In the ongoing saga of apparel warfare, the lawsuit between The North Face and The South Butt continues.  The latest action was the court’s denial of a motion by The South Butt to dismiss the lawsuit.  Read the court order here.  The Judge in this case is apparently not as amused as I am by the witty filings of counsel for The South Butt.  The court order reminds counsel of Rule 11, and states:

Although this filing may not reach the level of frivolity, it approaches the line.

And by that, I don’t believe he meant the line between the two cheeks on that memorable South Butt logo.

An article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch remarked upon the tenor of the Judge’s comments, questioning whether the humor was appreciated or lost on the court in this case.  Counsel for The South Butt is quoted as saying this case is inherently humorous, which I find inherently obvious.  Let’s hope the humor does not overshadow the important legal question as to the protection of parody and the distinction between these two marks in question.

See previous posts: The North Face Sues the South Butt and North vs. South Update

Ah, the irony.

A Chinese company by the name of Shenzhen Great Long Brother Industrial Co is preparing to sue Apple if the iPad enters the Chinese market.  This company – let’s call it Shenzhen for brevity – pre-emptively cloned the iPad and released their cloned version, called the P88, three months prior to the Apple release.  It should be noted that the P88 looks remarkably similar to the iPad concept sketches and the final product. Hmmm.

The president of Shenzhen is now threatening a lawsuit, claiming Apple stole their designs!  A news report quotes President Wu of Shenzhen as being “very angry and flabbergasted” at Apple’s release of the iPad.  President Wu also stated that the P88 and iPad designs are “identical.”  Well, now, I wonder whose fault that is?

Yep, still polar opposites.  The lawsuit brought by The North Face against The South Butt continues, with a scheduling conference held yesterday, January 27, 2010.   Both poles, er, sides agreed to a preliminary injunction hearing on April 12, 2010.  A mediation is also purported to be scheduled prior to that hearing.  More to come as details unfold!

A popular outdoor product company, The North Face, is suing a student-founded start-up company, The South Butt, for trademark infringement.  The North Face complaint includes arguments for likelihood of confusion.  In response to this argument, IP counsel for The South Butt indicated that the public knows “the difference between a face and a butt.”

The South Butt website now includes a disclaimer along the same lines:

We are not in any fashion related to nor do we want to be confused with The North Face Apparel Corp. or its products sold under “The North Face” brand. If you are unable to discern the difference between a face and a butt, we encourage you to buy North Face products.

The answer submitted by The South Butt in response to The North Face complaint is equally comedic, and worth a read.  And if you feel inspired to get involved, you can participate in The South Butt Challenge App available on Facebook.

Hat tip: Patently-O (and Jake – for alerting me to this hilarious lawsuit)

A Texas-based company called TechRadium filed suit against Twitter Tuesday, August 4, 2009, in the Southern District of Texas, alleging patent infringement.  TechRadium is a technology company that makes mass notification systems which provide a platform where one message can be sent to multiple recipients over various types of devices.

The complaint alleges that Twitter infringes on three TechRadium patents: 7,130,389 (issued October 31, 2006), 7,496,183 (issued February 4, 2009), and 7,519,165 (issued April 14, 2009).  TechRadium is not just looking for a payout here, but has requested punitive damages and a permanent injunction.  Effectively, TechRadium wants to shut Twitter down and clean them out.

This lawsuit probably does not come as a surprise to Twitter.  Actually, in some ways it was expected by the company, although the plaintiff may have been the unknown variable.  Mistakenly leaked internal Twitter documents from a February 2009 strategy meeting were posted last month by TechCrunch.com, in which the expectation of legal action were discussed.  Specifically, the documents reveal that Twitter expected to be “sued for patent infringement, repeatedly and often.”  The same memo queried “should we get a great patent attorney to proactively go after these patents?”  I hope they followed up on that question!

This will be one to watch . . . and tweet about while we can.

August 18, 2009 - Update: Free outside counsel scouring TechRadium patents to aid Twitter in legal battle, read more here.