General Law and Lawsuits

[sugar magnolia]

Yabbut, how much does it cost to have your attorney say, “LOL, No.”?

How much does it cost vs how much is it worth are 2 different things.

[noblepa]

Even if the LAPD Foundation or the LAPD itself had some sort of copyright or trademark on the acronym, wouldn't they run into a problem trying to selectively enforce their rights?

Half the cop shows on TV are set in Los Angeles. The actors routinely pound on doors, shouting "Open up. LAPD". Does the foundation intend to sue the producers of those shows over it? Such use in a fictional TV show can hardly be considered "fair use".

[northland10]

Yabbut, how much does it cost to have your attorney say, “LOL, No.”?

Priceless.

[Ben-Prime]

Yabbut, how much does it cost to have your attorney say, “LOL, No.”?

How's the line go? "You're not paying me for the time it took me to do the work. You're paying me for the time it took me to learn how to do the work well."

[chancery]

In 1887 James Ruskin famously denounced a painting, "Nocturne in Black and Gold—The Falling Rocket," which had been exhibited by James McNeill Whistler. Ruskin wrote that he "never expected to hear a coxcomb ask two hundred guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public’s face."

Whistler sued Ruskin for libel. After Whistler testified that he had completed the painting in two days, Ruskin's lawyer demanded “Oh, two days! The labour of two days, then, is that for which you ask two hundred guineas?”

Whistler replied: “No;—I ask it for the knowledge of a lifetime.”

"Nocturne in Black and Gold—The Falling Rocket" is on display at the Detroit Institute of Arts. https://dia.org/collection/nocturne-bla ... cket-64931

[bob]

Too also: The second letter (which, admittedly, is more lawyerly) took time to write.

[Foggy]

And more importantly, he took the time to understand the case before the "LOL, no" email, and he probably spent thousands of hours becoming an IP attorney before he sent it, so the "LOL, no" was based on 1) diligent examination of the facts (with his client) and 2) extreme competence in the relevant law. That isn't easily visible, but it's the background information.

Considering those two factors, together with the ultimate smackdown of the thin-skinned bullies, that simple "LOL, no" email is worth thousands of dollars in attorney's fees. You gotta be a hella lawyer with an airtight case to send something like that, and that's our MikeDunford in action.

[bob]

Considering those two factors, together with the ultimate smackdown of the thin-skinned bullies, that simple "LOL, no" email is worth thousands of dollars in attorney's fees. You gotta be a hella lawyer with an airtight case to send something like that, and that's our MikeDunford in action.

Yes, and: Mike D. is an associate; he didn't come up and execute this all by himself. The firm undoubtedly internally discussed the strength of the claim and how to respond. Our Mike may have been the vanguard, but certainly was not alone.

[Maybenaut]

I was JOKING. Jeez.

[RTH10260]

As an ex-military guy I would have expected Mikes answer to be NUTS!

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

As an ex-military guy I would have expected Mikes answer to be NUTS!

I admit, I was saddened by the missed opportunity.

[RTH10260]

Families of Uvalde shooting victims sue Activision and Meta

Anthony Ha
Updated Mon, May 27, 2024 at 12:44 AM GMT+2·

The families of victims of the shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas are suing Activision and Meta, as well as gun manufacturer Daniel Defense.

The families bringing the lawsuits are represented by attorney Josh Koskoff, who previously won a settlement from Remington for the families of Sandy Hook shooting victims. The suit against the technology companies claims, "Over the last 15 years, two of America’s largest technology companies ... have collaborated with the firearms industry in a scheme that makes the Joe Camel campaign look laughably harmless, even quaint."

Specifically, the suit points to Activision's popular "Call of Duty" video game franchise, which it describes as a "cunning form of marketing [that] has helped cultivate a new, youthful consumer base for the AR-15 assault rifle," and to Instagram, the photo app owned by Meta, which the suit claims "knowingly promulgates flimsy, easily circumvented rules that ostensibly prohibit firearm advertising; in fact, these rules function as a playbook for the gun industry."

In a statement, Activision expressed its "deepest sympathies to the families and communities who remain impacted by this senseless act of violence," but said, "Academic and scientific research continues to show that there is no causal link between video games and gun violence."

We've also reached out to Meta for additional comment.

In the lawsuit's telling, the Uvalde shooter was a "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare" player, and he was also targeted by Daniel Defense's advertising on Instagram. (Meta bans gun sales on its platforms, but The Washington Post previously reported that the company gives gun sellers 10 strikes before booting them.)

"Defendants are chewing up alienated teenage boys and spitting out mass shooters," the lawsuit argues.



https://www.yahoo.com/tech/families-uva ... 25960.html

[RTH10260]

Matthew Baker acquitted in 2016 quadruple murder case in Henry County

By Christopher King and FOX 5 Atlanta Digital Team
Updated May 20, 2024 10:17pm EDT

HENRY COUNTY, Ga. - The second man accused in the shooting deaths of four people after a bonfire in Henry County in 2016 was found not guilty on Monday.

Matthew Baker, now 26, was charged with malice murder and 29 other charges. He and Jacob Kosky were accused of shooting and killing 18-year-old Matthew Hicks, 29-year-old Keith Gibson, 20-year-old Sophia Bullard and 20-year-old Destiny Olinger in October 2016.

According to investigators, Kosky and Baker went to a house party where the victims were. Police say the defendants left but came back with guns. Then the police say Kosky and Baker opened fire. Hicks, Gibson and Bullard died inside the home. Olinger died later at the hospital.

Someone who didn’t believe the charges against Baker from the start was his mother, Angie Lanier.

"They’ve been rough, they’ve been really rough," said Lanier. "He’s just been keeping his faith."

"He said, ‘I didn’t do anything. I didn’t kill anybody. I’m innocent,’" she added.

Laneir said prosecutors offered him a plea deal that would have kept him behind bars for decades. "He said they’re trying to take my whole entire life away from me where I’ll never have kids or anything," Lanier said.

Kosky eventually confessed and said Baker was innocent. But Baker remained behind bars. "He was on 23-hour lockdown. He only got to come out for an hour," Lanier said.



https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/matthe ... nry-county

[RTH10260]

Spring Hill company sues after $1 million worth of hemp seized

WKRN News 2
24 May 2024

Spring Hill company sues after $1 million worth of hemp seized

[RTH10260]

a couple of months ago

FDA settles lawsuit over ivermectin content that doctors claimed harmed their practice

By Jen Christensen, CNN
Updated 6:53 PM EDT, Wed March 27, 2024

Hear Fauci respond to conservative candidates’ anti-science messages
The FDA said in an email to CNN on Wednesday that it “has chosen to resolve this lawsuit rather than continuing to litigate over statements that are between two and nearly four years old.”

The agency added that it has “not admitted any violation of law or any wrongdoing, disagrees with the plaintiffs’ allegation that the agency exceeded its authority in issuing the statements challenged in the lawsuit, and stands by its authority to communicate with the public regarding the products it regulates.

“FDA has not changed its position that currently available clinical trial data do not demonstrate that ivermectin is effective against COVID-19. The agency has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19.”

The lawsuit was filed in June 2022 by Drs. Rober Apter, Mary Talley Bowden and Paul Marik against the FDA, the US Department of Health and Human Services and their leaders. It claimed that the agencies were interfering with their ability to practice medicine by overstepping their authority and violating the Administrative Procedure Act.

The lawsuit says the doctors “have been pressured, unable to prescribe medication, and threatened with or subjected to professional discipline.”




https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/27/health/f ... index.html

[RTH10260]

European Union

Big Mac v Supermac’s: McDonald’s loses EU trademark fight
Ruling by European court of justice ends 17-year legal tussle between Irish chain and global rival

Lisa O'Carroll in Brussels
Wed 5 Jun 2024 14.23 CEST

The small Irish takeaway chain Supermac’s has won a David v Goliath court battle with McDonald’s over the use of the Big Mac trademark, paving the way for it to open outlets across Europe.

The ruling also means the US-founded fast food multinational has lost the right to use the name “Big Mac” in the EU in relation to chicken burgers.

The decision by the European court of justice (ECJ) ends a marathon 17-year legal fight by the Irish operator against its global rival. A Supermac’s spokesperson said the chain also had a similar case pending in the UK that, if successful, could lead to an expansion into the British market.

The legal tussle began in 2007, when Supermac’s tried to register its name in the EU as a trademark for restaurants, with a view to moving into the rest of Europe, prompting McDonald’s to oppose the application by Supermac’s as a name and a logo.

McDonald’s argued that the name was too similar to its Big Mac burgers and would cause confusion among customers, winning a partial victory in 2016, when Supermac’s was granted the trademark for its restaurant name but not for many items of food and drink.

The following year, the Irish chain founded in 1978 in Ballinasloe, County Galway, filed an application before the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to end the exclusive use of the term “Big Mac” by McDonald’s in the bloc.

It argued that the trademark had not been put to genuine use in the EU in connection with a restaurant name within a continuous five-year period, and accused McDonald’s of engaging in “trademark intimidation, registering brand names that are simply set aside to be used against future competitors”.

The EUIPO partly upheld Supermac’s case in 2019, and on Wednesday the ECJ found in its favour with a decision to delist Big Mac as a trademarked restaurant name and stop the chain using it on poultry products.

“We objected to them to their use of Big Mac as a restaurant because it is not a restaurant,” said Supermac’s founder, Pat McDonagh. “So what happened today is the European court has delisted it because they hadn’t used the trademark [as Big Mac for a restaurant] … Then the ECJ went a bit further: they said Big Mac can be used as a meat product, a burger, but it can’t be used as a chicken product.”

The ECJ said: “The evidence which was submitted by McDonald’s does not provide any indication of the extent of use of the mark in connection with those goods, in particular as regards to the volume of sales, the length of the period during which the mark was used and the frequency of use.”


https://www.theguardian.com/business/ar ... mark-fight

[RTH10260]

Baby Reindeer: woman who claims to be real-life Martha sues Netflix for $170m
Fiona Harvey accuses streaming company of defamation, negligence and emotional distress in lawsuit over hit series

Maya Yang
Thu 6 Jun 2024 23.16 CEST

The woman who identified herself as the inspiration behind the character Martha Scott in the Netflix hit drama series Baby Reindeer has filed a $170m lawsuit against the streaming giant.

In a lawsuit filed on Thursday in the US district court for the central district of California, Fiona Harvey accused Netflix of defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, gross negligence and violations of her right of publicity.

It follows the phenomenal success of the series released this year, starring 35-year-old Richard Gadd, a Scottish writer and actor who created the show based on his own experiences of being allegedly stalked.

Harvey has publicly identified herself as the inspiration behind the series but denied being a stalker, as well as claims that she sent Gadd 41,000 emails, hundreds of voice messages and 106 letters.

Speaking in a recent interview with Piers Morgan, Harvey said: “I don’t think I sent him anything. There may have been a couple of emails, jokey banter, but that is it.”

The lawsuit, which names Netflix as a defendant, states: “The lies that Defendants told about Harvey to over 50 million people worldwide include that Harvey is a twice convicted stalker who was sentenced to five years in prison, and that Harvey sexually assaulted Gadd. Defendants told these lies, and never stopped, because it was a better story than the truth, and better stories made money.”

It went on to add: “Netflix, a multi-national billion dollar entertainment streaming company did literally nothing to confirm the ‘true story’ that Gadd told. That is, it never investigated whether Harvey was convicted, a very serious misrepresentation of the facts. It did nothing to understand the relationship between Gadd and Harvey, if any … As a result of Defendants’ lies, malfeasance and utterly reckless misconduct, Harvey’s life had been ruined. Simply, Netflix and Gadd destroyed her reputation, her character and her life.”

Harvey is seeking at least $50m for actual damages, at least $50m in compensatory damages for “mental anguish, loss of enjoyment and loss of business”, at least $50m for “all profits from ‘Baby Reindeer’”, as well as $20m for punitive damages.



https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radi ... ix-lawsuit

[Ben-Prime]

I'm afraid I don't quite understand how if she had to tell people the differently named character was her, she could possibly have been defamed. Can one of our IAALs explain this?

[Foggy]

I don't understand her "right to publicity" as the basis for a legal cause of action, but it's probably some new law in California.

[sugar magnolia]

I don't understand her "right to publicity" as the basis for a legal cause of action, but it's probably some new law in California.

Maybe she copyrighted her stalking?

[Foggy]

If I send 41,000 emails to a young lady in California, do I own the copyright to all of them? Asking for a friend.

[Foggy]

Ol' Wifehorn sez she's a serial harasser, that some people came out, after the vid was released, in support of Gadd. 'Course, they would know the name, if they were victims of her harassment.

[bob]

I'm afraid I don't quite understand how if she had to tell people the differently named character was her, she could possibly have been defamed.

"Innuendo" is a term of art, meaning capable of discerning the subject. Like if I say "twice impeached convicted felon," innuendo lets you know to whom I'm referring.

In her complaint, she says once tweeted (pre-show) a notable line from the show. People then found that tweet and deduced she was the "based on a true story" part of the story. She also says there are similarities between her and the character, which helped corroborate the link.

As proof, she notes the existence of various internet fora that had linked her to the show.

The complaint alleges defamation, IIED, negligence (two ways), and right of publicity* (two ways).


* Right of publicity means someone making money off your likeness (without your consent).

[chancery]

The Seventh Circuit's website is down. Clicking https://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/ yields "Object not found! Error 404"

I'm miffed, because I want to read Judge Easterbrook's June 4th decision denouncing a lawyer's brief because "[h]is brief is set in Bernhard Modern, a display face suited to movie posters and used in the title sequence of The Twilight Zone TV show."

https://www.abajournal.com/news/article ... t-a-person#:

[pipistrelle]

The Seventh Circuit's website is down. Clicking https://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/ yields "Object not found! Error 404"

I'm miffed, because I want to read Judge Easterbrook's June 4th decision denouncing a lawyer's brief because "[h]is brief is set in Bernhard Modern, a display face suited to movie posters and used in the title sequence of The Twilight Zone TV show."

https://www.abajournal.com/news/article ... t-a-person#:

It’s here. http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/O ... 218701:S:0