Posts Tagged ‘ Trademark Infringement ’
Chubby Checker Sues Over Penis Size Predictor App
February 15th, 2013. By AbiK
So there’s a couple of apps out there that’ll predict a guy’s penis size based on his shoe size. Yes, it’s that old (and questionable) wives’ tale now appearing on smartphones everywhere—God knows how many times you’ve been out and about and needed to estimate some guy’s penis size…
But one of the penis size apps involves Chubby Checker, and a lawsuit.
Haven’t heard of that app? But you’ve heard of Chubby Checker, right? Well, the music legend has been battling Hewlett-Packard (HP) and Palm over the use of his stage name—Chubby Checker (real name Ernest Evans)—a name which he just happens to have trademarked—for this app that “converts” shoe size to penis size. Yes, the app is called “The Chubby Checker”.
You can’t fault the real Checker for wanting zero connection to the app—not just because it’s probably one of the stupidest apps that’s ever been created (like, how long do you think anyone would use it? maybe 4-5 times max while slinging back some drinks at happy hour?), and not just because it’s a trademark infringement issue; but take a look at the app description:
FOR ENTERTAINMENT!!! Any of you ladies out there just start seeing someone new and wondering what the size of there member is. Well now you can right now from your phone. All you need to do is find out the man’s shoe size and plug it in and don’t worry where your from because The Chubby Checker supports shoe measurements of different regions and types. Now with The Chubby Checker there is no need for disappointment or surprise…
Who the heck wrote this? Yes, there are people out there that even spell-check cannot help. And here’s a screenshot of what you’ll get you once you “input” your man’s shoe size:
Verdict on the Chubby Checker app: Not So Sweet.
Given that The Chubby Checker app has only had 2,364 downloads—which is like less than the average graduating class size at many US universities—it’s not as though anyone’s really clamoring for ability to estimate penis size. A good thing for Checker.
Unfortunately, though, Checker had already sent a cease and desist letter to both HP and Palm that apparently went unanswered and certainly unheeded. So now he’s suing.
For those wondering about the other penis sizer app of note, it’s called The Predicktor (ha-ha get it?) and, rather than being targeted toward women, this one’s aimed at men—for those insecure moments when a guy wonders how he measures up. At least from a screenshot perspective, The Predicktor measures up better than The Chubby Checker:
Created by Canadian doc, Dr. Chris Culligan, the Predicktor claims to share “scientific journal articles reporting on men’s health and sexuality. This includes the actual distribution of penis size, as found in peer review journals. It also touches on selected literature studying what women really think about men’s genitalia—not the locker room giggles but actual results from surveys.”
Predicktor, which was “on sale” for 99¢ for Valentine’s Day, gauges the size of a man’s erect penis after the user enters his height, sexual orientation and finger length.
Who knew?
Maybe there’ll soon be an Estitmator app for guys wondering how endowed their gals really are…
Who the Hell is Kevin Butler? Sony Sued Him, Thinking You Know Him
January 29th, 2013. By AbiK
You are so out of the loop if you don’t know Kevin Butler. But don’t feel bad—we took a completely non-scientific poll over on our Facebook page and found that no one we asked knows who the hell Kevin Butler is. Nor do they apparently care.
But Sony cared.
See, Kevin Butler is the fictitious character played by ad actor Jerry Lambert in Sony’s PlayStation commercials. Going out on a limb here, but guessing you don’t know who Jerry Lambert is either. Both Jerry and Kevin are pretty comical in the Sony commercials—but that’s neither here nor there.
Apparently, Sony thinks you know Jerry—or Kevin—and that you watch and internalize his every move. And so when Jerry went and did a commercial for Bridgestone earlier in 2012 in which a Nintendo Wii was offered as part of a promotion, and in which Jerry (not Kevin) happens to play on a Wii along with a cast of other Bridgestone “employees”, well…
You can imagine how the phones were ringing off the hook over at Sony with pissed-off consumers getting all confused at seeing Jerry play on a Wii when everyone knows his fake character, Kevin, endorses PlayStation. (That would be sarcasm for those who missed it).
In October 2012, Sony sued Jerry (they couldn’t quite sue a fictitious character, so Kevin was off the hook here) for violating the Lanham Act, misappropriation, breach of contract and tortious interference with a contractual relationship. The Lanham Act covers things like trademark infringement and trademark dilution as well as false advertising. Of course, by having a fictitious spokesperson be seen using two different video game systems, well, you can imagine the alleged damage done to PlayStation.
Regardless, Jerry (the real actor) did admit that his appearance in both company’s commercials with two different video game systems might confuse some folks. And so, the two—Jerry and Sony—settled (Bridgestone also took Jerry out of their ad).
According to the terms of the settlement as reported by Joystiq, Jerry Lambert has agreed to not appear in any advertisements that feature or mention “any other video game or computer entertainment system or video game company” for two years. Additionally, for another two years after that, he must notify Sony if he wants to appear in gaming ads so Sony can assess whether his intended performance will infringe on the Kevin Butler character.
So that’s who the heck Kevin Butler is. We’re glad the air’s been cleared as clearly a ton of folks—who didn’t even know who Kevin Butler was—were confused over which video gaming system he really preferred. Phew—disaster averted!
By the way, one astute fan of ours—named Jay (go Jay!)—did actually know that Kevin Butler was a placekicker for the University of Georgia. He went on to play in the NFL for the Bears and the Cardinals. We did not attempt to contact him for this story. Another fan, Sam, suggested that he might have been Rhett’s brother… Thanks to all who participated in our survey!
In The Navy? Restoration Hardware Knock-Off Lawsuit Says Knock It Off
October 3rd, 2012. By AbiK
After being on the receiving end of some hard knocks (read: internal investigation re: dating younger staffer and having to step down from CEO prior to IPO as result), Gary Friedman and his former company, Restoration Hardware, have been told to knock it off with the knock-offs via a newly filed trademark infringement lawsuit. And no, we can’t possibly fit another “knock” into that sentence.
Here’s the thing. It’s no a-ha moment that Restoration Hardware (aka RH) along with just about every other mass market furniture retailer knocks off some original designs—typically with a tweak here and there and a downgrade on the materials and manufacturing—in order to sell “design” to the masses at a lower price. Those design modifications, however, are usually significant enough, even to the untrained eye, to establish the wannabe design as “reflective of” the original design without being an exact mirror image of it.
Enter Restoration Hardware’s Naval Chair. No, you can’t find it on their website at present because they’ve since renamed this chair the “Aluminum Standard Side Chair.” Regardless, that chair, according to the lawsuit, is strikingly similar in look to the one that the folks at Emeco originally designed for the US Navy. Heck, RH apparently didn’t even take too many strides to alter the name—”Navy” to “Naval”? Please.
For those of you who don’t follow “design”, here’s some background from Emeco’s website:
“Emeco was originally founded following a collaborative project with Alcoa to develop a seaworthy chair for submarines and warships. The Navy chairs are impervious to corrosion, non magnetic, lightweight and most importantly incredibly strong – attributes of aluminum that we have now grown to appreciate and love. By the end of the 1950’s Emeco aluminum chairs outfitted all famous U.S Navy Ships and submarines including the first nuclear submarine, Nautilus.” 
No question, the Emeco Navy® Chair (note the registered trademark symbol) has been in continuous production and easily identifiable for quite some time.
The lawsuit was filed soon after RH’s IPO filing—tbd on what kind of impact it might have, if any. That, after highly mixed reviews following RH’s re-image a while back—comments like “trendy fake” on one forum come to mind. If you’re not familiar with the new look, two words sum it up: oversized and monotone. The pic at right is a personal fave—the light fixture—try having a conversation around that baby—where’s Seinfeld when you need him? It must appeal to someone, just hard to imagine whom—particularly when your flip through their baby room “showroom” online and find yourself immersed in a whir of endless beige and mushroom and envision a child welcomed into a world of blah.
And get this, they now have plans—according to the WSJ’s report on RH’s IPO—to go into apparel, accessories, footwear and jewelry. Anyone want to venture a guess as to what the palette will be? Someone get them a color wheel—stat!
In the meantime, we’ll have to see where this one nets out.
Ben & Jerry’s Lawsuit: Ice Cream & Porn Don’t Mix
September 7th, 2012. By AbiK
Pickles & ice cream? Maybe if you’re pregnant. Pickles & porn? Let’s hope not. Ben & Jerry’s & porn? Hell no says a recent trademark lawsuit filed by Ben & Jerry’s against porn film companies Rodax Distributors and Caballero Video of California.
Seems while Ben & Jerry’s has in the past churned up flavors such as Schweddy Balls and Karamel Sutra, it’s one thing to create a scoop or two of innuendo and brand it. It’s completely another to create porn that piggybacks on the same—or very similar—names.
What names you ask? Well, for starters, the porno flicks are distributed as “Ben & Cherry’s”. Each episode has a Ben & Jerryesque kind of name—here’s a few: Boston Cream Thigh, New York Fat & Chunky, Peanut Butter D-Cup.
But what catches your, uh, eye isn’t just the names—take a look at one of the Ben & Cherry’s DVD cases above. Looks familiar, no? That’s a pic of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream over on the right.
Is it any wonder Ben & Jerry’s sued for trademark infringement?
For now, a federal judge in Manhattan has ordered a block on Rodax Distributors and Caballero Video from producing and marketing its Ben & Cherry’s videos. According to an LA Times report today, the judge’s ruling requires the porn distributor to ” stop offering the 10 titles in its Ben & Cherry’s series in the interim and remove all online mention of the X-rated products”.
The company has to change its packaging, too. Surprise, surprise.
Naked Cowboy Stripped of Trademark Lawsuit Claim
March 5th, 2012. By AbiK
The Naked Cowboy trademark lawsuit has been given the boot.
Not familiar with the Naked Cowboy? He’s an ‘only in New York’ (nod to NY Post columnist Cindy Adams) institution. Though he hails from Ohio, he hangs out in the heart of Times Square donning only a cowboy hat and a pair of briefs—oh, and cowboy boots, though those typically reside outside of an onlooker’s range of focus. He also carries an acoustic guitar that he does, indeed, play.
He’s been doing his solo act in the heart of the city since 1997, and clearly he’s made not only a name for himself but apparently a living (and a following—he threw his cowboy hat in the ring as a 2012 US Presidential candidate). So much so, he’d trademarked his “Naked Cowboy” moniker—back in 2002. And, it goes without saying, once you’ve got a trademark, you’re going to protect it against trademark infringement.
So, when the Naked Cowboy became aware that the CBS soap opera “The Bold and the Beautiful” character, Oliver, appeared on the show that aired November 1, 2010 in a cowboy hat, cowboy boots and briefs and that he played a song on a (guess what?) guitar, well, the Naked Cowboy noticed some similarities.
There were differences, too—the Oliver character did not have “Naked Cowboy” written all over his guitar or on his cowboy hat.
Additionally, a clip of the scene was posted—by CBS—on CBS’ YouTube channel. The clip had the descriptive title “The Bold and the Beautiful – Naked Cowboy”. And, “naked” and “cowboy” were tags on the clip. CBS also bought adword advertising for the phrase “naked cowboy” on YouTube.
In order for the Naked Cowboy trademark infringement lawsuit to go ahead, the cowboy would’ve had to establish that not only did he had the valid registered trademark (he does) but that the trademarked name was used by the defendant for commerce and in connection with the sale or advertising of goods or services without the plaintiff’s consent.
The defendant’s use of the trademark would also have to be likely to cause confusion regarding the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant—for example, did it appear as though the Naked Cowboy (the real one) had sponsored or approved the use of a naked cowboy on the soap?
While the Naked Cowboy could clearly establish that he owned his own trademark, the court did not find that CBS had used the trademarked name for commerce; and, in terms of the adwords, the court deemed that while CBS did purchase the adwords, it did not place the words on any products or goods so, in effect, buying the adwords did not constitute commerce either.
The court also found that given the differences in the costumes of the Times Square-based Naked Cowboy and the naked cowboy on “The Bold and the Beautiful”, there is no likelihood of confusion.
All remaining charges of the trademark infringement lawsuit were also dismissed. And with that, the Naked Cowboy is left to tip his hat and head back to his urban frontier at the corner of 46th and Broadway.
For more, read the court opinion here.
Find us on
Archive by Category
- Accidents (24)
- Airlines (9)
- Asbestos Mesothelioma (262)
- Automotive (25)
- Celebrity (14)
- Class Action (84)
- Complaints/Comments (15)
- Consumer Fraud (84)
- Contest (2)
- Court of Public Opinion (5)
- Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See (61)
- Criminal Law (4)
- Defective Products (111)
- DePuy ASR Hip Recall (2)
- Discrimination (22)
- Drugs/Medical (248)
- Elder Care Abuse (4)
- Emerging Issues (462)
- Employment (54)
- Environment (52)
- Financial (28)
- Food Illness (15)
- Human/Civil Rights (4)
- Insecurities (5)
- Insurance (16)
- Intellectual Property (16)
- Internet/E-commerce (19)
- lawsuits (161)
- Lawyers (20)
- Lawyers Giving Back (43)
- Lex Levity (10)
- Personal Injury (106)
- Pleading Ignorance (53)
- Real Estate (2)
- Recall (6)
- Scam (3)
- Securities (13)
- Settlement (81)
- Tort Reform (2)
- Totally Tortelicious (81)
- Veterans (11)
- Whistleblower (9)