In Rochester there’s a food fight going on in court over a dubious local culinary specialty, the “Garbage Plate”, which consists per AP of “a heaping platter of hot dogs or hamburger, home fries, macaroni salad and baked beans smothered in a meaty hot sauce”. Nick Tahou’s restaurant has held a registered trademark to the Depression-era dish since 1992 and may fear, like the promoter of the breakfast health food in the Saki story, losing its market supremacy once rivals introduce yet more unpalatable-sounding concoctions. Copycat platters sold by other Rochester restaurants include Messy Plate, Sloppy Plate, Dog Dish and Plat du Refuse. (Ben Dobbin, “In Rochester food fight, ‘Garbage Plate’ takes on ‘Plat du Refuse'”, AP/Buffalo News, Apr. 9).
Posts Tagged ‘trademarks’
Domain name nastygrams
I find these letters depressing. These are the kind of letters that cause people to hate lawyers.
Notice of the problem and the trademark holders’ intent to file a claim are required by the [Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act], but the tone of these letters is not. Instead of nicely explaining what the law is, what the goal is and how appreciative the trademark holder would be if the domain name holder was courteous enough to transfer the name as requested, these letters bombard the recipients with legal jargon and serious threats without context or explanation. …
When I have a client on either side of the cybersquatting scenario, I urge starting with the polite request approach. Usually, I can succeed that way through some polite explanation of the law over the phone and a little patience. That approach also costs my clients less that either court or arbitration would since both of those require filing fees and lengthy legal briefs. More importantly, solving disputes through discussion makes me feel good and helps me prove that, at least occasionally, lawyers can act like human beings and make someone’s day instead of ruining it.
(Judith Silver, Cybersquatting Ain’t What It Used To Be).
Tulsa World v. bloggers
The Tulsa, Okla. newspaper has sent a cease-and-desist letter to blogger Michael D. Bates of Batesline for “inappropriately link[ing his] website to Tulsa World content” and insisted that he at once remove “unauthorized links to our content” (his posts on the subject). (It also complains about Bates’s having reprinting editorial items or portions thereof; he believes the reprinting was defensible under “fair use”). Blogger-lawyer Ronald Coleman, who recently launched the Likelihood of Confusion blog covering trademark, copyright and trade secret law, is assisting Bates and comments on the story (Feb. 18 and other entries). TechLawAdvisor also adds an observation. More on “deep linking”: Jan. 25, 2004 and links from there.
Zwebner lawsuits on Internet posts
Michael J. Zwebner, the CEO of penny-stock holding company Universal Communication Systems , is unhappy that he’s being flamed on the RagingBull.com message board, run by Lycos. He may have a legitimate beef to some extent; the dozens of John Doe usernames he’s seeking to discover in one lawsuit are being represented by a lawyer, L. Van Stillman, who apparently pled guilty to SEC charges of “pump and dump” schemes. (Then again, UCSY has a fishy 10-K, being forced to admit that their auditors don’t think that the company can be maintained as a going concern. They’ve certainly had some bad luck: UCSY’s 2003 10-K was late “because of a fire at the building which houses the Company’s corporate headquarters”. The most recent 10-Q was late “due to a fire at the corporate accountant’s office”.)
More importantly for our purposes here, Zwebner’s litigation methods, through his lawyer John H. Faro, are questionable. He’s filed five lawsuits in federal court in Miami, against anonymous posters, against Lycos (for, among other things, “trademark violations” for naming a message board after the ticker symbol UCSY), and even a couple of purported class actions. He’s especially upset at one anonymous poster, who has the especially credible username of Wolfblitzzer0 [sic]. So, Zwebner has sued… CNN and the real-life Wolf Blitzer! It seems, according to Zwebner’s view of the world, that Blitzer is supposed to be on the lookout for anonymous posters using similar names, and should be held liable for such posters’ postings when he fails to police the use of such usernames. (Jessica M. Walker, “Executive Faces Uphill Battle in His Suits Over Anonymous Web Attacks”, Daily Business Review, Jan. 28).
A Google search shows that Zwebner seems to have had previous success intimidating posters into silence. Update: Professor Volokh comments.
“Marvel Battles Role Players”
City of Heroes, an entry in the “massively multiplayer online game” category pioneered by Sony’s Everquest, allows its nearly 200,000 participants to “bring the world of comic books alive” by inventing characters and selecting names, costumes and powers for them; the characters then interact with other players’ characters. Some users choose to imitate established comic-book heroes in creating their characters. In November, comic-book publisher Marvel Entertainment sued the site’s proprietor. According to Marvel’s complaint (PDF, courtesy Electronic Frontier Foundation), “Defendants’ Creation Engine facilitates and, indeed, encourages players to create and utilize heroes that are nearly identical in name, appearance and characteristics to characters belonging to Marvel” and the site is responsible for “directly, contributorily and vicariously infringing upon Marvel copyrights and trademarks”. Cory Doctorow of Boing Boing, a veteran of online free-speech fights, counters: “Asking City of Heroes to police their users to ensure that they don’t replicate Marvel characters is like asking a school to police its students to make sure none of them show up for Halloween in a homemade Spider-Man costume.” (Daniel Terdiman, Wired News, Nov. 16; Fred von Lohmann, “Et tu, Marvel?”, Law.com, Dec. 3 (contemplating a future offense of “pretending without a license”)).
The Lawyers of “Spamalot”
Continuing Broadway Monday at Overlawyered, Eric Idle reports that the musical production of “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” has spent more money on lawyers than the comedy troupe did on the entire budget of the original coconut-laden film. No word on whether last year’s threatened action by “Camelot” producers complaining about possible confusion is behind those expenses. Hormel, producers of food-like substance Spam, has adopted the more productive approach of co-optation, rather than litigation, and is offering a “Collectors’ Edition” Spam tin. (Eric Idle, “The Tale of Spamalot”, Daily Llama, Sep. 6; AP/USA Today, “‘Spamalot’ heads to Broadway”, Dec. 3; Ernio Hernandez, “‘Monty Python’ Musical Spamalot Urged to Change Title by Broadway-Bound Camelot”, Playbill, Nov. 14, 2003; “Monty Python Star Faces Costly Broadway Wrangle”, WENN, Nov. 12, 2003).
“One-Question Interview: Tom Perrotta”
From this August:
Yankee Pot Roast: Which do you prefer (to munch on, not to adorn book covers): Pepperidge Farm Goldfish or chocolate-chip cookies?
Tom Perrotta: I prefer chocolate chip cookies. They don’t have as many lawyers.
Background detail: Malcolm Jones, “Fiction: New Snack Attack”, Newsweek, May 24; before-and-after book covers; Perrotta’s Little Children.
Sued for criticizing
National Law Journal covers the continuing tendency of companies to sue customers and others who post “gripe sites” complaining about their products and services (see Nov. 7 and links from there). “Currently, about a dozen gripe-site lawsuits are pending across the country.” Courts have been unfriendly to such suits, but some companies continue to pursue them, leading critics to suspect that they’re aimed at punishing the critics. (Tresa Baldas, “Trademark Lawsuits: The Price of Online Griping”, Dec. 2). There’s a site called webgripesites.com that monitors the action.
Left, right and center together
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).
Latest customer-complaint-website suit
Alan and Linda Townsend of Dallas, Ga. were dissatisfied with a product called Spray On Siding after it was applied to their house and started a website to vent the opinions of other unhappy customers. The company that sold them the siding is now suing them for defamation, trademark infringement and other sins. (“Careful Where You Complain”, AP/Wired News, Nov. 5). For more suits against critics’ websites, see Mar. 31-Apr. 2, 2000 (Terminix case), as well as other cases on our free speech and media page. More: “May It Please the Court” also comments.