Property
I. Acquisition of Property
B. Acquisition by Capture
Pierson v. Post
Rule: Mere pursuit doest not constitute occupancy and occupancy must be acquired in wild animals.
Ghen v. Rich
Rule: Custom can give possession if previously established.
Notes
Policy issues to protect against fraud and deceit
Application of the Statute of Limitations
Keeble v. Hickeringill
Rule: Interference during pursuit is only acceptable if the interferer wants to capture the animal.
Fugitive Resources
Such as Oil and gas are analogous to wild animals, which might wander from a space under A’s land to a space under B’s land. The most persuasive reason for applying the rule of capture to oil and gas, however, is that it gives an incentive to produce oil and gas.
No negligent capture required. Limitations also required conserving resources.
C. Acquisition by Creation
General Rule
A person can quire property by creating it, but there are a number of difficulties in defining creation. Primary Purpose is to reward labor.
1. Copy Cat
International News Service v. Associated Press (Unfair competition)
Rule: News agency has a quasi-property interest in news it has gathered and can prohibit competitors from disseminating the news until its commercial value as news has passed away.
Cheney Brothers v. Doris Silk Corporation
Rule: man’s property is limited to the chattels (movable or transferable property) which embody his invention, and others may imitate these at their pleasure.
Policy Concerns:
We want to encourage innovation and the people who come up with these ideas.
Encourage competition.
Ways to protect Creation
1. Patents- limited time period (20 years); non renewable; once expired, can be used by anyone
2. Copyrights- protects expression of ideas
3. Trademarks-words and symbols indicate the source of a product or service; aid businesses in advertising, reputation, etc
2. Cyberspace
Virtual Works, Inc. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.
Rule: In order to violate the ACPA, you must prove the elements of the statute.
Notes
ACPA U.S.C. §1125(d) (A)
A person alleged to be a cyber squatter is liable to the owner of a protected mark if that person:
(I) has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark; and
(ii) registers traffics in, or uses a domain name that…
(a) In the case of a mark that is distinctive.. is identical or confusingly similar to that mark;
(b) In the case of a famous mark.. is identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of that mark
Types of Internet Violators
Cyber squatters- buy domains and try to sell off for a lot of money to the famous trademarks
Parasites- defame registered marks such as whitehouse.org
Poachers-register names that use other organizations to disseminate unfav
Establishment of Conversion
The court says that “to establish conversion, plaintiff must establish an actual interference with his ownership or right of possession”
Bundle of Rights Notion in Property
Important part of property for lawyers is the rights associated with the property not the property so much itself. Property ownership is not absolute, it is really just a collection of how you use the rights. It is all relative.
The analogy that the collection of rights associated with a land parcel can be likened to a bundle of sticks: very often separate “sticks” of the bundle are held by different people; “sticks” can be acquired in different ways and held for different periods.
Note: The right to include, the right to exclude
Cohen’s notion of property allows owners to include (permit) or exclude (deny) use or possession of the owned property by other people
Free transferability
Law of trespass (p.36, note 1)- protects the right to exclude, but then so too does the law of conversion at issue
Conversion developed in part as a substitute for the old action of trespass on the chattels
