Sample questions - 1. Bob designs a rocking chair that is very different in shape than any other rocking chair on the market. Can he get a patent on the design? a. Yes. Anytime a person creates something different they can get a patent. b. Yes. Patents are available to anyone willing to pay for them. c. No. The chair, while different, is not novel and cannot receive a patent. d. No. Individuals cannot receive a patent, only companies. 2. Ida writes a book about healthy foods for kids and how to sneak them into kids' meals so they would eat them. The book was published and copyrighted. Shortly thereafter, Jerry writes a book about pureeing veggies and putting them in kid-friendly foods, like mac and cheese. Ida sues Jerry for copyright infringement. Did Jerry violate Ida's copyright? a. Yes. Jerry wrote a book about the same subject with a similar theme to Ida's book. Since that idea belonged to Ida, the copyright protected her. b. Yes. Once Ida wrote a book on the subject of healthy food for children, no one else could write a book on the same subject. c. No. Jerry is protected by the fair use doctrine. d. No. Ida cannot copyright an idea. 3. Which of the following would be an improper trademark? a. "Promise" furniture polish. It is too similar to "Pledge", already trademarked for a similar product. b. "Kleenex" because it is the ordinary name for the product. c. "Blue Diamond Nuts" because these words describe the product. d. Corning's "pink" insulation because you can't trademark a color. 4. Rose owned a cottage, which she abandoned on her death in 1962. The next year Beacon Inclines bought all rights to the resort town in which the deserted cottage was located. In 1963, Rose's son, Rob, began using the cottage for one month each year. He continued this practice from 1963 to 1988, paying the taxes, carrying insurance, installing utilities and even posting "no trespassing" signs. Beacon sought to evict him in 1988. Can Beacon succeed? a. Yes. They purchased the property in 1963 and own it. b. Yes. Rob did not possess the property continuously from 1963 to 1988 and has no adverse possession claim. c. No. Rob has obtained the property by adverse possession. d. No. Adverse possession is no longer a recognized legal doctrine. 5. The City of Bedford Falls was promoting economic development along the river. As part of the plan, the City sought to take Ma Bailey's boarding-house. Ma Bailey objected saying that economic development was not a basis to take her property. Can Bedford Falls force Ma Bailey to sell her boarding-house so new development can occur on the river? a. Yes. The government can take any property for any reason under the power of eminent domain. b. Yes. Economic development is a legitimate public purpose to support the exercise of the city's eminent domain power. c. No. The city cannot take private property for use by another private party. d. No. Private property is immune from any governmental interference. 6. Henry Higgins had two wood burning stoves in his house. Each rested on, but was not attached to, a built-in brick platform. One stove was connected to the house's heating system. The other was decorative. Higgins sold the house to Eliza Doolittle without mention of either stove. Which, if either or both, of the stoves is Doolittle entitled to keep? a. Neither. Since the sale was silent, Higgins still owns both stoves. b. Both. When real property is sold, the sale includes everything on the property. c. The stove attached to the heating system. This stove is a fixture. d. The decorative stove. It is sitting on a brick platform which is a fixture and becomes part of that fixture. 7. On her way home from work, Susan finds a piece of gold jewelry that looked like precious stones to her. She took it to a jeweler to have it appraised. While pretending to weigh the jewelry, the jeweler removed several of the stones. Susan sues the jeweler to recover the stones. Who wins? a. The jeweler. Susan has recovered mislaid property and has no ownership interest in it, and therefore no right to recover because of ifs loss. b. The jeweler. Regardless of how Susan found the property or the nature of the property, she can never become its true owner. c. Susan. Once Susan found the property, regardless of the nature of the property, she became the full and rightful owner of the property. d. Susan. The property here is lost property, and as its finder Susan is entitled to ownership as against the rest of the world, except the true owner. 8. Harold takes his girlfriend Greta out to dinner to an expensive restaurant. Greta checks her coat at the door of the restaurant. In the pocket of the coat is a diamond necklace worth $50,000.00. When Greta's coat is returned to her, the diamond necklace is gone. Greta sues the restaurant alleging that they had failed to exercise the proper degree of care as the bailee of the necklace. Who wins? a. The restaurant. Because Greta was not charged for checking her coat, this is a bailment solely for the benefit of the bailor and the restaurant owes Greta no duty of care. b. The restaurant. No bailment was created here. The restaurant did not take control of the necklace knowingly and therefore is not responsible for it. c. Greta. This is a simple bailment and the restaurant owes Greta at least a minimal degree of care in handling her belongings. d. Greta. Since the necklace was apparently taken by an employee of the restaurant, the restaurant negligently entrusted 'Greta's property to that employee. 9. King Kola creates a new soft drink that tastes extremely similar to Pepsi Cola. There is no evidence to suggest that King Kola received any information from anyone about Pepsi's "secret formula". Pepsi seeks to prevent the new drink from being marketed. Who wins? a. Pepsi. The taste of Pepsi is protected by the patent laws. b. Pepsi. If King Kola has used their "secret formula", even by accident, that use violates the law regarding trade secrets. c. King Kola. So long as King Kola has not been improperly provided or has not improperly obtained Pepsi's "secret formula", Pepsi's trade secret has not been violated. d. King Kola. Trade secrets are not protected by law