Case Brief

Lizzy Lips v. Baby Bites

Lizzy Lips is a Florida corporation with headquarters in Florida. Lizzy Lips is

a very well known popular trademarked brand that specializes in selling neon

lipstick in brick and mortar stores in Florida, as well as around the United States

Baby Bites is a resident in the state of Alaska. Baby owns a shopping center

as well as a boutique store in that shopping center in Alaska that sells cosmetics. In

this boutique store, Baby sells both authentic and non-authentic products. Included

in Baby's products for sale in her boutique and online are counterfeit Neon lipsticks

that bear the Lizzy Lips trademark, but which are not authentic Lizzy Lips product.

Lizzy Lips was on Instagram one day in 2019 and noticed under the hashtag

#neonlips that Baby Bites was selling counterfeit lipstick bearing the Lizzy Lips

trademark, including to Alaska and Texas. Lizzy Lips decided to see for herself if

Baby Bites was selling counterfeit products, and called up Baby's store in Alaska and

purchased both the neon orange and neon green "Lizzy Lips" lipstick from Baby

Bites, to be delivered in to her in Florida Fake Lizzy Lips neon orange, but authentic

neon green lipstick was delivered to her in Florida. Lizzy Lips filed a lawsuit against

Baby Bites in federal court in Florida, in the US District Court for the Northern

District of Florida, alleging Baby Bites committed trademark infringement. Baby

Bites moved to dismiss the lawsuit, saying that the Court did not have federal court

jurisdiction over Baby Bites.

The Due Process Clause of the Constitution allows Florida courts to exercise

jurisdiction on out of state defendants. Under the Due Process Clause, federal courts

can exercise jurisdiction over a defendant where "minimum contacts" in the forum

state occur. Such minimum contacts can be proven by applying the following 3-part

test: (1) the non resident defendant must do some act or commit a transaction

within the forum state, or perform an act by which they purposefully avail

themselves to the privileges of the forum state; (2) the claim must arise out of or

result from the defendant's forum-related activities; (3) exercising jurisdiction is

reasonable. To commit purposeful availment, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the

defendant engaged in conduct that either promoted or allowed the transaction of

business within the forum state.

Lizzy Lips has the following evidence that she provided to the court: Baby

Bites sold both genuine and counterfeit Lizzy Lips lipstick in its boutique store in

Alaska, but also shipped outside of Alaska. Baby Bites argued that the counterfeit

product was not even her best seller, and that Lizzy Lips products did not do that

well in general in her store. Baby said that the counterfeit lipstick netted her less

than $200 a year on average. Lizzy Lips countered that all over Instagram she could

see "thousands" of people using counterfeit Lizzy Lips neon lipstick, and she blamed

Baby Bites for this. Baby Bites moves to try to dismiss Lizzy Lips' lawsuit saying that she is a resident of Alaska who only sells goods out of a store in Alaska, so a

Florida court has no jurisdiction.

The US District Court for the Northern District of Florida takes the above

facts under submission to evaluate whether to grant Baby Bites' request to dismiss

the lawsuit due to the court lacking jurisdiction over Baby Bites. The judges of the

US District Court are you the students in the Business Law Class.

Using the above case, prepare

a Modified Case Brief (different from regular case brief as it requires your

personal perspective, see instructions and sample below), similar in structure

to the sample case brief of Bad Frog Brewery and rubric in the two pages

following, including headers, identifying Facts, Issue, Rule, Application, and

Conclusion. However, in addition to identifying and listing the Facts, Issue and

Rule, for own original Application of the facts applying the

law to the facts, and you are also to come up with your own original

Conclusion, meaning how would you rule on the Issue you identified?

Modified Case Briefs Description

Understanding case law is essential to success in any law related class. Consequently,

students will provide an analysis of three assigned cases to help their development and

understanding of the legal issues presented. These case analyses, better known as 'case

briefs,' will help students develop legal issues spotting techniques and provide an

overview of how law applies to specific fact patterns.

The case briefs should be written in the following format:

1. Facts: The facts briefly indicate (1) the reasons for the lawsuit, (2) the identity

and arguments of the parties, and (3) the lower court's decision (if applicable).

2. Issue: The issue is the question before the court. The issue must be phrased as a

question. Cases often have more the one issue (i.e., the court answers more than

one question). If so, those questions should be listed here in chronological order.

3. Rule: The rule is simply the law the court uses to answer the question presented

in the issue.

4. Application: This section requires you the student to apply the rule to the facts to

answer the question presented in the issue. In brief, the application provides the

reason(s) for your decision on the Issue identified. This part should be the longest

as you are applying the facts to the law.

5. Conclusion: Your decision on how to the resolve the Issue identified, after your

application of the law to the facts

Modified Case Brief Sample * * *

Bad Frog Brewery, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority (1998) (p. 81),

(with Application and Conclusion modified to author's own personal views on how

the author would rule if they were the judge.)

FACTS Bad Frog Brewery wants the NYSLA to approve an application to

allow BFB to sell its alcoholic beverages in New York. The NYSLA

denied BFB's application in part because of the label of a frog

"giving the finger," as NYSLA didn't want to allow such beverages

to be in grocery stores exposing children to such graphic labels.

BFB filed lawsuit in federal district court challenging NYSLA's

ruling, and the federal court sided with NYSLA. BFB is appealing

the federal district court's ruling to the US Court of Appeals, 2nd

Circuit. BFB argues that NYSLA's denial of BFB's application in

protection of children is overly isolated as it applies to labels on a

product children can't even purchase, and there are less restrictive

alternatives to advancing the same state interest of protecting

children from vulgarity.

ISSUE Was the NYSLA's denial of BFB's application for a liquor license

proper? Was the federal district court's ruling supporting the

NYSLA denial proper?

RULE "A state must demonstrate that its commercial speech limitation is

part of a substantial effort to advance a valid state interest, not

merely the removal of a few grains of offensive sand from a breach

of vulgarity."

APPLICATION If I were a judge in this case, I would apply the law to the facts as

follows: the state of New York, through the NYSLA, is trying to

advance a state interest of "preventing exposure of children to

vulgar displays," by banning the sale of BFB's alcohol with the label

of a frog giving the middle finger. While I do see that there is a

valid state interest of protecting children from vulgarity, the denial

of BFB's use of such labels was "excessive," for a few reasons,

including that many of the BFB bottles would be sold in in bars and

taverns where minors will not frequent, and if they do enter, they

will enter with parental supervision. As far as more common areas

like grocery stores, I think less intrusive actions can be taken, such

as restricting areas within the grocery store, including the liquor

area, to people adult age only.

CONCLUSION Based on the above, I would choose to side with BFB, and return

the case to the lower court, since NYSLA did not adequately

consider less restrictive alternatives to the ban, which I think was

excessive.