It makes fun of the NFL’s overzealous protection of the Super Bowl trademark:
Posts tagged as:
Super Bowl
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]
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 $100 million. The advertising agency says Baby Lindsay was named after someone on the ad team. [lawsuit via TMZ; NY Post; Reuters]
Commenter Richard Nieporent reminds us of the similar Spike Lee vs. Spike TV silliness.
{ 15 comments }
Every year it seems to get worse, or better, depending on your perspective, notes Ron Coleman. Earlier years here, here, here, etc., as well as “Who Dat?”
One of the many things I like about my girlfriend is that she’s the one who wants us to get a bigger television. Of course, if we got too big a television, we might not be able to hold our annual Super Bowl party: the NFL is sending around its annual set of scare letters to anyone offering a public exhibition of the Super Bowl on a television larger than 55 inches. (Jacqueline L. Salmon, WaPo, “NFL Pulls Plug On Big-Screen Church Parties For Super Bowl”, Feb. 1). Yes, you’ve seen this story before: Feb. 3 and Jan. 31 last year.
Update: and at the WSJ ($).
{ 3 comments }
“Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction during the Super Bowl halftime show may be a lot of things, but it’s apparently not worth $5,000. A judge rejected a Utah lawyer’s claim that CBS owner Viacom should pay him $5,000 for having to see Jackson’s bared breast during the Feb. 1 show. Eric Stephenson, contending false advertising, sued Viacom in small-claims court.” (AP/San Francisco Chronicle, May 27). On the earlier Boobgate lawsuit by Terri Carlin of Knoxville, Tenn., see Feb. 5, Feb. 8 and Feb. 14.
By popular demand: “Terri Carlin wants to make Janet Jackson’s bare breast into a federal case.” (“Tenn. Woman Files Suit Over Super Bowl”, AP, Feb. 5; Randy Kenner, “State of undress causes distress”, Knoxville News-Sentinel, Feb. 5; complaint). See updates Feb. 8, Feb. 14 (case withdrawn); May 28 (another case loses).
{ 3 comments }
