Posted on : 22-07-2011 | By : Sarah | In : Legal Stuff, News
0
Both are suing over alleged infringement of intellectual property rights having to do with look-a-likes. Apple claims the new Galaxy tablet is a mimic and that Samsung “copied the look, product design, packaging and user interface of [Apple's iPhone and iPad] products.” Kim Kardashian asserts that Old Navy used a model as her stand-in for the retailer’s latest advertising commercial because the woman featured in the ad looks like her.
Apple has the power and punch of a patent and trademark portfolio to back up its claim against Samsung over the design of the Galaxy tablet. In her suit against Old Navy, Ms. Kardashian is relying on the weight of her Twitter and Facebook following to substantiate her celebrity and claims of IP rights stemming from her visage and persona.
While Apple’s suit could have implications for the smartphone and tablet device marketplace, Ms. Kardashian’s suit could affect the marketplace for those persons unfortunate enough to possess similar features as that of a celebrity. Perhaps the model, Melissa Molinaro, used in the Old Navy commercials should counter-sue for loss of future earnings due to Ms. Kardashian’s monopoly of physical features. Just a thought.
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
pos and ts
Posted on : 29-01-2010 | By : Sarah | In : Legal Stuff, News
0
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?
Posted on : 28-01-2010 | By : Sarah | In : Uncategorized
0
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)