Posts Tagged ‘Super Bowl’

Super Bowl ads in review

A Georgia lawyer aired an ad bizarre enough that it’s made the rounds of the legal sites:

More from Lowering the Bar (“As Rolling Stone suggests, it is a little problematic that the ad depicts him desecrating a grave and smashing a grave marker, even if he does it with a flaming sledgehammer named after his dead brother and to a badass metal soundtrack.”)

Meanwhile, over at Cato at Liberty, I’ve got a commentary on the Coca-Cola ad with at least a tangential relation to language law, the legacy of Teddy Roosevelt’s Progressives, and the gracefulness of being good winners regarding the success of English assimilation.

New Jersey suit: Super Bowl tickets improperly not sold at face value

A lawyer representing a fan has sued the National Football League for allegedly breaking New Jersey state law by making just 1 percent of Super Bowl tickets available to the general public at face value. A section of the state’s Consumer Fraud Act reads, “It shall be an unlawful practice for a person, who has access to tickets to an event prior to the tickets’ release for sale to the general public, to withhold those tickets from sale to the general public in an amount exceeding 5% of all available seating for the event.” (But does “person [with] access” refer to the original event organizers, or only to middlemen who acquire tickets for resale?) The lawsuit “says it’s on behalf of all ticket buyers who have paid more than face amount for their tickets, along with anybody who couldn’t afford to buy tickets in an exorbitant secondary market, but who still wanted them.” [] More: the NFL made me do it! [Abnormal Use]

Super Bowl (TM) trademark controversy XLVI, or even higher

Ron Coleman has yet another installment in the ongoing annual saga of legal jeopardy for organizations that promote their wares (big-screen TVs, snacks) by referring to a certain football weekend event as the “Super Bowl,” rather that dodge behind the phrase “Big Game” or something equivalent. He corrects Consumer Reports on its assertion that the law provides an exemption for “news organizations,” which is not actually the case, though many uses by news organizations would in practice be exempted as fair use. Earlier here, etc.

More: “It’s Time to Stand Up to the NFL and Call It the Superbowl” [Paul Alan Levy]

Lindsey Lohan sues E-trade over baby commercial

On Super Bowl Sunday, E-Trade ran one of their annoying talking-baby commercials; this one featured a blond baby named “Lindsay” (the 380th most popular baby-girl name in 2008) that another baby calls a “milk-aholic.” This, says 23-year-old Lindsay Lohan, was a violation of the rights to her “name and characterization”; she’s sued in Nassau County, New York state court, and is asking for $100 million. The advertising agency says Baby Lindsay was named after someone on the ad team. [lawsuit via TMZ; NY Post; Reuters]

Commenter Richard Nieporent reminds us of the similar Spike Lee vs. Spike TV silliness.

February 3 roundup