1. Why is Fortis losing market share? Because Fortis has been facing strong competition since 2002. Other players initiated price war and Fortis refused to continuously cut its price‚ which caused Fortis to lose market share to its competitors. 2. What is Fortis’s current marketing strategy? Fortis emphasizes value-added service to customers. The company was unwilling to use price weapon but provides specialized service and equipment to meet unique strapping needs. Their marketing strategy
Premium Marketing Preference Customer service
In article “You Asked for it‚ You got it…Toy Yoda: Practical Jokes‚ Prizes and Contract Law” by Keith A. Rowley‚ the professor of the University of Nevada‚ is discussing a case of Berry v Gulf Coast Wings Inc. The case gathered a lot of attention of the legal world and extensive press coverage at the time. A 26-year-old Jodee Berry was working as a waitress in Hooters restaurant in Panama City‚ Florida. In April 2001‚ all the waitresses were informed by their manager‚ Jared Blair‚ that a month-long
Premium Contract
In this recent Ninth Circuit case the issues centered on compatibility between video games. Accolade copied a Sega video game to obtain compatibility with the Sega Genesis game system. Accolade decompiled the machine readable object code from a Sega game in order to achieve compatibility with the Sega system for games that it wished to independently create and market. Accolade then created a manual containing only the functional specifications of this decompiled code and not any of Sega’s actual
Premium Copyright Fair use Copyright infringement
EC410 Harold Elder Ziwei Chen 02.20.2017 Quality Inns Intl.‚ Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp Quality Inns International Inc. and McDonald’s Corp brought a trademark infringement‚ or rather a trademark dilution for using the prefix “Mc”‚ in Federal District Court for Court in Maryland‚ at the original jurisdiction level‚ on September 24‚ 1988. “Modern trademark law in the United States stems from the Federal Trademark Act of 1946‚ commonly called the Lanham Act.” (Cooter & Ulen) It is discussed in Chapter
Premium Trademark
Description In Mc Grory v. Applied Signal Technology‚ Inc.‚ No. H036597‚ it discusses the case of wrongful termination of a manager who alleges gender discrimination claims. The facts of case describe John McGrory who worked as a department manager for Applied Signal Technology‚ Inc for 4 yrs from 2004. Later in 2008‚ Mc Grory gave Thomas a recorded verbal warning‚ after consultation with the HR department for her poor work performance and a written performance improvement plan in 2009. However
Premium United States Law Appeal
v. Oscar Zacarias‚ No. E2014-00122-COA-R3-CV‚ 2014 WL 4403106 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014) discussed the validity of a signed contract when the individual who signed the contract does not understand English. In the Zacarias case‚ an agreement was signed between
Premium Family Mother English-language films
Estrada v. Fedex Ground Package System‚ Inc.‚ 154 Cal. App. 4th 1 (2d Dist‚ 2007) CASE ISSUE This lawsuit was originally filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court in 1999 with allegations that single-route FedEx Ground delivery drivers‚ Anthony Estrada‚ Jeffrey Morgan‚ Harvey Roberts among others‚ were incorrectly categorized as independent contractors with the company. The suit also alleged that the drivers were unfairly required to pay over a million dollars in out of pocket “operating expenses”
Premium Appeal Class action Plaintiff
Polaris Industries Inc. (NYSE: PII) declared today its new deals and profit objectives for the Company through 2018. In particular‚ the Company detailed that it has set up goals for add up to Company deals to develop to $2.2 billion before the finish of the 2018 schedule year with net wage from proceeding with tasks expanding to $150 million. Weakened income for each offer from continuing with activities developing to $4.25 per share amid a similar period. The Company showed that it means to accomplish
Premium New York Stock Exchange Vehicle Vehicles
Case Study I by ___________________________: Citation: Gerald K. Adams v Uno Restaurants‚ Inc Rhode Island State Court‚ 2002 794 A. 2nd District 489 Appeal: Gerald K. Adams v Uno Restaurants‚ Inc Rhode Island Supreme Court No. 2000-266 (KC 97 -1005) Facts: On May 20‚ 1996‚ the plaintiff‚ who had been employed by the defendant for several years‚ arrived for his nighttime line cooking shift at the defendant’s Warwick restaurant. Shortly‚ after his shift began‚ the plaintiff noticed
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Civil procedure Jury
KFC Corporation v. Marion-Kay Company‚ Inc. 620 F.Supp. 1160‚ Web 1985 U.S. Dist. Lexis 14766 The Kentucky Fried Chicken Corporation (KFC) is the franchisor of KFC restaurants. KFC’s registered trademarks and service marks include “Kentucky Fried Chicken‚” “It’s Finger Lickin’ Good‚” and the portrait of Colonel Harlan Sanders. KFC grants licenses to its franchisees to use these marks in connection with the preparations and sale of “Original Recipe Kentucky Fried Chicken.” Original Recipe Kentucky
Premium KFC Fried chicken Trademark