Law School

A geographical indication (GI) is a name or sign used on products which corresponds to a specific geographical location or origin (for example, a town, region, or country). The use of a geographical indication, as an indication of the product's source, is intended as a certification that the product possesses certain qualities, is made according to traditional methods, or enjoys a good reputation due to its geographical origin. Article 22.1 of the TRIPS Agreement defines geographical indications as "...indications which identify a good as originating in the territory of a Member , or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin." Appellation d'origine contrôlée ('Appellation of origin') is a sub-type of geographical indication where quality, method, and reputation of a product originate from a strictly defined area specified in its intellectual property right registration. History. Governments have protected trade names and trademarks of food products identified with a particular region since at least the end of the 19th century, using laws against false trade descriptions or passing off, which generally protects against suggestions that a product has a certain origin, quality, or association when it does not. In such cases, the limitation on competitive freedoms which results from the grant of a monopoly of use over a geographical indication is justified by governments either by consumer protection benefits or by producer protection benefits. One of the first GI systems is the one used in France from the early part of the 20th century known as appellation d'origine contrôlée (AOC). Items that meet geographical origin and quality standards may be endorsed with a government-issued stamp which acts as official certification of the origins and standards of the product. Examples of products that have such "appellations of origin" include Gruyère cheese (from Switzerland) and many French wines. Under "Champagnerparagraph " of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, Germany was forbidden from using allied geographical indications on products, which in particular affected the German "cognac" and "champagne" industries, as the French considered the terms misleading references to places in France. Since then, the terms "Weinbrand" and "Sekt" have been used instead. Geographical indications have long been associated with the concept of terroir and with Europe as an entity, where there is a tradition of associating certain food products with particular regions. Under European Union Law, the protected designation of origin framework which came into effect in 1992 regulates the following systems of geographical indications: "Protected designation of origin" (PDO), "protected geographical indication" (PGI), and Traditional Specialities Guaranteed" (TSG).

A miscarriage of justice occurs when a grossly unfair outcome occurs in a criminal or civil proceeding, such as the conviction and punishment of a person for a crime they did not commit. Miscarriages are also known as wrongful convictions. Innocent people have sometimes ended up in prison for years before their conviction has eventually been overturned. They may be exonerated if new evidence comes to light or it is determined that the police or prosecutor committed some kind of misconduct at the original trial. In some jurisdictions this leads to the payment of compensation. Academic studies have found that the main factors contributing to miscarriages of justice are: eyewitness misidentification; faulty forensic analysis; false confessions by vulnerable suspects; perjury and lies stated by witnesses; misconduct by police, prosecutors or judges; and or ineffective assistance of counsel (for example, inadequate defense strategies by the defendant's or respondent's legal team). Some prosecutors' offices undertake conviction integrity reviews to prevent, identify, and correct wrongful convictions. Prevalence. There are two main methods for estimating the prevalence of wrongful convictions. Exoneration. The first is the number of exonerations where the guilty verdict has been vacated or annulled by a judge or higher court after new evidence has been brought forward proving the 'guilty' person is, in fact, innocent. Since 1989, the Innocence Project has helped overturn 375 convictions of American prisoners with updated DNA evidence. However, DNA testing occurs in only 5 to 10% of all criminal cases, and exonerations achieved by the Innocence Project are limited to murder and rape cases. This raises the possibility that there may be many more wrongful convictions for which there is no evidence available to exonerate the defendant. Studies cited by the Innocence Project estimate that between 2.3% and 5% of all prisoners in the U.S. are innocent. However, a more recent study looking at convictions in the state of Virginia during the 1970s and 1980s and matching them to later DNA analysis estimates a rate of wrongful conviction at 11.6%. A 2014 study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences made a conservative estimate that 4.1% of inmates awaiting execution on death row in the United States are innocent.

Juvenile offenders. The death penalty for juvenile offenders (criminals aged under 18 years at the time of their crime although the legal or accepted definition of juvenile offender may vary from one jurisdiction to another) has become increasingly rare. Considering the age of majority is not 18 in some countries or has not been clearly defined in law, since 1990 ten countries have executed offenders who were considered juveniles at the time of their crimes: The People's Republic of China (PRC), Bangladesh, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the United States, and Yemen. China, Pakistan, the United States, Yemen and Saudi Arabia have since raised the minimum age to 18. Amnesty International has recorded 61 verified executions since then, in several countries, of both juveniles and adults who had been convicted of committing their offenses as juveniles. The PRC does not allow for the execution of those under 18, but child executions have reportedly taken place. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which forbids capital punishment for juveniles under article 37(a), has been signed by all countries and subsequently ratified by all signatories with the exception of the United States (despite the US Supreme Court decisions abolishing the practice). The UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights maintains that the death penalty for juveniles has become contrary to a jus cogens of customary international law. A majority of countries are also party to the U.N. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (whose Article 6.5 also states that "Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age..."). Methods. The following methods of execution have been used by various U.S. states: Lethal injection,  Electrocution and gas inhalation (some U.S. states, but only if the prisoner requests it or if lethal injection is unavailable), and Inert gas asphyxiation (Some U.S. states, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama)

In law, interrogatories (also known as requests for further information) are a formal set of written questions propounded by one litigant and required to be answered by an adversary in order to clarify matters of fact and help to determine in advance what facts will be presented at any trial in the case. Use. Interrogatories are used to gain information from the other party relevant to the issues in a lawsuit. The law and issues will differ depending upon the facts of a case and the laws of the jurisdiction in which a lawsuit is filed. For some types of cases there are standard sets of interrogatories available that cover the essential facts, and may be modified for the case in which they are used. When a lawsuit is filed, the pleadings filed by the parties are intended to let the other parties know what each side intends to prove at trial, and what legal case they have to answer. However, in most cases, the parties will require additional information to fully understand each other's legal and factual claims. The discovery process, including the use of interrogatories, can help the parties obtain that information from each other. For an example of how interrogatories may be used, in a motor vehicle accident lawsuit, an injured plaintiff typically asserts that the defendant driver committed the tort of negligence in causing the accident. To prove negligence, the law requires the injured plaintiff to show that the driver owed them a duty of care and breached it, causing the injury. Assuming that the defendant did not dispute driving a vehicle that was involved in the accident that injured the plaintiff, the case would come down to whether the driver drove in accordance with the standard of a reasonable driver, and whether the injured person's injuries are a foreseeable consequence of the driving. The parties may use interrogatories to seek information, including concessions as to how the accident occurred, from each other. The injured plaintiff might serve interrogatories on the defendant driver seeking information that would support the plaintiff's theory of the case. If the plaintiff is alleging that the defendant was speeding, the plaintiff might ask the defendant to state the speed of the defendant's vehicle at the time of the accident. If the plaintiff alleges that the defendant failed to control the car properly or failed to pay proper attention to the road and other vehicles, the plaintiff could ask interrogatory questions that would help prove those allegations or require disclosure of the basis of any denial of negligence by the defendant. The driver may have a defense to those allegations, perhaps if the accident occurred at low speed, and was unavoidable (maybe due to some third party intervention). The injured person may, however, argue that the driver was still responsible (perhaps the driver should have used the horn of the vehicle to alert the third party), or there may be other allegations. The defense may similarly use interrogatories to help build legal and factual defenses to the plaintiff's case. Continuing with the example of a car accident, the defendant may seek information or concessions from the plaintiff that would suggest that a different driver was partially or wholly responsible for the accident, or that under the facts the accident was unavoidable despite the proper exercise of care.

Respondeat superior (Latin: "let the master answer"; plural: respondeant superiores) is a doctrine that a party is responsible for (has vicarious liability for) acts of their agents. For example, in the United States, there are circumstances when an employer is liable for acts of employees performed within the course of their employment. This rule is also called the master-servant rule, recognized in both common law and civil law jurisdictions. In a broader scope, respondeat superior is based upon the concept of vicarious liability. In common law. The concept of respondeat superior has its roots in ancient Rome. At the time, the concept applied to slaves, as that was the meaning of what has been translated as servants, and it applied if the slave could not pay himself for the act. It was later expanded to apply to not only slaves but also animals and family members of the master of a family. In 1698, the doctrine was mentioned in dicta by Sir Holt in the English case of Jones v Hart, (1698). In the US, it was discussed in the case of Wright v Wilcox, (1838), in which a boy climbed on a wagon driven by the defendant's servant, who drove his horses faster, which caused the boy to be thrown and injured. The judge ruled that the master was not responsible under respondeat superior because the servant had acted in a way in driving the horses that the master had not assented to and so it was not within the scope of his employment. US Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. opined in 1891, "It is hard to explain why a master is liable to the extent he is for the negligent acts of one who, at the time, really is his servant, acting within the general scope of his employment. Probably master and servant are 'feigned to be all one person' by a fiction". He was of the view that the doctrine was in opposition to common sense. In 1916, the British attorney Thomas Baty wrote that the doctrine, which he called a "deep-pocket theory", was "derived from an inconsiderate use of precedents and a blind reliance on the slightest word of an eminent judge, and from the mistaken notion that his flights of imagination, were actual decided cases". When applied to physical torts, an employer–employee relationship must be established (novicarious liability is established for work performed as an independent contractor) and the act must be committed within the scope of employment (substantially within time and geographical limits, job description and at least with partial intent to further employer's business). Historically, the doctrine was applied in master–servant and employer–employee relationships. When an employee or a servant commits a civil wrong against a third party, the employer or master could be liable for the acts of the servant or employee when the acts are committed within the scope of the relationship. The third party could proceed against the servant and master; that is, the employee and employer. The action against the employee would be based on his conduct. The action against the employer is based on the theory of vicarious liability in which a party can be held liable for the acts of a different party.

A database right is a sui generis property right, comparable to but distinct from copyright, that exists to recognise the investment that is made in compiling a database, even when this does not involve the "creative" aspect that is reflected by copyright. Such rights are often referred to in the plural: database rights. The TRIPS Agreement requires that copyright protection extends to databases and other compilations if they constitute intellectual creation by virtue of the selection or arrangement of their contents, even if some or all of the contents do not themselves constitute materials protected by copyright. Many countries act in accordance with this requirement, as databases are protected by copyright if this condition is met, and there is no separate intellectual property right protecting databases (or any aspects of them) that do not meet the condition for copyright protection. The database right extends protection over databases which does not depend on the condition required for copyright protection, and is recognised only in a small number of jurisdictions, most notably the European Union. The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (also known as ITPGRFA, International Seed Treaty or Plant Treaty), is a comprehensive international agreement in harmony with the Convention on Biological Diversity, which aims at guaranteeing food security through the conservation, exchange and sustainable use of the world's plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA), the fair and equitable benefit sharing arising from its use, as well as the recognition of farmers' rights. It was signed in 2001 in Madrid, and entered into force on 29 June 2004.

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is a state-sanctioned practice of deliberately killing a person as a punishment for an actual or supposed crime, usually following an authorized, rule-governed process to conclude that the person is responsible for violating norms that warrant said punishment. The sentence ordering that an offender is to be punished in such a manner is known as a death sentence, and the act of carrying out the sentence is known as an execution. A prisoner who has been sentenced to death and awaits execution is condemned and is commonly referred to as being "on death row". Crimes that are punishable by death are known as capital crimes, capital offences, or capital felonies, and vary depending on the jurisdiction, but commonly include serious crimes against the person, such as murder, mass murder, aggravated cases of rape (often including child sexual abuse), terrorism, aircraft hijacking, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, along with crimes against the state such as attempting to overthrow government, treason, espionage, sedition, and piracy, among other crimes. Also, in some cases, acts of recidivism, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping, in addition to drug trafficking, drug dealing, and drug possession, are capital crimes or enhancements. However, states have also imposed punitive executions, for an expansive range of conduct, for political or religious beliefs and practices, for a status beyond one's control, or without employing any significant due process procedures. Judicial murder is the intentional and premeditated killing of an innocent person by means of capital punishment. For example, the executions following the show trials in Russia during the Great Purge of 1937–1938 were an instrument of political repression. Etymologically, the term capital (literally "of the head", derived via the Latin capitalis from caput, "head") refers to execution by beheading, but executions are carried out by many methods, including hanging, shooting, lethal injection, stoning, electrocution, and gassing.

Compounding a felony was an offense under the common law of England and was classified as a misdemeanor. It consisted of a prosecutor or victim of an offense accepting anything of value under an agreement not to prosecute, or to hamper the prosecution of, a felony. To "compound", in this context, means to come to a settlement or agreement. It is not compounding for the victim to accept an offer to return stolen property, or to make restitution, as long as there is no agreement not to prosecute. Under the common law, compounding a felony was punishable as a misdemeanor. Many states have enacted statutes that punish the offense as a felony. Compounding a misdemeanor is not a crime. However, an agreement not to prosecute a misdemeanor is unenforceable as being contrary to public policy. Compounding has been abolished in England and Wales, in Northern Ireland, in the Republic of Ireland, and in New South Wales. In each of these cases, it has been replaced by a statutory offense. Mischief or malicious mischief is the name for a criminal offense that is defined differently in different legal jurisdictions. While the wrongful acts will often involve what is popularly described as vandalism, there can be a legal differentiation between vandalism and mischief. The etymology of the word comes from Old French meschief, which means "misfortune", from meschever, "to end badly". Malfeasance in office is often grounds for a just cause removal of an elected official by statute or recall election. Malfeasance in office contrasts with "misfeasance in office", which is the commission of a lawful act, done in an official capacity, that improperly causes harm; and "nonfeasance in office," which is the failure to perform an official duty. An exact definition of malfeasance in office is difficult: many highly regarded secondary sources (such as books and commentaries) compete over its established elements based on reported cases. This confusion has arisen from the courts where no single consensus definition has arisen from the relatively few reported appeal-level cases involving malfeasance in office. A miscarriage of justice occurs when a grossly unfair outcome occurs in a criminal or civil proceeding, such as the conviction and punishment of a person for a crime they did not commit. Miscarriages are also known as wrongful convictions. Innocent people have sometimes ended up in prison for years before their conviction has eventually been overturned. They may be exonerated if new evidence comes to light or it is determined that the police or prosecutor committed some kind of misconduct at the original trial. In some jurisdictions this leads to the payment of compensation.

Federal law. Discovery in the United States is unique compared to other common law countries. In the United States, discovery is mostly performed by the litigating parties themselves, with relatively minimal judicial oversight. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure guide discovery in the U.S. federal court system. Most state courts follow a similar version based upon the FRCP, Chapter V "Depositions & Discovery" . According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff must initiate a conference between the parties after the complaint was served to the defendants, to plan for the discovery process. The parties should attempt to agree on the proposed discovery schedule, and submit a proposed Discovery Plan to the court within 14 days after the conference. After that, the main discovery process begins which includes: initial disclosures, depositions, interrogatories, request for admissions (RFA) and request for production of documents (RFP). In most federal district courts, the formal requests for interrogatories, request for admissions and request for production are exchanged between the parties and not filed with the court. Parties, however, can file motions to compel discovery if responses are not received within the FRCP time limit. Parties can file a motion for a protective order if the discovery requests become unduly burdensome or for the purpose of harassment. In federal criminal prosecutions, discovery rights originate from a number of important Supreme Court decisions and statutes, the most important of which are, Brady v Maryland, (1963), which requires a prosecuting attorney to disclose to a defendant any material which is potentially exculpatory or that would impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness. Brady also applies to evidence that would mitigate the defendant's sentence if a defendant is convicted. Jencks v United States, (1957), and the Jencks Act, which requires federal prosecutors to produce any witness statement in the government's possession that relates to the subject of the witness' testimony, if that witness will testify against the defendant. Giglio v United States, (1972) and the resulting Giglio rule, which requires that any deal with a witness that might call the witness's credibility into question must be disclosed in court. As a consequence, any plea bargain or deal made by the prosecutor with a witness in exchange for testimony should be disclosed to the defense as part of the discovery process. The formal discovery process for federal criminal prosecutions is outlined in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 16.

The eggshell rule (also thin skull rule, papier-mâché-plaintiff rule, or talem qualem rule) is a well-established legal doctrine in common law, used in some tort law systems, with a similar doctrine applicable to criminal law. The rule states that, in a tort case, the unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defense to the seriousness of any injury caused to them. Law. This rule holds that a tortfeasor is liable for all consequences resulting from their tortious (usually negligent) activities leading to an injury to another person, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage (for example due to a pre-existing vulnerability or medical condition). The eggshell skull rule takes into account the physical, social, and economic attributes of the plaintiff which might make them more susceptible to injury. It may also take into account the family and cultural environment. The term implies that if a person had a skull as delicate as that of the shell of an egg, and a tortfeasor who was unaware of the condition injured that person's head, causing the skull unexpectedly to break, the defendant would be held liable for all damages resulting from the wrongful contact, even if the tortfeasor did not intend to cause such a severe injury. In criminal law, the general maxim is that the defendant must "take their victims as they find them", as echoed in the judgment of Lord Justice Lawton in R for example Blaue (1975), in which the defendant was held responsible for killing his victim, despite his contention that her refusal of a blood transfusion constituted an intervening act. The doctrine is applied in all areas of torts – intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability cases – as well as in criminal law. There is no requirement of physical contact with the victim – if a trespasser's wrongful presence on the victim's property so terrifies the victim that he has a fatal heart attack, the trespasser will be liable for the damages stemming from his original tort. The foundation for this rule is based primarily on policy grounds. The courts do not want the defendant or accused to rely on the victim's own vulnerability to avoid liability. The thin skull rule is not to be confused with the related crumbling skull rule in which the plaintiff suffers from a detrimental position (from a prior injury, for instance) pre-existent to the occurrence of the present tort. In the "crumbling skull" rule, the prior condition is only to be considered with respect to distinguishing it from any new injury arising from the present tort – as a means of apportioning damages in such a way that the defendant would not be liable for placing the plaintiff in a better position than they were in prior to the present tort. Example. In an example, a person who has osteogenesis imperfecta (also known as "brittle bone syndrome") is more likely to be injured in a motor vehicle accident. If the person with OI is hit from behind in a motor vehicle collision and suffers medical damages (such as clavicle fracture), it would not be a valid defense to state that the osteogenesis imperfecta was the cause of the fracture.