追償權（故意侵權沒有適用）。 Attending baseball games and other sporting events is a quintessential American pastime. However, it is not uncommon that an accident can result in the injury of a fan. 參加棒球賽及其他運動賽事在美國是典型的消遣。然而，球迷在球賽中被球擊中卻是普遍現象。 Hit by a foul ball:被界外球擊中 In July 2015, a fan attending a Brewers/Braves baseball game at Milwaukee’s Miller Park was struck in the face by a foul ball. The fan sustained near-fatal injuries that have resulted in over $200,000 in medical bills and will require lifelong care. In August 2016, another fan was struck by a line-drive at Miller Park. 2015年，一位球迷在密爾瓦基觀看釀酒人與勇士兩隊的大聯盟賽事被界外球擊中臉部。該名球迷遭受到幾近致命之傷害，進而支出超過20萬美元之醫療費用，同時需要終身醫療。2016年8月另一名球迷在同場地被平飛球擊中。 Unfortunately, Miller Park isn't alone when it comes to spectator injuries. A 2014 study by Bloomberg News found 1,750 fans per year were injured by foul balls at Major League games. In 2018, A woman died after being hit in the head with a foul ball at Dodgers Stadium, making her the first foul-ball fatality in nearly 50 years. Spectators of hockey and NASCAR are also at risk of potentially hazardous projectiles at games and races as well. But if you are injured by a foul ball or stray hockey puck that flies into the stands, who is responsible for your medical bills, or possible lost time at work? 當談到觀眾受傷，米勒棒球場（密爾瓦基釀酒人之主場）並不是唯一。2014年彭博新聞指出大聯盟賽事每年有1750名球迷被界外球擊中。2018年在道奇隊球場，一名婦人在被界外球擊中頭部後死亡，離之前首位被擊中身亡者將近50年。職業冰球的冰球及全國運動汽車競賽協會舉行的賽事裏的賽車在比賽中係極具淺在危險性之拋射體。假如你在觀眾席被界外球擊中或冰上曲棍球的冰球擊中，誰要負擔你的醫療費及工作能力之損失？ The answer, unfortunately, is you.很不幸，答案是你（亦即你自己要負擔醫療費用及所受的傷害、損害） “Assumed Risk” and your ticket:自承風險及你的賽票 Assumed risk falls into the category of liability that applies to the so-called “baseball rule,” that is implemented in both professional and amateur leagues. If you read the fine print on the back of your ticket to a sporting event, it usually outlines refund policies and rules regarding flash photography. This is also where you will find that statement of assumed risk, which is why the venue isn’t liable for your injuries. 「自承風險」落入適用所謂“棒球法則”責任歸屬之範疇，其在職業及業餘賽事都有適用。假如你閱讀你賽票背面小號字體印刷品，其通常會將補償方案及法則用以凸顯方式概略出來，你將會發現自承風險的聲明，這也是為何賽事場地對你所受之傷毋庸負責之理。 It is assumed, that when choosing to attend a sporting event, the spectator understands that flying objects may enter the seats. And it is the spectator’s responsibility to avoid them. 其已被自我承擔，當選擇觀看賽事時，觀眾意識到飛來物會進入觀眾席，同時觀眾有責任去迴避牠。 The exception:自承風險之例外： While most risks at sporting events are considered "inherent to the game," there are situations in which negligent circumstances would hold the stadium/venue liable for injuries. For example: 然而，在運動賽事裏大部分的風險被認為是“比賽中所固有的”，有些情況被認為是運動場/賽場對該傷害有過失，例如： If you were to fall due to a broken handrail or other forms of facility disrepair such as a damaged net or partition, one could find the ballpark negligent for improper maintenance of the grounds. 假如你摔倒係因扶手損壞或是其他設施維護失當，例如護網毀損或被劃開，會認為球場基於不當維護而有過失為由。 In other cases, dram shop laws (like “social host” law) can be applied if a patron is over-served alcohol by stadium concessions and causes an accident of some sort while intoxicated.在其他情形，適用酒類供應商責任法，假如球場攤商過度供酒予顧客，造成其酒醉時的一些意外。 Unfortunately for many, this baseball rule was adopted when the game was quite different. Things happen a lot faster on the field these days and the entertaining nature of the sport often creates more “sideshows” that distract fans from what is happening on the field. We are forced to assume a certain level of risk any time we attend a spectator sport. So even with nets and barriers to protect fans, the most you can do is to always be alert while watching a game.
'Resident Evil' Stunt Performer Drops Injury Lawsuit in L.A. 惡靈古堡的特技演員撤回在洛杉磯的訴訟 Its possible, however, that Olivia Jackson may pursue the case elsewhere. Attorneys for British stunt performer Olivia Jackson have dropped a Los Angeles-based lawsuit against the makers of Resident Evil: The Final Chapter. 英國特技演員奧利佛傑克森的律師撤回對“惡靈古堡：最終章”之製作公司在洛杉磯的訴訟。 The defendant argued in the motion to dismiss that Jackson's stunt performer contract specifically includes a provision requiring dispute resolution in South Africa. So it's possible that Jackson may pursue the case elsewhere. 被告爭執到該特技演員契約內容明確規定，本契約如發生爭議其訴訟管轄地為南非，因此該特技演員可能在他地另行起訴。 In September 2016, during the filming of Resident Evil: The Final Chapter, in Cape Town, South Africa, Jackson was badly injured during a stunt. While riding a motorcycle at a high speed, the 34-year-old veteran stunt performer collided with a crane-mounted camera that was traveling in the opposite direction. Her left arm was amputated above the elbow and she suffered lasting nerve damage and facial scarring. 2016年9月，在南非開普敦拍攝上開影片期間，34歲特技演員傑可森在為特技時受了很重的傷。事發時以高速騎著摩托車與反向行進之吊掛攝影機相撞。左手臂手肘以下截肢，同時受有持續性神經損害及面部傷疤。 Jackson’s initial U.S lawsuit, filed in September 2019 in Los Angeles, alleged that Resident Evil director Paul W. Anderson and his longtime producing partner, Jeremy Bolt, were responsible, and requested unspecified damages. 傑克遜最初於2019年9月在美國洛杉磯起訴，主張“惡靈古堡”導演Paul W. Anderson及其長期合作夥伴Jeremy Bolt要對其受傷負責，同時要求未定額的損害賠償金。 “The dismissal of the lawsuit included no settlement or payment of any kind,” said Joseph R. Taylor, an attorney with Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, the firm representing the defendants, which included director Anderson and producer Bolt, along with their respective production companies. “該訴訟無透過和解或給付任何金額而撤回，包括導演及製片和他們各自的製作公司” 代表被告的Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz律師事務所之 Joseph R. Taylor這樣說道。 Jackson’s attorneys didn’t respond to requests for comment. 傑克遜的律師對該上開陳述未做任何回應及評論。
若你是自己架網站從事交易的業者，不管你賣的是保養品、衣服或日常用品等等，請特別小心，因為在法律上你將可能被認定為是透過網路方式對消費者進行交易的零售業者，你與消費者間的交易條款，可不能隨便想怎麼寫就怎麼寫，必須符合法規，否則將有可能被主管機關裁罰，這邊提供兩步驟教你防踩雷： Step1 基本上，網站上的條款必須符合「零售業等網路交易定型化契約應記載及不得記載事項」(https://www.ey.gov.tw/…/cfed6708-23de-47a0-a828-0548d8004515)，裡面的應記載事項必須在網站上記入，不得記載事項則不能出現在網站上，故請先將上面應記載事項移入你的網站中。 Step2 「零售業等網路交易定型化契約應記載及不得記載事項」是法定範本，當然不能完全照抄，所以移入網站後，請在法定的架構下逐一審閱每筆條款，依照自己經營的實際需求做調整。 舉個常見的問題，法定的範本是規定必須要記載消費者有權七天鑑賞期內退貨。看到這邊，一定很多店家想問，我賣的商品都客製化(例如西裝訂做)，或是屬於個人衛生用品(例如刮鬍刀)，這樣如果可以七天內退貨，我還怎麼做生意？！所以，在這種情況下，其實另外有「通訊交易解除權合理例外情事適用準則」這樣的法規去規定不適用七天鑑賞期的情形，所以範本請不要一字不漏的照抄，一定要在法定架構下依照實際需求做調整，才不會衍生額外消費糾紛，如果有問題請洽律師尋求協助。