Rjack <[email protected]> writes: >> In the trademark portion of this case, we will be guided by the >> relevant law in the Ninth Circuit, to the extent it can be >> discerned, and not require the district court here to follow >> conflicting rules, if any, arrived at in other circuits.
>Let me try to explain Rahul. The CAFC is saying the district courts >are not bound by the CAFC's rulings on any subject matter other than >patents.... No. the CAFC is saying that it has an obligation to follow the precedent in the relevant circuit, so the district court doesn't have to follow conflicting circuit precedents. In this specific case, there was already Nintch Circuit law in the area, so the CAFC decided to follow that. Had there been no Ninth Circuit precedent, the CAFC would have followed its own precedents if any. You are taking case law and trying to apply it in a vacuum. It would make no sense for the CAFC to issue an advisory opinion. For one thing, this would violate the constitution. For another, it would be a waste of judicial resources. -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
