Problem 1: Erica and her family had brewed beer for years and, through a process of trial and error, had come up with a number of unique recipes. As part of the contract with MBB, Erica was to work with MBB's brewers to market a new light beer. Erica provided MBB's brewers with the recipe for "Molly's Great Draft"; a recipe originally created by her Aunt Molly. Erica devised a marketing campaign around the new beer, naming the beer "Mickey's" and promoting the beer as "Mickey's Great Draft" and as "MGD". Shortly after the launch of the campaign, MBB was served with two lawsuits: (i) Aunt Molly claims that she has patent rights to the formula for "Molly's Great Draft" and sues for an accounting for all profits; (ii) Miller Brewing Company claims that the use of the name "Mickey's" and "Mickey's Great Draft" infringe upon its trademark registration and brand names "Mickey's", "Mickey's Fine Malt Liquor" and "Miller Genuine Draft". It further claims the initials "MGD" are a recognized nickname of their beer and that the use of all of the names infringes its intellectual property rights. MBB claims that its beer tastes significantly different from Miller Brewing Company's beer and that its marketing colours and logo are also significantly different.
Required: Examine the legal principles and issues that will be considered as part of the lawsuits and the likely result. Could MBB have avoided the problem by marketing the product as "Molly's Great Draft"? Would Aunt Molly's consent be required?
Problem 2: Judith, a 65 year old grandmother had been a legal secretary with the largest law firm in St. Catharines for 35 years. As a result of her competence, hard work and sunny disposition she had earned the position of executive assistant to one of the firm's senior partners. Judith was paid an annual salary of $65,000.00. On December 22nd last year, after a pleasant exchange of "good mornings" Judith's boss requested that she get him a cup of coffee and bring coffee to the clients in the boardroom. "Not likely" said Judith, "It's not in my job description". Judith was immediately fired. She was escorted out of the office by three security guards and left on the street. Her request to use a telephone to call a taxi was rejected. Judith commenced an action for unjust dismissal. In addition, she has requested $100,000.00 in damages for the humiliation which she suffered. At the trial one of the other legal assistants testified that Judith had taken home office supplies which she had given to her grandchildren to complete their school work. As well, she had typed and photocopied their assignments during working hours. Finally, it was claimed that Judith would regularly leave early (15-20 minutes) when her boss was out of the office. Judith acknowledged that this was all true, although she stated that she had left early on a "few" occasions and not "regularly". She also testified that she had been unable to obtain similar employment (although a friend had offered her a retail clerking job at $45,000.00 per year).
Required: Provide the judgment which would be rendered in this case with particular reference to the positions advanced by each of the parties. If Judith is successful, what damages would she receive? Be certain to include an explanation of the applicable legal principles