May 10, 2013
Tanya J. Monestier (Roger Williams University School of Law) has published “(Still) a ‘Real and Substantial’ Mess: The Law of Jurisdiction in Canada”, Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 36, p. 397, 2013/Roger Williams Univ. Legal Studies Paper No. 136. The abstract reads:
In April 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada released the most important decision on personal jurisdiction in over twenty years. The Van Breda decision was intended to clarify, once and for all, the application of the “real and substantial connection” test to ex juris defendants. The Supreme Court in Van Breda adopted an approach to the real and substantial connection test that relied on the plaintiff fitting himself within one of four presumptive factors in order to establish jurisdiction: (a) The defendant is domiciled or resident in the province; (b) The defendant carries on business in the province; (c) The tort was committed in the province; (d) A contract connected with the dispute was made in the province. The Court also left open the possibility of creating additional presumptive factors in the future. The presumptive factors approach was intended to re-orient the jurisdictional test toward objective factual connections between the forum and the cause of action and to establish a simple and predictable framework for courts to use in making jurisdictional determinations. In this Article, I comprehensively examine the new presumptive factors approach to jurisdiction adopted by the Supreme Court in Van Breda with a view to exposing its shortcomings. I argue that this approach to jurisdiction – while simple and predictable on its face – will actually complicate jurisdictional determinations for the foreseeable future. Litigants will try to find creative ways to fit themselves within one of these four factors. And courts will spend years unpacking and defining the contours of the four presumptive factors. I also argue that the Court in Van Breda failed to provide meaningful guidance on how all pieces of the jurisdictional puzzle fit together. Among the outstanding questions: How does the real and substantial connection test work in non-tort cases? How do the traditional jurisdictional bases of consent and presence fit into the jurisdictional mix? Can the forum of necessity doctrine be reconciled with the real and substantial connection test? How does the test apply to the enforcement of foreign judgments? The Court simply left these hard questions until later. In short, while the Court in Van Breda was on the right track, it got derailed – which may ultimately mean another twenty years until the outstanding jurisdictional issues are sorted out.
Download a copy of the article at SSRN here.
May 3, 2013
Howard M. Erichson (Fordham University School of Law) has posted “The Chevron-Ecuador Dispute, Forum Non Conveniens, and the Problem of Ex Ante Inadequacy”, Fordham Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2245889. Here’s the abstract:
This essay, written for the 2013 Stanford Journal of Complex Litigation symposium on lessons from the Chevron-Ecuador environmental litigation, urges that we not take the wrong lesson concerning the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The paper highlights the irony of the forum battles in the litigation. The plaintiffs sued in the United States, the defendants won dismissal on grounds of forum non conveniens (arguing that the dispute should be adjudicated by the courts of Ecuador), the plaintiffs obtained a massive judgment in Ecuador, and the defendants challenged the judgment on grounds of fraud and corruption in the Ecuadorian proceedings. Despite the temptation to see the Chevron-Ecuador litigation as a cautionary tale about forum non conveniens, this essay argues that the “adequate alternative forum” standard for forum non conveniens should remain exceedingly low. Ex ante, deference to foreign legal systems should prevail, even as we permit ex post challenges to recognition of judgments on grounds of fraud and corruption.
Download a copy of the paper at SSRN here.
May 3, 2013
Daniel J. Gervais (Vanderbilt University – Law School), Martin L. Holmes (Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein L.L.P.), Paul W. Kruse (Bone McAllester Norton PLLC), Glenn Perdue (Kraft Analytics, LLC) and Caprice L. Roberts (Savannah Law School) have published “Is Profiting from the Online Use of Another’s Property Unjust? The Use of Brand Names as Paid Search Keywords”, IDEA: The IP Law Review, Vol. 53, p. 131, 2013. The abstract reads:
This article begins with a basic question: Is Google’s profiting from the use of another’s brand in its AdWords program unjust? Answering that question will profoundly affect the online economy. Indeed, many services, including most of those offered by Google, are funded by advertising revenue, a large portion of which comes from the sale of third-party brand names. Academic articles and court opinions thus far have applied trademark law when evaluating liability. The consensus view, including the Fourth Circuit’s recent Rosetta Stone opinion, finds no infringement by Google — third-party purchasers of AdWords may be liable for dilution or infringement claims — even though Google profits from every sale while brand owners often suffer a prejudice from the sale and use of their brand name. If one agrees that this misuse is a wrong that must be remedied, are there other avenues to explore beyond the strictures of trademark law? The law usually takes a dim view of one who uses a third party’s property without authorization and yet in the case of AdWords, it has not — at least not up to now.
This inconsistency arises from a failure to reach beyond the limits of trademark law in search of a remedy. After evaluating several legal and equitable bases for a remedy and surveying the preemption question as it interfaces with trademark law, the authors advance unjust enrichment as the best legal basis of liability and remedy for the unauthorized, profitable and therefore wrongful use of another’s property. Such a remedy would impose reasonable limits on the use of brand names in AdWords.
A copy of the paper is available for download via SSRN here.
May 3, 2013
Krishnee Adnarain Appadoo (University College London; The College of Law of England and Wales; Universite Paul Cezanne Aix Marseille III) has posted a working paper entitled: “Enforcement of International Commercial Arbitral Awards: Redress Mechanisms in the Event of Non-Compliance”. Here is the abstract:
International commercial arbitration and its efficiency not only depend on the recognition and enforceability of foreign arbitral awards, but also rest on a willingness by national jurisdictions to minimize the scope for challenging the validity of a duly rendered award. The author will perform an evaluation into the effectiveness of the redress mechanisms available for a party seeking to enforce a foreign arbitral award against an award-debtor seeking to challenge such an award. Furthermore, there needs to be an assessment of the role of international conventions, especially the Model Law and the New York Convention, in determining whether international comity favours enforcement or not. As to the multiplicities of legal systems as well as the problems of interpretation of the provisions of the New York Convention, it has to be determined whether national courts are best placed to solve the complexities inherent in international commercial arbitration. The author argues that to understand the multifarious aims of international commercial arbitration, there is the need to evaluate the interplay of relationships between the enforcing court and the arbitral tribunal; the supervisory courts at the seat of arbitration and the arbitral tribunal, and finally the enforcing court and the supervisory courts at the seat of arbitration. It is argued that whatever the priorities of national courts in their policy with respect to international commercial arbitration, what is sought is not merely a pro-enforcement stance, but rather a willingness to comply with one of the fundamental principles of the New York Convention which is to harmonize the enforcement and recognition of duly made foreign arbitral awards.
Download a copy of the paper at SSRN here.
April 25, 2013
The following are links to my Notice of Intended Action against the owners of the Twitter accounts:
1. Notice of Intended Action – Final.
2. Notice of Intended Action – Final.Russian translation *
* Apologies for the rough Russian translation using Google Translate.