The document provides guidelines for formatting a case analysis, including required sections such as an introduction, case brief, discussion of background/facts, issues/answers, implications of the case, personal opinion, and bibliography. It also lists evaluation criteria such as thorough research, logical analysis, proper formatting, and minimum sources required. The sample case analysis examines issues that could arise from an entrepreneur creating websites about politicians, including infringement of copyright, right of publicity, and defamation. It analyzes similar past court cases that could set precedents in this situation.

1. Case Analysis Content Format:
The case analysis must include the following content:
Introduction: 1-2 paragraph introduction of the case analysis.
What are we doing:Analyzing the problems between the parties
which is a bone of contention and needs to be fixed: If there is
more than one problem, slice it up into the individual specific
set of problems: this makes it easier and keeps you from
missing major things. This is to be general in nature: the
specifics should be in the brief.
X vs a,b,c claims, defenses, etc
D vs e,f,g, claims, defenses, etc
G vs l,m,n, claims, defenses, etc.
Or
X vs a,b,c claims, pro & cons, etc.
Etc.
Case Brief: A complete case brief of the case to be analyzed,
using the Case Brief format described in conference area, text
A-1 listing the issues to be answered.
What are we doing:
Case Background: this is like we did for the brief Discussion of
background of case,
The facts needed to understand the circumstances of each of the
parties in each scenario. The questions for which a court would
need to know to answer the issues or questions before it. An
example may be, not necessarily the case. Is there a contract
between a & b if so, why or why not, if not why or why not,
what may you be requesting the court to do.
Case brief
Facts
Issues What answers are you seeking for the court to answer:
Answer: what you believe the courts' answer will be.
Reasoning why: what concepts the court will use to make their
decision. Check out as you did before in text on A-1 as to
format. You most likely will have several issues per scenario.

2. Case Background: and analysis of the case: taking the issues
you have listed, include the discussion of previously decided
related cases using the actual court opinions of other legal
cases, law review journal articles, and other legal publication,
articles as resources. This should discuss the court opinions of
the legal cases to argue the pros and cons to your arguments in
support of the issues, and defenses to the problems you have
pointed out in your brief scenarios, ie an extensive analysis of
applicable court cases related to this area of law and how it
applies to the facts in this case.. This should lead you to an
answer to your questions, issues, on what the court should do
with these problems, based upon your cases. The best way to do
this is to argue how the facts in this case, that you have
researched is similar to the ones we now have before us and
therefore the court should make a decision based upon those
similarities you have listed .
Analysis of Current Implications of Case: Discussion of how
this case decision is likely to affect current events and business
law, using the actual court opinions of other legal cases, law
review journal articles and legal publications as resources, what
should one do to protect themselves both pro and con.
Analysis of Future Implications of Case: Discussion of how
case decision is likely to affect/influence future business law
and future court cases, using actual court opinions of other legal
cases, law review journal articles and legal publications as
resources. This is not to be your personal opinion.
Personal Opinion of Case:1-5 paragraph discussion or your
personal opinion of the case. Your opinions must be largely
supported with legal rationale and legal principles, legal
resources and other cases; it may not be only an emotional
reaction.
Summary/Conclusion of Case: Discussion of summary,
conclusions of case, excluding your personal opinion.
Bibliography: Properly formatted bibliography of at least 5
resources used in case analysis, in addition to the case
citation.In other words, you are required to use a minimum of 5

3. legal resources + the case resource for a total of 6+ resources
which must be cited in the Bibliography and body of the
analysis.
Case Analysis Research Resources: The case analysis research
project must include a minimum of 6 legal resources. Resources
may be obtained through the Index to Legal Periodicals,
LEXIS/NEXIS, and other UMUC Library databases, the
Internet, the classroom Webliography websites and other
methodologies for accessing information. Resources should be
taken largely from law review journal articles, other legal
publication articles relevant to the case topic, business journal
articles relevant to the case subject, and case opinions. This is a
legal case analysis so the resources need to be largely legal
resources and very relevant, on-point business resources.
Newspapers (except The Wall Street Journal), textbooks, the
class textbook and Wikipedia sites may not be used as resources
in any section of the case analysis research project.
Refer to the UMUC Effective Writing Center and UMUC
Library tutorials and examples regarding plagiarism and
citations. You may access these resources via the Course
Content conference in the classroom.
Case Analysis Evaluation Criteria: The case analysis will be
evaluated according to the following standards:
An accurate and complete case brief; Logical integration of
information to support the case analysis discussion;
Comprehensiveness/depth of research and analysis;
Comprehensive, thorough analysis of case; Organizational
consistency, orderly flow, relevancy, and effectiveness of
sequential ideas and paragraphs to the case analysis;
Clarity of expression and presentation of ideas;
Grammatically correct construction and correct spelling and
punctuation;
Timely submission of analysis on the designated due date;
Caliber, quality, and depth of research, judged in part according
to the nature of the case subject matter and the bibliographic

4. documentation
including, particularly, the use of articles from the Index to
Legal Periodicals and its equivalents; Overall quality of
resources used;
Adherence to the standards of formatting and documentation,
including proper in-text citations and references using only
APA (American Psychological Association) documentation
style, or Kate Turabian documentation style(as assigned by
instructor);
Proper court case citation format; Accuracy and
comprehensiveness of citations;
Use of required minimum quantity of resources; Conformance
with presentation format requirements; Overall quality of
research and analysis.
Case Analysis Format: The paper must conform to the following
presentation format:
Typed;
double spaced, in 12-point Times New Roman or Arial fonts;
Margins not to exceed 1? in width at top/bottom/left and right
margins;
Cover page to include paper title, your name, class title/section
number, date;
Pagination on each page, beginning with the first page of text;
APA in-text citation style, or Kate Turabian documentation
(style
assigned); Bibliography of sources used/cited in analysis.
Legal Analyst, inc
Legal Analysis
Future Legal Implications
Analysis of legal cases to determine the possible legal
implications for the creation of Heather’s websites, and

5. recommendations.
Introduction:
As we have seen over the years, any issue that goes into the
litigation is comprised of sensitive issues that cannot otherwise
be resolved by two parties. Some of these issues are seen over
and over such as freedom of speech, right of publicity,
infringement of trademark and copyrights, and defamation. All
these issues were raised once I began to analyze Heather’s
situation.
As Heather’s case was introduced, I flagged certain issues that
could possibly bring legal implications to her and her business.
The decision to analyze similar cases, to determine the
outcomes in the occasion of a lawsuit brought against her, was
imperative to my conclusion. The cases analyzed have set, and
will set precedents in the cases of infringement of copyrights,
rights of publicity, and defamation.
Case Brief
In this case analysis the case of Heather, an entrepreneur who
decided to start her own web-sites after the pardon bill was
passed by President Bill Clinton, is examined. The pardons
granted by former president Clinton in 2001, commonly known
as the “pardongate”, produced 140 pardons at the end of his
term. Unlike Bill Clinton, most presidents will issue pardons
throughout their terms, but President Clinton waited until the
last few days possible to issue his pardons. An issue raised by
the “pardongate” comes from President Clinton’s refusal to turn
over documents to Congress pertaining to the pardons. There
was little justification on his side as to why he granted some of
these exonerations. Years later, some of the pardonees were the
same people making big donations to the presidential campaign
of Bill’s wife, Hilary Clinton. Heather decided to register
domain names such as “pardonmetoobill.com” and
“outofjailfreewithbill.com”, in order to create a web-site and
post jokes and anecdotes about the “pardongate”, and also to

6. follow the lives of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Heather presumes
that Clinton will not endorse her web-site, so in order to make
profit she expects to be sponsored by third parties. She has also
designed a business plan that involves bobble-heads and apparel
sales for the support of her web-sites.
Issues: Is there an infringement in copyrights and right of
publicity? Another issue is the manufacturing and sale of
bobble-head dolls, which could also represent a possible
infringement of copyrights laws, and right of publicity. The
third issue raised is the issue of defamation: whether or not the
bobble-head dolls and information on the web-site can qualify
for defamation. Lastly, does Heather need to add taxes on her e-
sales?
Case Background
In the case of Heather there are many variables that will come
into play if the case goes to court. Some of the issues raised in
her case are trademark and/or copyright infringement, the right
of publicity, defamation, and taxation on e-sales in her web-
site. The variables that come into play in the decision of such
case include precedents and judges’ discretion, as well as
decisions made by Heather that can change the course of her
business.
In order to address the issue with the domain names and
copyright infringement, we analyzed a similar case with the
National Arbitration Forum that involved The William J.
Clinton Presidential Foundation (complainants) and “Web of
Deceptions” (respondents)
. William Clinton, former president of the United States,
contests that the domain names registered by “Web of
Deceptions” were “identical or confusingly similar” to his
name. The domain names were the following:
“Williamclinton.com”, “williamjclinton.com”, and
“presidentbillclinton.com”. All of which were presumed to

7. infringe a common law trademark that William believed to have
established in his name and its variations. William also claims
bad faith in the company’s intention. The respondent in this
case says that William is not commonly known by the names,
and that they are entitled to the domain names in question. The
respondent’s defense is that there are no elements of bad faith,
especially those set forth by the Uniform Dispute Resolution
Policy. As noted on section 4(b) of the UDRP, the respondent
“has not registered the domain name for the purpose of selling
it, or preventing the owner of the mark from using the name in a
corresponding domain name or in order to disrupt his business,
or in order to attract Internet users for commercial gain”. The
respondent believes that their uses of the domain names are
merely a case of fair use and should be protected by the 1st
Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. In this case the Panelists
have decided to deny the relief sought by William J. Clinton,
who wanted the domain names to be transferred to him. This
decision came after analyzing all three elements required under
the ICANN Policy, (1) the domain name is identical or
confusingly similar to a trademark in which complainant has
tights, (2) respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in
respect of the domain name, and (3) domain name had been used
in bad faith. The only two elements to be proven was the
assertion of common law rights that his name was commonly
known and that the respondent is using the domain name to
divert Internet users. The main element, which is the element of
bad faith, could not be proven. So the panelists ruled against
Clinton.
Another case that can be used as a precedent to address the
issue of right of publicity is the case of CARDTOONS, L.C. -
Appellant, v. MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS
ASSOCIATION, Defendant – Appellee. Cardtoons
manufactured parody trading cards that featured caricatures of
active major league baseball players. The players association
decided that the manufacturing and sales of such cards violated

8. the valuable property rights of MLBPA and players. On the
state of Oklahoma, Cardtoons had been charged with violating
the player’s rights of publicity. Respectively the district court
reverted the judgment and claimed that the “parody card
enjoyed First Amendment protection against infringement
claims” and the court ruled that the “parody cards are an
important form of entertainment and social commentary that
deserves 1st Amendment protection
”.
A precedent towards defamation is also analyzed due to possible
implications that may arise. In the case of Philadelphia
Newspaper, Inc., Et al. v. Hepps
Et Al., through the Supreme Court, in which the court ruled
that the initial judgment by the lower court was wrong and set
forth that “a showing of fault did not require a showing of
falsity and held that to place the burden of showing truth on
appellant (Newspaper) did not unconstitutionally inhibit free
debate” or the First Amendment. This case came to the courts
when the newspaper printed some unjustified news about Hepps,
who in turn sued the newspaper alleging that the article was
defamatory to his image.
Analysis of Current Implications of Case
There are important implications and examples to be extracted
from the Clinton v. “Web of Deceptions” Co. case
for current decisions in court. One of them is the fact that the
Panelist, Mr. Ayers, decided that the complainant’s situation
was viable for common law rights. Clinton was also able to
prove that Web of Deceptions had no rights to the name. The
main contribution for current cases that this case has set is the
usage of the UDRP criteria when determining fault in domain
name issues, which will help the justice determine case like
this. It also provides that acting in “bad faith” is the number
one aspect to be proven in this type of cases, if there is no

9. evidence of bad faith there is a high probability of winning the
case.
The implications in the Cardtoons
case are of a tremendous importance to current case that could
have legal implications against violation of the right of
publicity. As noticed in the case, different states may have
different laws about the rights of publicity. The implication that
this case can have in the current decisions of the law, is that it
sets a precedent for Freedom of Speech for the press. It is very
important for the U.S. Government that they preserve the
individual, business, and press right to express. In this case the
courts set an example to distinguish false accusations and
slander, from anecdotes and the right to entertain. It sets a
precedent for current cases, that as long as one is not defaming
another person’s name, they have the right to say what they
want. It also sets forth the fact that public figures’ images can
be used for caricatures.
In the case of Hepps as mentioned above, a tremendous
precedent for current cases is uncovered. Under the
Constitution’s First Amendment “a plaintiff who is a public
figure must prove the falsity of the statements at issue in order
to prevail on a suit for defamation
” (USCS - Constitution of the United States)
. In the case of Hepps, the district court placed the burden on
the defendant to prove truth. The findings in this case set forth
that private individuals and public individuals face the same
standards for winning defamation suits against the press. As the
legal ability to protect one’s image and reputation grows
limited, this case was possibly one of the most important ones
favoring media in defamation suits. In a current case, this
precedent is essential to affirm that for topics of public interest
the 1st Amendment Rights of the press come first against libel
common law. This case made this precedent liable for public
and private individuals.

10. Analysis of Future Implications of Case
The implications the three cases that were analyzed above have
in future decisions are very important. In a nut-shell, all three
cases protect an individual’s right to expression. The Clinton
case has set precedent for the use of UDRP criteria for the
determination of fault for cybersquatting and it will help the
promotion of the use of internet laws that have been created to
regulate the cyber space. It is important that we abide by these
laws, and criteria, so that we can give meaning to them. This
ruling and others of the same kind are important to set a
precedent for the application of internet laws, and their use.
For the Cardtoons case, the legal implication for future cases is
one, which could possibly give lead-way for many businesses
that want to use public images in different ways. It is important
that right of publicity is defined within the scope of a case, and
in this case the decisions set a precedent for future implication
of the infringement of this right. The court findings have
allowed a company to use the image of athletes, and public
individuals, in caricatures and anecdotes for profit. This case
sets precedent for the recognition of “fair use” protection under
the First Amendment for commercial parody speech.
The third case analyzed, Newspaper v. Hepps
, there is another important future precedent set for cases of this
type. The court’s decision to affirm that for topics of public
interest the 1st Amendment Rights of the press come first
against libel common law, is very important for anyone
involved in the use of public figure’s names in articles, web
sites, etc. This finding implies that one’s opinion of a public-
figure is protected under the 1st Amendment. It assures that the
press or private individuals have the right to express their
opinion.
Personal Opinion of Case

11. As I analyzed cases in order to determine possible legal
implications of Heather’s idea to register domain names, that
relate to the “pardongate”, and create a web site that will
include parodies about the situation and information on Bill
Clinton and Hillary Clinton, I was able to come across some
very interesting and important precedents. I have come to
conclude that legal implications to Heather’s idea could
definitely come into play in the future. On the other hand the
precedents described in this paper, could be enough to have her
case dismissed or won.
In the case of Heather, the domain name should not be much of
a problem, because the name Bill is very generic. The issue here
is the content of her web-site which could bring the issue back
to the domain name because the “pardongate” has become a
historical event, which could bring up problems of common law,
such as the Clinton v Web of Deceptions case. The second
element pertaining to Clinton’s case was the ability to prove “at
first glance”, prima facie, that the respondent lacked right and
legitimate interest in the domain names because they are
diverting the users to the opposition’s web site. In the case of
Heather, the web-site is not diverting users, but she intends to
profit out of the web-site, which could bring implications which
we will address further into the analysis. Lastly, the most
important element, “bad faith”, relates to Heather’s case
because there was no bad faith proved. Although the respondent
was using the web-site to divert people to the Republican
National Committee web-site, which opposed Clinton, they still
were acquitted from bad faith. In relation to Heather’s case, she
has not infringed any of the provisions set forth by the UDRP to
determine bad faith. According to Heather her goal is to have a
web-site with anecdotes and jokes, which should not be deemed
of bad faith. The decisions made by the National Arbitration
Forum in the above case, can create a precedent that will acquit
Heather in the case of a lawsuit or mediation from Bill Clinton,
or his committee. The case will create a precedent for common

12. law rights that in Heather’s case could favor Clinton, due to the
historical effect of the “pardongate”. On the other hand, the
final decision of the Panelist to reject the relief proposed by the
complainant, due to a lack of evidence to prove bad faith, will
help keep Heather out of trouble in the matter of a trademark
infringement for the domain name and the President’s name.
The remedy to this situation is to develop the web-site using the
UDRP as a guideline. It is imperative that the web-site and its
content do not violate any of the ICANN provisions or the
UDRP criteria.
As I analyze the possible legal implications for Heather’s
business I have also concluded that there is a precedent that
could protect her in any accusations of privacy rights
infringement and public rights infringement. Due to the fact that
her web-site will be using parodies about the pardongate and
will also be presenting information of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s
lives, I grew concerned that there could be some sort of legal
implications for her. The case of Cardtoons has helped me find
a precedent that will protect Heather’s right to express her
opinions, and create jokes and parodies about the Clintons and
the pardongate. The Supreme Court ruling in favor of the “fair
use” protection under the 1st Amendment has helped me
determine that Heather has the right to use Clinton’s image in
her web-site. This case is also helpful in determining another
one of my concerns, which is the sale of bobble-heads. In the
case of Cardtoons, they were sued for printing caricature cards
of baseball players, and the court findings protected them to do
so. Heather should not have a problem creating and selling the
bobble-heads, as long as she keeps in mind the resemblance of
the doll to Bill Clinton. If she is able to keep the dolls looking
like a caricature and not the real image of the former president
should keep her within the “fair use” defense.
Lastly, it was very important to me to determine if Heather was
in risk of to being sued for defamation of Bill Clinton and

13. Hillary Clinton. The issue in which Heather has based her idea
is a very sensitive one. Her idea of creating the bobble-head
dolls of Bill and his secretary, which he allegedly had sexual
relations with, has also brought concern to me. The case of the
Newspaper v Hepps has helped me determine that Heather needs
to be careful during her developing process for her web-site, but
she can also rest assured that her right of expression is
protected by the Constitution. In the Hepps case, the newspaper
accused Hepps of being involved in criminal activities. The
court ruled that the burden of proof is on Hepps side, and
protects the right to express for press and individuals. Hepps
public image was enough to award the Newspaper the right to
talk about him using facts that were available for the public. In
Heather’s case I believe that as long as she sticks to facts that
have been proven, and make “unreliable information” into
jokes, or parodies she should be fine against such lawsuit.
Heather needs to be fair and not act in bad faith when creating
the web-site. My recommendation is that she created the web-
site with the purpose of providing entertainment to the public.
The financial part of the web-site can come from the sale of
souvenirs that state her web-site’s name only. It is important
that she does not use the Clinton’s names on her products, and
that she does not use their image. These remedies will keep her
away from a lawsuit against copyrights and trade mark
infringement.
My conclusion on the taxation of sales in her web-site will
come from a the current law which implies that companies are
not required to collect sales taxes from customers who line in
states where the companies do not have a physical presence.
“Consumers who live in states that apply sales-taxes are
generally obligated to pay them on items they bought from out-
of-state retailer
”. Many states today are trying to make it an obligation for e-
sales, in general, to add sales-taxes. That is something to keep

14. in mind for future implications. To answer the question of
whether or not the state where she lives can make any
difference to her business, I assume that there is not a particular
state where she should live that will better her chances. As one
can see on the above cases, although most states have different
laws towards certain issues, there is enough evidence to assure
Heather that the legal implications that could come up for her
are defended in the Supreme Court above state laws.
Summary/Conclusion of Case
The analysis of case decisions have brought special attention to
the First Amendment rights granted by the U.S. Constitution. It
is clear that most of the legal issues that could possibly become
real to Heather and her company are likely defended by
constitutional rights, especially the 1st Amendment. The
decisions awarded in the case of Clinton, Cardtoons, and Hepps
have paved a clear road for future business law, and court cases,
by setting precedents that protect individuals’ and businesses’
freedom of expression. These cases have also set an example to
future cases by stating that public individuals, such as the
President, can be written about and since their lives are public,
so should their images be.
In conclusion, the most important precedent set by these cases
is a precedent for freedom of speech, and expression. There
have been many cases where this right is challenged by other
circumstances, but it seems that as long as someone’s life,
career, or business is not being damaged by what is said about
them they cannot argue against someone’s opinion of them. This
Constitutional right is the milestone for the U.S. and its
protection is very important. Most of the possible legal
implications for Heather, have been supported by the cases
analyzed, and the main defense for her is of freedom of speech
and expression.
Bibliography

15. Clinton v. Web of Deception, Claim No. FA0904001256123
(National Arbitration Forum, June 1, 2009). Retrieved from
ADR Forum.
http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1256123.htm
Cardtoons, L.C. v. Major League Baseball Players Assoc., 95
F.3d 959, 976 (10th Cir. 1996) ("Cardtoons II"). Retrieved from
Lexis/Nexis Academic Database (1996 U.S. Lexis)
Philadelphia Newspaper, Inc., Et al. v. Hepps Et Al. 475 U.S.
767. Retrieved from Lexis/Nexis Academic Database (1986 U.S.
Lexis 97)
Bobble Head Case. 2004. FindLawMV.
http://library.findlaw.com/2004/Oct/27/133616.html. March 3,
2001.
The Constitution of the United States. Retrieved from the
Government Archives.
http://library.findlaw.com/2004/Oct/27/133616.html. March 3,
2011.
Stim, Richard. 2009. Sales tax on the Internet- When Sales tax
must be Charged for Online Purchases. Retrieved from NOLO-
law- for- all Web-site. http://www.nolo.com/legal-
encyclopedia/sales-tax-internet-29919.html
� Clinton v. Web of Deception, Claim No. FA0904001256123
(National Arbitration Forum, June 1, 2009).
� � HYPERLINK
"http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/lnacui2api/mung
o/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T11431759899&homeCsi=6320
&A=0.7859479320507752&urlEnc=ISO-8859-
1&&citeString=95%20F.3d%20959,%20976&countryCode=USA
" t "_parent" �Cardtoons, L.C. v. Major League Baseball
Players Assoc., 95 F.3d 959, 976 (10th Cir. 1996)� ("Cardtoons

16. II").
� Philadelphia Newspaper, Inc., Et al. v. Hepps Et Al. 475 U.S.
767
� Clinton v. Web of Deception, Claim No. FA0904001256123
(National Arbitration Forum, June 1, 2009).
� Cardtoons, L.C. v. Major League Baseball Players Assoc., 95
F.3d 959, 976 (10th Cir. 1996) ("Cardtoons II").
� The Constitution of the United States. Retrieved from the
Government Archives.
� United states Government Archives Web Site
� Philadelphia Newspaper, Inc., Et al. v. Hepps Et Al. 475 U.S.
767
� Stim, Richard. Sales tax on the Internet- When Sales tax must
be Charged for Online Purchases.