Monsato co vs caramandal indag products ltd

In this petition, the corporation had a complain that the company by the name Coramandal Indag product limited which they claimed that had not obeyed two patents that they had signed. Issue the issue in this case involved a claim by Monsanto whereby it argued that Caramandal has infringed rights of the two patents that Monsanto had patented in February the year 1979. The patent in this case was given the name “Butachlor” but sources indicated that there was no actual violation that had took place. Monsanto in return took the responsibility of getting samples from the Caramandal and conducted an examination on them to determine whether the allegation was true. To their surprise, every compound that was found in their products were similar to those found in the complainant company.

Reasoning: The court reasoning in this argued that from the start to the end of the case there was no single secret or intention made by the plaintiff. It was also found out that the type of ingredients that are active in nature and also the used emulsifier and solvent were well known. The court also found that the used plaintiffs were just camouflaging substances that was well known worldwide and which the complainant had just enfolded its specifications to relate with the patent number in context. Therefore the patent in this case was found to be liable for revoking. The appeal was thus dismissed at all costs by the judges. The opinion was given by Kennedy, Circuit Judge. The complainants were seeking to cancel their contracts of investment, under the securities law of Ohio.

It was heard and in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Facts: 1. The Society of Lloyd’s as a corporation it does not offer insurance services but offers services and facilities needed by individual underwriters who will join forces to underwrite particular business types. Complainants argue that the clause cannot be enforced because when combined with the clause of law choice it denies investors their rights under the securities law of Ohio. Holding: the court in response rejected the contention of the complainants because it came to realization that there existed enough remedies by the English court and that there was nothing that the English court said was biased or unfair. Further, the clauses for the selection of forums applied by the accused did not deny the complainants of their said rights.

Accordingly, the order of the District Court granting the defendants’ order to dismiss is affirmed. Case 2-5 The M/V Saiga case The above case was handled back in the year 1997 whereby the international tribunal was tasked with the duty of delivering their judgement on a case that involved the ship by the name Mv/saiga. Additionally, the tribunal found out that article 92, and 94 could also not be in a position of providing a genuine answer to the case of MV/Saiga during the judgment especially on the Issue of genuine link. The tribunal further argued that during the determination of the case by the court, only the statement of the 1958 convention was followed but that of provision of genuine link in the judgement wasn’t followed thus citing an error during the determination of the case.

Reasoning: In my opinion about the above mentioned case, I concur with the opinion of the tribunal that genuine link existence which binds the flag nationality and the ship itself is very essential since it provides a conducive environment for the implementation and interpretation of the duties and the responsibilities that should be carried out by the flag state. However, I do not belief that the role of the genuine link being that of setting up a criterion that acts as reference on how to determine the validity of the ship registration details and that may be challenged by other nationality states. Libyan Arab Foreign Bank vs. In terms of reasoning, the case ended up with the court giving verdict that favored the Libyan Arab Foreign Bank and the banker’s Trust company was required to pay $292 million.

The money had been frozen to following the order of the president in the year 1986. In concurring opinion with court I belief that the judgment that was given by this court was the right judgement because the Bankers trust had no any legal authority of freezing the above said amount of money because there was an agreement that had been signed by the Bankers trust company the plaintiff. This is an indication that the Libyan Arab Foreign bank had the right to be refunded back the money deposited to the Bankers trust company according to their agreement. However, the Bankers trust bank was also entitled to a right of seeking permission before releasing the above said money form the US authorities before paying the already freeze money.

Also all the specific obligations for article 2 are provided in the Article 1 of the WTO. Issues: In this case, the issues to be decided were whether the issue the disputed products had notable similarities and differences. Another issue that was to be determined in this case was whether the sued country which in this case is Japan had indeed violated the principle of national treatment which prohibits the discrimination of tax against all the imported products while at the same time favoring domestic products. This is achieved by escalating the tax on imports. Holding: According to the bench`s ultimatum rule, the holding is that vodka and Shochu were similar products and thus Japan had violated national principle because it had imposed higher taxes on vodka which competes with their domestic product Sochu.