Can A Moron In A Hurry Tell The Difference Between A Hershey Bar And A Couch?

from the yummy-cushions... dept

Fri, Oct 31st 2008 7:41pm — Mike Masnick

There are some legal decisions that just make no sense. Gunnar writes in to let us know of a story in Michigan, where a judge has ordered a furniture store to stop using a design that shows a couch being unwrapped from a candy bar. Hershey's sued the furniture company, claiming it violated their trademark on unwrapping chocolate bars: Art Van

But here's the thing: even the judge admits that trademark law shouldn't apply here because it's a totally different business and there's little chance of customer confusion: "While both parties cater to the general public, there is no indication that their customers are predominantly the same. Even if their customer bases overlap to some extent ... the risk of consumers confusing a furniture outlet with a candy store, or vice versa, appears remote." Those are all things a judge says right before denying the trademark claim, but in this case, it went the other way. If a moron in a hurry isn't likely to be confused, then there's no trademark infringement. The furniture store wasn't even using the image yet -- but just had it in a contest for truck designs. At least the company hadn't spent too much money painting up all the trucks.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: chocolate, couch, furniture, logo, moron in a hurry, trademark
Companies: hershey

58 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2008 @ 8:20pm

It was Dilution
You are unnecessarily inflammatory. As you well know, it's perfectly acceptable to plead alternate theories. At least ACKNOWLEDGE that the decision was based on a different legal theory than likelihood of confusion. But you prefer to play to your mindless chorus of sycophants rather than actually discuss the merits of the legal theory upon which the decision was made. Come to whatever conclusion you choose on it, but at least don't cheat by misstating the holding of the case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2008 @ 8:33pm

Re: It was Dilution
The order by the judge can be found at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7609498/Decision-Hershey-Art-Van

I have always believed it is far better to actually read a transcript of what one has said than a news account that is no more than hearsay.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stute, 31 Oct 2008 @ 8:45pm

But Mike...
Don't you remember? A moron in a hurry can't tell the difference between a nude model and a car, you honestly expect them to tell the difference between a couch and a candy bar now?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2008 @ 8:58pm

I thought for sure that this was some furniture company calling a brown couch "The Hershey" or something. Is this really true? Does hershey have such a monopoly on chocolate bars that no one else is even allowed to make them, let alone reference them in a completely unrelated business?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
IanK, 31 Oct 2008 @ 9:04pm

I realize that what the judge said after his verdict was an alternate viewpoint that he acknowledged, but that viewpoint really does seem like the better theory, and one the judge should have gone with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 31 Oct 2008 @ 11:31pm

Re: It was Dilution
You are unnecessarily inflammatory.

No, actually, it was quite necessary. Because this is a ridiculous ruling and deserves to be treated as such.

it's perfectly acceptable to plead alternate theories

We've discussed in the past why dilution doesn't make sense for trademark law. I'm sorry that you disapprove but I am still allowed to have an opinion and speak my mind. Or are you going to find a law against that?

But you prefer to play to your mindless chorus of sycophants rather than actually discuss the merits of the legal theory upon which the decision was made.

Dude, it's a silly lawsuit. This isn't the law review. I just thought the story was amusing.

In the past, I have discussed the merits of the legal theory of dilution, but this was just a fun post. You might want to try looking around for that sense of humor you lost. It's rather helpful.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chunky Vomit, 31 Oct 2008 @ 11:31pm

Holy shit! Who put that Hershey's bar on the side of a truck! That is awesome!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2008 @ 12:02am

Re:
that's totally a mars bar, open your eyes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Katie, 1 Nov 2008 @ 1:25am

I'll confess -- for about five minutes I thought that was supposed to be an optical illusion until I R'd TFA. ^^;
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2008 @ 2:26am

So, wait. Hershey's has a trademark on unwrapping chocolate bars? I'm assuming whatever trademark they have isn't quite that ridiculous, but no matter what it is I can't really see what kind of trademark Art Van is supposed to be violating here. Hershey's does not have a trademark on chocolate bars, nor on the packaging style of foil-with-ends-sticking-out-of-the-wrapper, or else they'd already be in litigation with their actual competitors. The simplistic aesthetic of the fake bar is somewhat similar to a Hershey's bar, but the colors and font are completely different. And all this is ignoring the fact that it's a freaking couch. What on earth was the judge thinking?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Jerk, 1 Nov 2008 @ 4:22am

What about choclate bars and shoes?
There's a store near my home that is called Hershey Shoes. Wonder how long till they get sued...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jake, 1 Nov 2008 @ 5:15am

Actually, if that goes past me at fifty in the opposite direction, I might mistake it for a Hershey's delivery truck... right before I got into a wreck for not looking where I was going.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2008 @ 5:15am

Re: Re: It was Dilution
I search in vain for the word "dilution" in your original post. That's the point, you didn't say it was a dilution decision, you used misdirection and misinformation to suggest it was a likelihood of confusion decision. If you disagree with dilution, and many smart legal minds do, that's fine, but be intellectually honest in your posting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2008 @ 5:16am

I echo that: someone has a patent on unwrapping chocolate bars? You guys are doomed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dwind, 1 Nov 2008 @ 5:33am

Stupidity in motion
If I were Hershey I'd want all their trucks painted like that. I might even help them. Free adevertising.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vincent Clement, 1 Nov 2008 @ 6:03am

If I were Hershey's I would have worked with Art Van to increase my marketing potential. Instead of the words Art Van on the wrapper, how about Hershey's? Nope. Let's sue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Elvis Oswald, 1 Nov 2008 @ 6:58am

Corporate Rule
The purpose of protecting trademarks is to stop someone from representing their product as another product... or to stop someone from doing damage to a brand by misrepresenting the brand in such a way as to cause a loss.
Obviously, the furniture store is not trying to fool people into thinking a couch is a candy bar... and they are not harming the brand - unless seeing that makes you think Hershey is making candy out of furniture (and that makes you not buy hershey bars)

For the fascist defending the ruling - compare this to an 83 year old woman with 3rd degree burns on her genitals caused by coffee served by a corporation who had already received complaints about and paid for injuries caused by their coffee that was waaay too hot.
Funny how people will defend a faceless corporation against their own grandmother.

Fu
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2008 @ 7:15am

Re: So, wait. Hershey's has a trademark on unwrapping chocolate bars?
So, wait. Hershey's has a trademark on unwrapping leather sofas?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2008 @ 7:24am

trademark unwrapping chocolate bars?
Am I in violation of their trademark when I unwrap another brand of chocolate bar?

Are they the only brand of chocolate that's allowed to wrap their bars?

Is chocolate the only thing allowed to be wrapped? I might just get meself confused when my butcher wraps my pork chops in paper. Can I sue Hersey's for not making sure that everything I unwrap is chocolate?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rizwan, 1 Nov 2008 @ 7:43am

wow
As if hershey's chocolate is even that good.

Oh and maybe they should get a trademark on everything that gets wrapped in the first place. That way they can sue everyone before anyone unwraps anything. Including Christmas gifts. Then they can sue Christmas, or maybe even a church.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sean, 1 Nov 2008 @ 9:10am

Hot Coffee
Coffee is supposed to be hot - be more careful with it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
eleete, 1 Nov 2008 @ 9:10am

Re: wow
See Hershey Vs. Santa in the district court of the North Pole.
The honorable judge Rudolph N. Elves presiding.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vidanto, 1 Nov 2008 @ 9:15am

Tastes a bit off ... oh, I see it's a couch
Seems odd that Judge Roberts gave this order while noting that the risk anyone will confuse a candy store and a furniture store is remote. I suppose the line has to be drawn, and a courtroom is a logical place for that to happen... doesn't sound like there will be an appeal, though, and this leads us back to the old big-companies-get-what-they-want chestnut. Meanwhile, how is Hershey's stock doing?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James Gresham, 1 Nov 2008 @ 10:01am

The dilution claim, the part which the judge accepted as grounds to grant the TRO is not based on the confusion standard. The fact that a news article described the picture as a sofa "partially wrapped like a Hersheys bar" and that the original design had a more brown colour even closer to Hersheys do kinda suggest that the furniture company were trying to use the brands image.

Bear in mind that according to the summary, the defence to this charge wasn't "It isn't a Hersheys bar" but "It's a parody". Isn't that an admission that it was deliberately meant to look like a Hersheys bar, and the question is therefore simply is it a legitimate parody or not?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bigpicture, 1 Nov 2008 @ 10:11am

Re: It was Dilution
The moron comment is just AOK. At some point you just got to ask what is reasonable? Because even the law, stupid as it may seem sometimes, has the "reasonable men" expectation test.

Also Hershey is not the only company that wraps chocolate bars, it is only a small player, (both Mars and Cadbury are bigger)so why did some of these other big chocolate bar companies not object? Is it because they are reasonable?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dumb-founded, 1 Nov 2008 @ 10:36am

Help Advertise
Wouldn't this help promote Hersheys bars? If I seen the add on the side of the truck, it would make me want to go buy a Hersheys candy bar! And Hersheys didn't even have to pay for the advertisement!

Hersheys should be thanking Art Vans for the free advertisement. Well maybe they think they could get more by sueing. It is the American way now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Pit Crew, 1 Nov 2008 @ 11:06am

Re: It was Dilution
There's the issue-- Introduction of a bill is not done by lawyers, but by congress. And Congress is elected by the people, not by lawyers. And Congress is made up of regular people who can see what your doing.

Government For The People and By The People, not the wealthy and well off.... Even though the current administration seems to think otherwise.

Google "Dana Perino The American people have input every four years"

So dance, my puppet, dance!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cynic, 1 Nov 2008 @ 2:16pm

OK, so I went to the link for the actual ruling and I read the "court" saying something stupid like: "Plaintiff's chocolate bar trade dress has acquired a secondary meaning that entitles it to federal trademark protection."

So now am I supposed to see the error in my ways when I first laid eyes on this article and thought "another stupid judge"? Now I'm supposed to think that this was a carefully thought out, intelligent decision by the judge to believe that because for years people have been eating chocolate bars by unwrapping them first, that now, through legal pixie dust, the trademark has now enlarged? Wow, I wonder what that judge's IQ is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2008 @ 2:27pm

Re:
Why am I left with the conviction you did not read the entire opinion, particularly the part about "dilution"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
paula, 1 Nov 2008 @ 2:34pm

I found nuts
I unwrapped my couch only to find nuts.... I think I should sue for misrepresentation. There were no nuts in the picture.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JustMe, 1 Nov 2008 @ 5:11pm

Re: Dilution & sycophants
Just got up to the "S" section of your Word of the Day toilet paper did you? A few more days and you can expect to see your own picture when you get to "tool." Buah ha ha ha ha
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Larry, 1 Nov 2008 @ 5:39pm

There's no such thing
as a moron in a hurry. Unless you count it when they are fleeing a building fire. Then, it's that group that gets 5 feet out the door and stops.

Sorry it took me so long to post, wasn't in a rush...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CSIN, 1 Nov 2008 @ 6:57pm

Lawyers Lawyers Everywhere, but not a gun in site...
I think it's funny to see these people coming on here and debating the article as if it where the actual case judgment being carried out online.

The sofa was wrapped like a candy bar. Not like a Hershey's Bar. There are many brands that use the same style wrapping. And the "Brown" color is used on many different brands. The wrapper on Dove bars uses a foil wrapper with a brown paper outside as well, should they sue?

The idea that this is an okay lawsuit because of dilution is asinine. Anyone that thinks copyright or patent lawsuits are for anything other then name brand protection are dilusional. Get a life and stop trying to act like a lawyer. (And if you are one... Step into traffic.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 1 Nov 2008 @ 8:22pm

Re: Stupidity in motion
"If I were Hershey I'd want all their trucks painted like that. I might even help them. Free adevertising."

Ah, but you're not thinking like a lawyer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mark Regan, 1 Nov 2008 @ 8:25pm

Confused
Thank God for judicial intervention -- I was just going to eat that couch.

Seriously, I had thought Hershey had abandoned that wrapper design when they switched their process to all plastic that you need a pair of scissors to open. When I called them up and told them of my difficulty in opening the tough plastic, they told me it saved them millions of dollars a year in expenses, and insinuated they didn't need my business, so I canceled my standing weekly order for a 24 count box from my local retail outlet each week.

Maybe I ought to sue Hershey for interfering with my RIGHT to open their chocolate bar easily using the design they claim they still have the rights to, but have actually abandoned, unless some furniture company wants to unload a few couches.

Hershey USED to be a good company with a good product. Now they are a BAD company with a good product.

Apple, are you listening?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2008 @ 10:11pm

Re: Lawyers Lawyers Everywhere, but not a gun in site...
"Anyone that thinks copyright or patent lawsuits are for anything other then name brand protection are dilusional."

This is a trademark matter that does not involve either patent or copyright law. It involves trademark law, an entirely different matter.

BTW, no one is saying that this suit is "great" and chock full of "merit". What they are saying, myself included, is that if one wants to write about a court decision, the best source for information is the decision itself...and not some blog written by someone who most certainly never bothered to read the decision.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2008 @ 11:32pm

Can A Moron Tell The Difference Between A Hershey Bar And A Couch?
Answer: Yes!

But more importantly, what's 1,000 Pennsylvanian lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

Answer: A good start.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2008 @ 11:32pm

Can A Moron Tell The Difference Between A Hershey Bar And A Couch?
Answer: Yes!

But more importantly, what's 1,000 Pennsylvanian lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

Answer: A good start.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Purple M&M guy, 1 Nov 2008 @ 11:59pm

Hershey Highway
Keep the "Chocolate" leather couches off of the road- they will cause some sort of confusion!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hyrulio, 2 Nov 2008 @ 11:58am

Hershey's sued the furniture company, claiming it violated their trademark on unwrapping chocolate bars

That's quite possibly the funniest sentence that I've ever read...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sherman Glasco, 2 Nov 2008 @ 1:08pm

This is crazt
Hershey's trying take the focus from the fact they are moving their PA plant to Mexico and putting all those people out of work.

No one could mistake a furniture truck for a candy truck.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Will, 2 Nov 2008 @ 7:34pm

Wait. WHAT!?!?!?!?!?
Quick, somebody sue me for going off on idiots because that's gotta be copyrighted too!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Will (again), 2 Nov 2008 @ 8:37pm

Re: James Gresham, comment
You know, I wonder if I can sue a law firm for poor representation.

I mean, if I was the furniture company and I paid a laywer to represent me to the fullest extent of the law, could I then get another law firm to sue that first lawyer or law firm for not winning the case after I win in an appeals court?

1) Did the company, or the artist, make use the words, "Like a Hershey's Bar" or was that an independent reference from a newspaper article? If it was the Artist or the newspaper, couldn't Art Vans now sue them for losses? Wow, now Art Vans, the Newspaper, and the art community will all boycott Hersheys, right? Oh, and then everyone else in the world who felt traumatized over this could sue anyone else with a candy wrapper for unwittingly subjecting them to a reminder of this pain.

2) Did the company use the words, "Its a Parody", or did the lawyer? Because either way, it was poor judgement. But still, do people sue SNL? What about the makers of those parody gag gifts that bear far mor resemblence to the actual product?

3) What about Hersheys' exports to other countries? Should I advise my Korean friends to sue Hersheys for dilution if their wrapper here in Korea bears resemblence to a domestic brand? If I did, would I then be sued back in the US for slander? Is it safe to come home next month?

4) And I agree, Hershey's isn't even good chocolate anymore. The other day, I bought a Symphony bar, remembering fondly how Symphony was finer chocolate than Hersheys. I know that its the same brand. Could I have sued Hersheys for false advertising? Actually, I know that I couldn't because Hersheys has that little clause on the paper and foil wrapper still used for those larger bars that I can return a faulty product for a full refund.

I hope Hersheys and Art Van do come across this post.

@Hersheys' Lawyers: Please stop doing damage to the future of the US copyright system, to Hersheys, and to America. Copyrights are here to protect, not destroy. Isn't Krackel a Hershey product? So a red label isn't any better than Brown. What about the yellow background? Can we say, Mr. Goodbar?

@Art Van: Get better legal counsel. Get it before you advertise. Certainly get it before preparing a defense. I am truly sorry you lost. If no one else supports you, I do.

@Congress: Stop.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gunnar, 3 Nov 2008 @ 2:58am

Re: Re: It was Dilution
"Also Hershey is not the only company that wraps chocolate bars, it is only a small player, (both Mars and Cadbury are bigger)so why did some of these other big chocolate bar companies not object? Is it because they are reasonable?"

Hershey is the biggest chocolate seller in the U.S. Mars and Cadbury are bigger candy makers, but Hershey focuses on chocolate.

"Hershey's trying take the focus from the fact they are moving their PA plant to Mexico and putting all those people out of work."

No they're not. They're moving some of their operations to Mexico, and that was announced more than a year ago.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
pawn, 3 Nov 2008 @ 3:59am

Still Legal
Is it still legal for me to go into the chocolate couch business? I think that edible furniture has a chance to succeed in a recession.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Doe, 3 Nov 2008 @ 5:08am

If you want to read about a ridiculous lawsuit, just go to www.nissan.com.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 3 Nov 2008 @ 5:57am

Re: wow
They are going to sue Jesus, since his descendants possess copyrights and are still making money off of him. Because copyrights last about that long these days.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2008 @ 6:11am

Re: Corporate Rule
compare this to an 83 year old woman with 3rd degree burns on her genitals caused by coffee [...] Funny how people will defend a faceless corporation against their own grandmother.

Again, if the product were defective I'd blame McD's. Say, the insulated cup could not withstand the blistering heat, and the bottom melted out thus causing her injury - fine. THAT is corporate liablility.

She took deliberate actions that were directly responsible for her injury. That is, she was complicit in the damage she suffered. That is her fault, and not corporate liability.

It's not about "my grandma", nor "big faceless corporations". It's about who did what to who.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Duncan Yoyo, 3 Nov 2008 @ 6:49am

Re: Re: Corporate Rule
Serving any beverage at a temperature that can cause third degree burns is bad policy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2008 @ 8:24am

Re:
And this would be detrimental to their trademark how? If you think you see a delivery truck for a company, I can't see how that hurts them. Were they driving in the car lane instead of the truck lane and you all of the sudden don't like their chocolate?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2008 @ 8:29am

Re: Re: Re: Corporate Rule
Though there was scientific reasoning for it to be that hot. It was the optimal temperature for the release of smell and taste. The woman put the cup in between her legs and then continued driving. Her pants were sweatpants and that caused it to not only soak up the coffee but keep it in contact with her skin. Should the pants company be sued since it can cause burns to happen more easily than with other kinds of materials?

She had enough knowledge to know that coffee is hot. She had enough knowledge to know that coffee can burn, maybe not third degree, but she knew enough that it can cause harm. She still then performed an action that increased her chances of injury, knowingly. She may not have known she'd be hurt that much, but she had to know she would get hurt if she spilled coffee on herself. I have little sympathy for that woman. Sometimes you need common sense. If I do something that causes injury, I'm not going to sue because "It cause more injury than I thought it should."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2008 @ 8:36am

Re: It was Dilution
Yea, because millions of people unwrapping millions of things that aren't hersheys chocolate bars isn't causing dilution. in fact, i'll say its a safe bet to say that there are more things getting unwrapped that aren't hershey bars than actually are hershey bars.

The dilution argument is still just as ridiculous. Keep in mind, trademark was devised to protect the consumer, not the company. I fail to see how that goal was achieved here. Maybe you're a lawyer for that company or just really like hersheys, I dunno. But in either of those cases, I'd suggest a radical change in your life because you're making mistakes either way. There are better law firms and better chocolate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Doe, 3 Nov 2008 @ 10:13am

Re: Re: Re: Corporate Rule
It is old ladies like her that cause restaurants to server coffee that hot. If you have ever worked as a waiter/waitress, you would know that the old ladies are the only ones that complain about coffee not being hot enough.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2008 @ 1:05pm

Re: Re: It was Dilution
Sorry, but your premise is wrong. Trademark law protects the business. Consumer protection laws protect consumers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2008 @ 1:05pm

Re: Re: It was Dilution
But I agree that there's better chocolate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John (profile), 3 Nov 2008 @ 1:22pm

Hmm...
A few points:

1) I agree with the above poster that the van company had terrible legal counsel. The judge basically agreed with them in his statements, but then ruled against them? What??

2) How in the words is unwrapping a bar of chocolate an extension of trademark or however the judge worded it? Does this mean that opening *anything* can be an "extension"? If Apple started running ads showing a Mac being unwrapped, could they take ownership of a trademarked "computer being pulled out of a box"?
I'm sure that's not what the founding fathers had in mind when they created the trademark and copyright system?

And, again, how does allowing Hershey to stop a van company from showing a sofa "innovate" or "promote the science"?

3) Where was this case heard? Why do I get the feeling it was in Hershey's home town of (surprise) Hershey, PA? And who's the biggest employer in Hershey? I'm be willing to guess it's Hershey. And who has the most money and the biggest team of attorneys in the town of Hershey?

Can anyone say "not even close to a fair trial"? I hope the van's legal team appeals because of this.

Though do they have the money to file an appeal and continue the fight? Or is it the usual story of the defendant giving up because they can't afford any more money on the court case?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2008 @ 9:16pm

Re: Hmm...
The decision, which pertains to nothing more than preliminary motions at the start of litigation, was rendered by a Federal District Court judge in Michigan.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NullOp, 4 Nov 2008 @ 9:36am

What?
Just when you think you've seen/heard the dumbest thing possible! I REALLY want to look back on my life and remember I sued a furniture company for making a couch look like a candy bar being unwrapped! I am certain that is what lawyers go to law school for. I'll have to remind myself of who brought the suit so I can buy a different product. Remember folks, vote with your dollars!
[ link to this | view in thread ]