The Bridge Case Study
EL PASO CORPORATION,
TO THE MANAGER,
PILOT HOUSE PRODUCTS CORP.
Dear Reno Carbon,
The El Paso Corporation, the lawfully registered owner of the Bridge Program, could like to draw your attention to a breach of copyright by duplication of our products through your Crossroads program that ideally resembles ours. It is acknowledgeable that your products are different from design, but important to note is the structure of your program, which violates the ownership of patents and is punishable by law. Given that, our company has the copyright that prohibits selling, copying, reselling, and creation of derivative works, your company is guilty of copying our ideas in the creation of your products. Since our program currently deals with books and videos, the copyright is open to other products of which your company has already taken over and uses the same ideas as witnessed from your website. There is much evidence to support the claims since the comments and search engine results show clearly the confusion brought about by your products.
In order to avoid legal charges against you for Intellectual Property Ownership Rights, the company in this place demands that you desist from manufacturing products that use the same ideology. This is because the use of the same idea has brought confusion to consumers as witnessed by their comments online by that giving your company unfair advantage in competition. Further, your company has an obligation of stopping the same or risk losing money in compensation and ruins your reputation as an individual and company.
This serves as a notice for you to accept liability and desist from the same or face legal action and compensation for damages in a bid to protect our rights.
El Paso Corp.
The letter to Mr. Reno Carbon, the owner of P-House Products Corp. serves as a warning and a revelation to their activities that are illegal by law. Given that the company is aware of the existence of our products and that we already have a copyright to the same, the manager is likely to avoid court battles. This is because they are not aware of the limit of our copyright and arguably, there is no limit as to what El Paso can produce under the Bridge Program. Having gained initial knowledge about the owner as an individual who is straightforward and fears court battles, the letter is likely to persuade him to believe that our claims are valid and legal.
In aIDition, by quoting the copyright infringement penalties that could destroy the companys reputation, Mr. Reno will have to oblige with the demands fronted by El Paso. The presence of online comments from customers gives us an upper hand in the court of law for a defense. The online comments clearly show the confusion brought about by the presence of Crossroads products, which serves as evidence for the case. In aIDition, the presence of results from the Search Engine makes the case more concrete and valid to prosecute the company for violation of ideas that are part of a copyright. In order for P-House Corp. to file a case against El Paso, it will have to show ownership and originality of their ideas. The company cannot claim to be the original owners of the idea given that El Paso started long ago before its inception on the same idea and had a copyright. Ideally, El Paso remains the legal owner of the idea. Thus, it will be difficult for P-House to counter the strategy fronted against them.