• New FASB regulation may provide fodder for trial lawyers: publicly disclose your internal analysis of liability (thus giving away crucial settlement information and attracting more lawsuits), and/or face lawsuits when your disclosure turns out to be incorrect. [CFO.com; CFO.com; NLJ/law.com ($); FASB RFC]
• NBC settles a “You-made-me-commit-suicide-by-exposing-my-pedophilia” lawsuit. [LA Times; WSJ Law Blog; Conradt v. NBC Universal]
• A victim of overwarning? 17-year-old loses hat on Six Flags Batman roller-coaster ride, ignores multiple warning signs to jump multiple fences into unauthorized area, retrieves hat, loses head. [FoxNews/AP; Atlanta Journal-Constitution; TortsProf]
• Lots of Ninth Circuit reversals this term, as per usual. [The Recorder/law.com]
• A no-Twinkie defense doesn’t fly in a maid-beating case. [CNN/AP via ATL]
• The Chinese government demonstrates that it can enforce laws against IP piracy when it wants to [Marginal Revolution]
• “Justice Scalia said he thought that the United States was ‘over-lawed,’ leading to too many lawyers in the country. ‘I don’t think our legal system should be that complex. I think that any system that requires that many of the country’s best minds, and they are the best minds, is too complex. If you look at the figures, where does the top of the class in college go to? It goes into law. They don’t go into teaching. Now I love the law, there is nothing I would rather do but it doesn’t produce anything.’” [Telegraph]
• Above the Law commenters decidedly unimpressed by my looks. Looking forward to feminists rushing to my defense against “silencing insults.” [Above the Law]

The legendary test pilot sued the cellphone company — and has gotten past summary judgment with his claim — because a Cingular press release compared one of the company’s technical innovations to his work breaking the sound barrier. (Rebecca Tushnet, Jun. 22 via David Post @ Volokh).

• Monday’s polar bear panel at AEI is a panel about the law of polar bears and the effect of the FWS decision to list them as threatened, rather than a panel featuring polar bears. So no fish will be served. Volokh’s Jonathan Adler will be there, though. [Volokh; AEI]
• Limiting lawsuit abuses lowers costs from litigation, creates jobs in long run. [Engler & McQuillan @ Detroit News]
• HBO to small businesses: prepositions are okay, but conjunctions will lead to injunctions. [Baltimore Sun]
• A one-sided love letter to Cozen O’Connor in the Philadelphia Inquirer over its September 11 litigation is a bit too revealing about its deep-pocket searches: “Cozen lawyers also had to be sure that such a defendant made financial sense, for the firm and its clients.” Culpability, of course, isn’t in the equation; and the newspaper story fails to account for the public-policy implications of having trial lawyers stepping on foreign policy. [Philadelphia Inquirer]
• Life imitates “The Office”: law firm offers “love contracts” for dating workers. [ABA Journal]
• More evidence of FDA overwarning, even when the science and law does not justify it. [Kyle Sampson @ Product Liability Law 360]
• Business tries to bully small website with litigation; small website successfully fights back. [CL&P Blog]
• “[Ron] Paul accomplished the one thing he’s always been good at: using political appeals to get people to send money. I don’t feel freer.” [Henley via Kirkendall]
• “It’s infuriating how all three presidential candidates prattle on about the need to fight global warming while also complaining about the high price of gasoline.” [Postrel]
• Story on Vioxx settlement and Merck winning reversals heavily quotes me. [Product Liability Law 360 ($)]

“Three years ago, Purina sent a cease-and-desist letter to Chow, Baby!, a Baltimore area pet supply shop and Web site owned by Robin McDonald, asserting that its use of the ‘Chow, Baby!’ name was likely to cause confusion with Purina’s CHOW trademarks and would dilute the distinctive quality of those marks. … According to the dictionary, ‘chow’ is defined as food, a meaning that dates back to 1860.” (Carolyn Elefant, Legal Blog Watch, May 2). More from Ron Coleman:

But companies such as Purina are not interested in discussing the matter. Brand management isn’t a seminar. They are interesting in executing and maintaining a policy of complete domination of not only their brand equity space, but a comfortable semiotic buffer all around that space to the full extent that they can get away with it. Judges simply do not award fees or otherwise penalize brand owners for overreaching under the Lanham Act, though the Act empowers them to do so (the exceptions are notable and hence reportable). For this reason it is worth it to Purina and companies like it — it is a rational economic and corporate choice — to litigate these cases at the small risk of actually getting to a final adverse judgment regarding a trademark they have no right to anyway, as weighed against the much higher possibility that the other side will surrender $10,000, $25,000 or even $100,000 worth of fees into the process — dollars that are orders of magnitude more significant to the defendant (or declaratory judgment plaintiff) than for a corporation that probably has counsel on a retainer anyway.

In Baltimore; loser pays; trademark; trademarks

Initial reports had it that the car company’s lawyers were objecting to fans’ putting out a calendar adorned with pictures they’d taken themselves of their beloved Mustangs. Later, the company said it was fine with the fans’ publishing the photos and calendars so long as they didn’t use the Ford logo. (AdRants, Jan. 14; Culture Garage, Jan. 11).

• Lawyer for Mothers Against Drunk Driving: better not call yourself Mothers Against Anything Else without our say-so [Phoenix New Times]
• Ohio insurer agrees to refund $51 million in premiums, but it’s a mutual, so money’s more or less moving from customers’ left to right pockets — except for a big chunk payable to charity, and $16 million to you-know-who [Business First of Columbus; Grange Mutual Casualty]
• Sources say Judge Pearson, of pants suit fame, isn’t getting reappointed to his D.C. administrative law judge post [WaPo]
• Between tighter safety rules and rising liability costs, more British towns are having to do without Christmas light displays [Telegraph]
• So strong are the incentives to settle class-action securities suits that only four have been tried to a verdict in past twelve years [WSJ law blog]. More: D&O Diary.
• It’s so cute when a family’s small kids all max out at exactly the same $2,300 donation to a candidate, like when they dress in matching outfits or something [WaPo via Althouse]
• Idea of SueEasy.com website for potential injury plaintiffs [Oct. 19] deemed “incredibly stupid” [Turkewitz]
• New at Point of Law: med-mal reports from Texas and Colorado; Lynne-Stewart-at-Hofstra wrap-up (more); immune to reason on vaccines; turning tax informants into bounty-hunters?; and much more;
• $800,000 race-bias suit filed after restaurant declines to provide free extra lemons with water [Madison County Record]
• Settling disabled-rights suit, biggest card banking network agrees to install voice-guidance systems on 30,000 ATMs to assist blind customers [NFB]
• Think twice before publishing “ratings” of Pennsylvania judges [six years ago on Overlawyered]

Twentieth-Century Fox has a trademark for “the spoken word ‘D’oh’” (popularized by Homer Simpson’s annoyed grunts) though the docket indicates that they have not yet filed a statement of use; the USPTO kids’ page, however, indicates that that syllable, along with many other sounds, are trademarked.

Lyons Partnership, which owns the rights to the children’s character Barney, has backed off its threats against the proprietor of a parody website that portrays the lumbering purple dinosaur as evil (see Sept. 6). (Dawn C. Chmielewski, “Happy ending? Suit over Barney parody is settled”, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 29).

A correspondent on Andrew Sullivan’s letters page, unnamed as is the practice there, thinks the new Pixar animation “The Incredibles” (Feb. 24, Oct. 25, and, yes, I saw and liked it) might point the way to fruitful dialogue between those who deplore the litigation culture generally and those outraged at big business’s overuse of aggressive litigation tactics in areas like Linux, trademark and file-sharing contexts (Nov. 23).

Merits of loser-pays: Five years ago, the Mattel toy company sued artist/photographer Tom Forsythe for copyright and trademark infringement over “a series of 78 photographic images of the wildly famous doll showing her nude, and sometimes posed provocatively, in or around various household appliances. … After a lengthy legal tussle, which included a series of appeals, a federal judge late last week instructed Mattel to pay Mr. Forsythe legal fees of more than $1.8 million.” (Bill Werde, New York Times, Jun. 28).