Notable legal developments

Moderators: shutout, evs' Boytoy, Irish Mike

Post Reply

User avatar 1.DocZaius » Thu May 16, 2019 4:55 pm

https://www.courthousenews.com/banana-c ... d-circuit/
Image

PHILADELPHIA (CN) — Defending similarities between competing banana costumes, a lawyer urged the Third Circuit on Wednesday to overturn a copyright injunction.

“They look very similar,” said David Schrader of the firm Paylin Krieg Adams, because they are both based off of bananas one would find “in nature.”

“I thought the counsel would wear the costumes,” U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Chagares laughed.

Schrader’s client, Kangaroo Manufacturing, took to the Philadelphia-based appeals court after a federal judge enjoined it from selling products that infringed on the banana costume copyrighted by Rasta Imposta in 2010.

Noting that it had a former business relationship with the founder of Kangaroo, Rasta says Kangaroo knew the costume was copyrighted and had even sold the costume for Rasta before a falling out.

In the ruling for Rasta last year, U.S. District Judge Noel Hillman concluded that, apart from variations in the shade of yellow, there was not enough of a difference between the two costumes.

But Schrader argued Wednesday that there is nothing original about Rasta’s banana costume, such as brown spots or perhaps sunglasses, that would make it protectable; it is simply a ripe, yellow banana.

“So a costume of a terribly underripe or an overripe banana is copyrightable?” U.S. Circuit Judge Thomas Hardiman said. “But one of a normal off-the-shelf banana is not copyrightable?”

Schrader says not exactly, but pressed that there are only so many ways a banana can look.

“It was designed to look like a banana in nature,” Schrader said. “There is no artistic twist.”

Opposing counsel Alexis Arena disputed meanwhile that Rasta’s banana costume is uninspired.

“There are so many ways to conceive a design of a banana,” said Arena, of Flaster Greenberg law firm. “And they conceived it exactly as ours.”

“The shape has to be a banana, otherwise it’s not a banana costume,” Judge Hardiman pushed back.

Arena agreed, but noted that it was the design of the black tips, the two vertical lines and the curvature on both banana costumes that justify an infringement.

On rebuttal, Schrader called it a clear-cut case.

“It was designed to look like a banana, and it looks like a banana,” said Schrader.

U.S. District Judge Mitchell Goldberg rounded out Wednesday’s panel, sitting by designation from Pennsylvania’s Eastern District.
Quote

2.Supes44444 » Thu May 16, 2019 5:50 pm

That company Rasta Imposta has sued K-Mart and Party City over similar costumes in the past. It's ridiculous.
Quote

3.GFY » Thu May 16, 2019 7:46 pm

:lol:
Quote
Image

User avatar 4.DocZaius » Thu May 16, 2019 9:17 pm

https://abovethelaw.com/2019/05/lawyer- ... ot-amused/
Oklahoma defense attorney Mark Bailey is under fire in Oklahoma for, among other things, taking a poop-stained check to the offices of the Oklahoma Bar Association and asking that it be delivered directly to a staff member of the OBA General Counsel’s office:

When the check was delivered, the complaint said the check had a “pinched indentation and there was a brown, damp smear across its front.”…. The complaint said test results confirmed the substance on the check was fecal matter.

Bailey was also arrested for assault and battery after allegedly running his car into a woman over a parking space a couple years back, but in all these stories that understandably gets second billing compared to “fecal matter check,” because what’s a little “menacing with grievous injury” compared to scatological payments?

For his part, Bailey denies any wrongdoing, but the defense outlined in the disciplinary complaint raises even more questions:
The complaint said Bailey and his paralegal went to the office of the General Counsel. It said “Bailey denied there was anything nefarious about the check.”

His paralegal said “the checkbook had fallen between Bailey’s car seats and that the brown substance was already smeared on the check at the time she filled it in for Bailey’s signature.”
What, pray tell, goes on in Bailey’s car?!? If one opens a checkbook to find a bunch of smeared brown matter, why not flip to the next check?!? Why would a lawyer forfeit billable hours to accompany a paralegal on such a purely clerical task?!? So many questions.
Quote

5.Supes44444 » Fri May 17, 2019 1:28 pm

wow. That's just....no words.
Quote

6.evil gator » Fri May 17, 2019 1:55 pm

ugh
Quote

User avatar 7.DocZaius » Sat May 18, 2019 6:21 pm

Richard Simmons gets SLAPP'd, judge writes that being labeled as "transgender" isn't defamatory.

https://www.jdjournal.com/2017/08/31/ju ... ation/amp/
Quote

User avatar 8.DocZaius » Wed May 22, 2019 3:18 pm

A federal judge in Texas wants you to know she’s sick and tired of whiny lawyers

https://qz.com/work/1496431/federal-jud ... y-lawyers/
Quote

9.Supes44444 » Wed May 22, 2019 5:15 pm

https://blogs.findlaw.com/legally_weird ... ested.html

Wisconsin man thinks he's in Florida apparently.
Quote

10.Supes44444 » Wed May 22, 2019 5:18 pm

https://loweringthebar.net/2019/05/mont ... anada.html

Montana doesn't want to be sold to Canada. Who knew?
Quote

User avatar 11.DocZaius » Wed May 22, 2019 5:40 pm

https://loweringthebar.net/2019/05/mont ... anada.html

Montana doesn't want to be sold to Canada. Who knew?
According to the Great Falls Tribune, the vote followed its report that thousands of people had signed a petition on Change.org calling for the U.S. to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion “to eliminate the national debt.” The petition didn’t really get into the details. “We have too much debt and Montana is useless,” wrote the organizer, Ian Hammond. “Just tell them it has beavers or something.” At the time of the Tribune report linked above, 8,500 people had signed the petition (the number currently stands at 18,501).
Quote

12.9508 » Wed May 22, 2019 5:46 pm

https://loweringthebar.net/2019/05/mont ... anada.html

Montana doesn't want to be sold to Canada. Who knew?
According to the Great Falls Tribune, the vote followed its report that thousands of people had signed a petition on Change.org calling for the U.S. to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion “to eliminate the national debt.” The petition didn’t really get into the details. “We have too much debt and Montana is useless,” wrote the organizer, Ian Hammond. “Just tell them it has beavers or something.” At the time of the Tribune report linked above, 8,500 people had signed the petition (the number currently stands at 18,501).
They can have Alabama, and both Dakota’s too.
Quote

13.HG 2.0 » Wed May 22, 2019 6:01 pm

https://loweringthebar.net/2019/05/mont ... anada.html

Montana doesn't want to be sold to Canada. Who knew?
According to the Great Falls Tribune, the vote followed its report that thousands of people had signed a petition on Change.org calling for the U.S. to sell Montana to Canada for $1 trillion “to eliminate the national debt.” The petition didn’t really get into the details. “We have too much debt and Montana is useless,” wrote the organizer, Ian Hammond. “Just tell them it has beavers or something.” At the time of the Tribune report linked above, 8,500 people had signed the petition (the number currently stands at 18,501).
They can have Alabama, and both Dakota’s too.
Always wished someone would slice off from just north of Macon to just south of Valdosta and sell it off ..it would have made my commutes from ga more enjoyable
Quote

User avatar 14.DocZaius » Wed May 29, 2019 1:56 pm

Recent large jury verdicts in Roundup cases are based on witchcraft, not science:

https://reason.com/2019/05/16/the-crazy ... itigation/
Quote

15.9508 » Wed May 29, 2019 1:57 pm

Recent large jury verdicts in Roundup cases are based on witchcraft, not science:

https://reason.com/2019/05/16/the-crazy ... itigation/
And will be reduced dramatically on appeal.
Quote

User avatar 16.ufgators68 » Wed May 29, 2019 2:05 pm

I wonder how many forms of cancer my father in law has... he's been farming for probably 40 years.
Quote
Image

17.evil gator » Wed May 29, 2019 2:19 pm

Recent large jury verdicts in Roundup cases are based on witchcraft, not science:

https://reason.com/2019/05/16/the-crazy ... itigation/
And will be reduced dramatically on appeal.
but already leading to tons of copycat suits, with an ultimate result of making people less safe not more. Roundup is one of the more studied and safest chemicals in existence, and it will be replaced by something far less studied, and in all likelihood less safe.

Poor science.
Quote

User avatar 18.DocZaius » Wed May 29, 2019 2:52 pm

Asking a lay jury to decide complex issues of medical causation that many scientists don't even fully comprehend is one of the great failings of our court system.
Quote

19.evil gator » Wed May 29, 2019 2:56 pm

Asking a lay jury to decide complex issues of medical causation that many scientists don't even fully comprehend is one of the great failings of our court system.
ordinary folks do tend to fall for the correlation = causation myth.

Though doctors and scientists do tend to get it, but some of them have other axes to grind.
Quote

20.HG 2.0 » Wed May 29, 2019 3:56 pm

Recent large jury verdicts in Roundup cases are based on witchcraft, not science:

https://reason.com/2019/05/16/the-crazy ... itigation/
And will be reduced dramatically on appeal.
but already leading to tons of copycat suits, with an ultimate result of making people less safe not more. Roundup is one of the more studied and safest chemicals in existence, and it will be replaced by something far less studied, and in all likelihood less safe.

Poor science.
But Mommy Blogger, PhD said MONSANTO BAD MONSANTO KILLS
So it’s gotta be true
Quote

21.evil gator » Wed May 29, 2019 4:23 pm



And will be reduced dramatically on appeal.
but already leading to tons of copycat suits, with an ultimate result of making people less safe not more. Roundup is one of the more studied and safest chemicals in existence, and it will be replaced by something far less studied, and in all likelihood less safe.

Poor science.
But Mommy Blogger, PhD said MONSANTO BAD MONSANTO KILLS
So it’s gotta be true
and the wildly corrupt IARC

https://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffreyka ... b6cb061abd
Quote

22.HG 2.0 » Thu May 30, 2019 4:01 pm



but already leading to tons of copycat suits, with an ultimate result of making people less safe not more. Roundup is one of the more studied and safest chemicals in existence, and it will be replaced by something far less studied, and in all likelihood less safe.

Poor science.
But Mommy Blogger, PhD said MONSANTO BAD MONSANTO KILLS
So it’s gotta be true
and the wildly corrupt IARC

https://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffreyka ... b6cb061abd
Wow
Quote

User avatar 23.DocZaius » Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:46 pm

https://loweringthebar.net/2019/05/unet ... board.html
According to the Tampa Bay Times, the Florida Bar has opened an investigation into the conduct of a lawyer who allegedly forced a raccoon off his boat after finding the animal had stowed away on board. This is an issue for a couple of reasons: (1) the boat was 20 miles out to sea at the time, and (2) the lawyer posted a video of the incident on social media, contrary to years of advice from legal bloggers not to post videos of incidents on social media:



Given the distance from shore, the raccoon is now presumed to be dead. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission launched an inquiry into the apparent raccoon murder on May 8, but as the ABA Journal also reported today, the Florida Bar has now opened an ethics probe as well. This brings the matter firmly within my jurisdiction.

Whether the Florida Bar has any jurisdiction, however, is a very different question.

To start with, I wondered why the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission would be involved, because in no way, shape, form, or place is the raccoon considered an endangered species (to my knowledge). But Florida law appears to prohibit the “taking” of any fur-bearing animal without a permit, and raccoons are specifically listed in the definition of “fur-bearing animal.” In some states, raccoons are considered a “nuisance species” that people are basically encouraged to kill. See “Virginians! You Now Have an Extra 22 Hours to Kill Raccoons on Sunday” (July 23, 2018). But apparently not in Florida. Also, “taking” is defined very broadly, to include not only hunting but also merely “pursuing” the animal, whether or not one ends up in possession of it. So I suppose the commission could argue it has jurisdiction to investigate whether this guy illegally “took” the “fur-bearing animal” without paying the $25 fee first.

More significant would be the potential criminal charge. As in most states, it is illegal under Florida law to unnecessarily “torment” or kill any animal, or cause the same to be done, and if this is done intentionally and results in the “cruel death or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering” upon said animal, it’s a third-degree felony. (You also can’t use it in a “simulated bullfighting exhibition,” but maybe case law has limited that statute to bulls.) Well, he was plainly taunting the beast, but that’s not the kind of “torment” the legislature had in mind, I’m sure. As for the “cruel death” part, he might still have a decent necessity argument. He might plausibly have believed the thing could be rabid, and trying to trap it could be difficult and potentially dangerous.

He could also argue, of course, that there’s no evidence the raccoon is actually dead.

“The raccoon is presumed drowned,” as the Times put it, but as I understand it isn’t easy to prosecute if you don’t have a body. And while no raccoon expert has yet answered any of my tweets, there is some evidence that raccoons can swim a significant distance. According to Raccoons: A Natural History, raccoons have been directly observed crossing rivers and lakes up to 1,000 feet wide. True, that would still leave the alleged victim here … let’s see … 104,600 feet short of dry land, but it didn’t say anyone saw a raccoon fail to cross something bigger. In fact, the same source says that raccoons “regularly journey across salt water between several of the keys in south Florida.” That seemed promising, but the greatest distance involved there seems to be about seven miles, and the author is probably talking about much shorter raccoon crossings. Still, we might have a basis for reasonable doubt here.

But let’s return to the question of why the Florida Bar has gotten involved. I know quite a bit about legal ethics, my friends, and I can tell you that there’s nothing in the rules about raccoons. And the Bar only has jurisdiction over rules violations. Conduct can be unethical even if it isn’t criminal (you know who you are), and conversely even criminal conduct may not violate the legal-ethics rules. In fact, it’s only a violation to “commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.” Fla. R. Prof. Conduct 4-8.4(b). Throwing a raccoon overboard doesn’t have anything to do with honesty or trustworthiness, unless you promised the raccoon you wouldn’t, I guess. So the question is whether even felony animal cruelty—assuming this qualified—would reflect adversely on the person’s “fitness as a lawyer.”

I think the answer is no, unless maybe there were a pattern of behavior that would raise a legitimate concern about the person’s mental state, and there’s no suggestion of that here. Certainly some crimes are so severe—like, let’s say, murder (of a human)—that the Bar might consider the culprit basically disqualified from practicing law. On the other hand, it might not. See “Convicted Killer Headed Back to Law School” (Sept. 1, 2011). Here, while we might well consider the conduct despicable, seems like the Wildlife Commission and potentially the criminal-justice system has things under control, and the Bar doesn’t need to get involved.

Plus, I think we still need to hear from a raccoon expert. Let’s not rush to judgment until we do.
Quote

24.evil gator » Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:08 pm

amazingly dumb in this day and age to post killing an animal of any sort online.

and while its not endangered providing federal protection there may be state wildlife laws/general provisions.

Even if its 100% legal, its 100% stupid.
Quote

User avatar 25.DocZaius » Tue Jun 04, 2019 5:45 pm

Quote
Sort by

« Sports, Entertainment, and Everything Else

cron