The Supreme Court in a divided decision held that the City's purpose of expropriation, which is to give the property to a private entity for development, falls under the term, for "public use." The Court held that the City as a whole would benefit because the development would bring much needed capital, investments and work to the City of New London which is in dire need of economic uplift. Thus, despite the fact that the City would expropriate the property and give it to a private entity, it would still be for "public use"
Real property is protected by the registration through the Torrens System of Land Registration, which is popularly used all over the world. This system was invented by Australian Sir Robert Richard Torrens, as a means of simplifying how we transfer ownership of real property. As an owner of land, I would have it registered and have to follow the requirements set by law, and upon registration, I am issued a Torrens Title, which is my evidence or proof of ownership of the land. The great characteristics of the system is that upon registration, the Title binds and protects my ownership of the land forever to the whole world, unless I decide to transfer it or sell it, which should be registered as well.
The essential idea  is s...
tial idea  is simple: Artists and creators should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor for a specified time period, after which the material becomes available for public use. Society benefits because this incentive to create will yield a rich and varied cultural menu for its citizens. (On-line)
Therefore, it is clear that laws are created to protect an individual's intellectual property, and gives him ample time to benefit from his creations, and upon the expiration of the time given, the protection is lifted, and the public may benefit.
Another case I briefed is on the topic of protection of intellectual property, entitled Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. vs. Samara Brothers Inc., (2000). In this case, the defendant Samara Brothers, Inc. is a company that designs and manufactures children's clothes. Samara filed a case against Wal-Mart Stores because it found out that Wal-Mart Stores had entered into a contract with Judy-Philippine, Inc. to manufacture children's outfits based on pictures of clothes made by Samara and would be sold under a Wal-Mart label, "Small Steps." The case was on the charge of infringement of unregistered trade dress on the legal basis of section 43(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946.
Upon reaching the Supreme Court on Certiorari, the Court held that the designs of Samara did not constitute the legal definition of an unregistered trade dress that would warrant protection under the law. This reasoning came about due to the fact that the product's designs are not distinctive enough to constitute protection under Section 43(a). Just because a product's design almost always identifies the product to the manufacturer, Samara's designs do not make them so distinctive as to cause confusion on the consumers. The Court further held that, "consumers