Sample Law Case Studies On Zazu Hair Designs (ZHD)

Homework Question on Zazu Hair Designs (ZHD)

Zazu Designs v. L’Oreal (7th Cir., 1992)–Zazu Hair Designs (ZHD), a hair salon in Illinois, registered ZAZU in 1980 as a trade name. In 1986, L’Oreal wanted to use the name ZAZU for a new line of hair cosmetics. It discovered the ZAZU registration in Illinois. L’Oreal asked ZAZU asked if they were selling hair cosmetics, but was told that there were no ZAZU products. Later, ZHD began to sell shampoo from its shop under the name ZAZU. ZHD sued L’Oreal for trademark infringement. District court awarded ZHD $100,000 in lost profits, $1 million for corrective advertising to restore the ZAZU name and $1 million punitives. L’Oreal appealed. What was the outcome?

Homework Answer on Zazu Hair Designs (ZHD)

This case was an appeal by L’Oreal from a previous court case. The judges of the court after careful and independent look at the lower court order decided to set aside the unfair and excessive judgment. The court of appeal started hearing the matter and it arrived at its decision as stated elaborately in its decision.

It was the opinion of the court that ZHD has not shown proof of any track record or any sales it carried out before the appellant had caused any injury to its total sales or any at all, the fact that it was even entitled to the attorney fees put at more $2.1 million. Judgment in favor of ZHD by the first instance court to cover the profits lost as a result of L’Oreal’s alleged actions was not in laws. The lower court erred by disregarding the lack of proof on the huge award of damages to the respondent and that that was brought by the appellant himself.

Homework Help

Appeal judges held that the $100,000 and $1000, 000 awarded was arbitrary and was not supported by any law. The amounts arrived at were not supported by any percentage and was based on wrong calculations to arrive at damages and therefore arbitrary. The court’s decision looks like it was meant to punish the appellant. The judge also states L’Oreal conduct as being willful, this is a total misunderstanding of the district judge to the term and seems to have seen the term similar to doing it intentionally or knowingly.