1. Before boarding an El Al Israel Airlines flight from New York to Tel Aviv, Tseng, a passenger, was physically subjected to an intrusive security search. Although not injured bodily, Tseng sued El Al for damages, asserting, among other charges, assault and false imprisonment. A federal court dismissed the case on the basis of the Warsaw Convention, a treaty that precludes a passenger from maintaining an action for damages resulting from personal injury when the claim does not satisfy certain conditions for liability. The Convention expressly does not “permit recovery for psychic or psychosomatic injury.” Will Tseng be successful in her suit?
2. Johnson, a passionate bicyclist, wanted to go into the business of manufacturing high- quality bicycles. He found that both labor and component parts were quite inexpensive in Taiwan. Even adding the shipping charges to the United States, it was economically advantageous to assemble the bicycles in Taiwan. He chose the name “Winner’s Choice” and a logo that he registered with the Taiwan government. Business boomed, but his success was his downfall when his bicycles caught the attention of an American corporation that manufactured motorcycles and had previously registered the same trademark in the United States. The American firm brought suit against Johnson contending that he violated the Lanham Act, which regulates trademarks. Johnson maintained that his was a foreign company and therefore not subject to U. S. trademark laws. Is Johnson correct in his defense?
3. Yikes, a U. S.- based manufacturer of shoes, had plants in several countries in Southeast Asia and enjoyed considerable success in world markets as a result of a number of factors, including its excellent products, low prices, efficient production, low labor costs, and widespread consumer product acceptance. In the midst of its success, a grassroots group took exception to the corporation’s policies, particularly the firm’s labor policies, which the grassroots group referred to as “sweatshop” conditions. The grassroots group set up a website on which numerous disparaging criticisms and a call for a worldwide boycott of Yikes’s products were disseminated. In the opinion of Yikes management, the criticisms were without merit; yet the unfavorable publicity that would surely result from a defamation suit against the grassroots organization did not seem to offer much encouragement either. The mass media joined the fray, and Yikes became increasingly defensive. The company mounted a public relations campaign to defend its practices. What would be a recommended course of action for Yikes?