Judge Not Amused By South Butt's Amusing Legal Filing

from the not-a-judge-of-humor,-apparently dept

Fri, Feb 12th 2010 1:20pm — Mike Masnick

When we recently wrote about South Butt's response to the lawsuit from The North Face, I wondered how the judge would take it. While that post got a ton of traffic, and we heard from lots of people -- including many lawyers -- claiming that it was one of the "best" legal filings they had ever seen, you could see how a judge might be offended and think that it somehow mocked the judicial process. Indeed, while the judge doesn't appear pissed off about it, he also was not that pleased. Eric Goldman points us to the judge's refusal to dismiss the complaint, which also warns the lawyer to knock off the frivolity:

I remind counsel of their obligations under Rule 11 and that, with each filing, they certify to the Court that the motion is not being presented to harass, cause unnecessary delay or needlessly increase the cost of litigation and that the legal contentions are warranted by existing law or nonfrivolous arguments for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law. Although this filing may not reach the level of frivolity, it approaches the line.

Too bad. The judicial system would be a lot more interesting if lawyers felt free to respond as The South Butt's lawyer did originally.

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: frivolity, north face, south butt, trademark
Companies: north face, south butt

27 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2010 @ 1:36pm

Frivolous Arguments
If South Butt's filing approaches the frivolous line, then North Face's complaint far exceeds it. The frivolity rule should apply to both parties and the judges refusal to dismiss the complaint then, I think, indicates a strong prejudicial bias.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alan Gerow (profile), 12 Feb 2010 @ 1:43pm

How dare the lawyers talk like regular people. They need to speak in legalese! Otherwise, why else would someone need several degrees and certification to understand what everyone else is talking about?!?

What about the law professors right to get paid?!?!?!?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Perry K (profile), 12 Feb 2010 @ 1:51pm

you missed the best part
the judge said:

"I do not find it to be implausible that the marks cannot cause a likelihood of confusion or dilution"

The judge is unable to distinguish between a face and a butt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 12 Feb 2010 @ 1:58pm

Re: you missed the best part
Well, perhaps the judge is either a butthead or an assface....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 12 Feb 2010 @ 2:03pm

Re: Re: you missed the best part
Or both!
(and he's got no sense of humor about it...)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2010 @ 2:05pm

Re: you missed the best part
The judge does not know his head from his butt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 12 Feb 2010 @ 2:19pm

Re: Re: Re: you missed the best part
"Or both!
(and he's got no sense of humor about it...)"

Well, perhaps he does indeed have a sense of humor, but we're misinterpreting him. If he's indeed a butthead or an assface, perhaps what he's saying is mere flatulance and his gas is laughter....

Did I....Yeah, I just blew your mind/sphincter....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 12 Feb 2010 @ 2:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: you missed the best part
LOL. Masterful horrible pun.
Here is your cheap plastic turkey for "pun of the week."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
interval, 12 Feb 2010 @ 2:24pm

Re: Frivolous Arguments
What he said.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Willton, 12 Feb 2010 @ 2:53pm

Needless to say,
the South Butt got spanked.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 12 Feb 2010 @ 3:08pm

Re: Frivolous Arguments
snap
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nastybutler77 (profile), 12 Feb 2010 @ 3:54pm

Re: Needless to say,
Hopefully in the end it will be the North Face that gets slapped...down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pixelation, 12 Feb 2010 @ 4:06pm

I own a number of North Face products. I will now vote with my wallet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bishboria (profile), 12 Feb 2010 @ 4:06pm

Re: Re: Frivolous Arguments
+1
[ link to this | view in thread ]
disappointedagain, 12 Feb 2010 @ 4:21pm

Re: North Face
sigh....once upon a time North Face used to be my outerwear company of choice...my money will go elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2010 @ 4:52pm

Re: you missed the best part
"I do not find it to be implausible that the marks cannot cause a likelihood of confusion or dilution"

Wait. So the judge finds the claim that "the marks cannot cause a likelihood of confusion or dilution" to be plausible? Isn't that claim the basis of South Butts motion for dismissal? So why didn't the judge grant the dismissal? That doesn't make any sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Mighty Buzzard, 12 Feb 2010 @ 5:18pm

Re: Re: you missed the best part
Probably because 'probable' != 'certain'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Mighty Buzzard, 12 Feb 2010 @ 5:19pm

Re: Re: Re: you missed the best part
and the same goes for plausible. yeesh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Monerable Mector The Mangman, 13 Feb 2010 @ 4:13am

Idiocracy
When I read about a Judge that can not tell the difference between a butt and a face the first thought that came to mind was a scene from the movie Idiocracy that goes something like this:

Judge:
Now...I'm fixin to commensurate this trial here
We gonna see, if we can't come up with a verdict up in here
Now didn't yall say, you ain't got no money?
We have propritearily obtained, one of them court appointed lawyers
So put your hands together and give it up for, Rico Bandeho!

Later on the Narrator speaks:
Joe stated his case logically and passionately
But his perceived effeminate voice only only threw big gails of stupid laughter
Without adequate legal representation Joe was given a stiff sentence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lawless, 13 Feb 2010 @ 11:49am

Re: you missed the best part
This may have the funniest connotation, but the judge's sentence structure (completely avoidable double negative) is awful.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 13 Feb 2010 @ 5:15pm

Re: you missed the best part
Holy triple negative, Batman. I think he said exactly the opposite of what you think. If you cancel out the first two negatives, it becomes "I find it to be plausible that the marks cannot cause a likelihood of confusion or dilution."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Burton, 15 Feb 2010 @ 4:01am

Y'all don't speak Judge
lawless et at.

The sentence "I do not find it to be implausible that the marks cannot cause a likelihood of confusion or dilution" seems to be a carefully chosen construction, rather than a double/triple negative.

He's saying that he doesn't dismiss the defendant's argument out of hand, but he says it in a way designed not to betray his thoughts on any other matter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BBT, 15 Feb 2010 @ 5:21am

Well, it may be "carefully chosen", but it's not "rather than a triple negative". It IS a triple negative. Perhaps a carefully chosen one, but a triple negative nonetheless.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ragman, 22 Feb 2010 @ 11:03am

the other branch
we know our gov't is broken based on 86% of the people who own it saying so. and then 81% say they believe it can be fixed.
Thats the executive branch.
now what about the judicial branch??
Are we to believe that the adults no matter their age in both companies are acting like Congress, refusing to work together to figure this out.
Do both sides know their butt from a hole in the ground??
On a more serious note one cannot work with out the other.

So why not move on as the Judge is suggesting and get the two parts working before the Judge has to do some required surgery>>
Most folks know the best deal is the one you work OUTSIDE OF COURT.

As far as branches goes when are both sides going to see the forest from the trees??

Now corporate America is playing in Judicial places not just Executive halls of Congress.
Maybe some time behind bars might bring them ALL to the table of common sense and respect for what millions do every day to make a living. get along... bars go up and bars go down depending on which way you look and from what level of ground you are on..

the trash talk in this site is not what clothing is all about. it is rich in innovation, dreams and hundreds of years of hard work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ragman, 4 Mar 2010 @ 8:44am

when are the facts going to come out?

the so called "iconic" denali is on sale in nordstrom rack under a brand name for 39.99 making the south butt look a like almost twice the price at $59.99
the $27.99 south butt sweatshirts are found all over the malls at $19.99

looks like the south butt lawyers and south butt are making a ton of money
selling on the internet instead of retail stores in malls like others do. leaving out thousands of college kids part time jobs at retailers.

the kids buying the south butt are supporting a for profit parody that makes far more per garment than most others selling similar clothing including the north face and their over one thousand workers.. only numbers of units sold separates south butt from north face and many others. it looks like the profit margins of south butt will make tons more money very quickly.
asking the question does anyone at south but know what kind of cheap labor is making their clothing ie child sweatshops??
are the fabrics really the same quality as the north face?

lets let the real folks who know be the judge ask south butt two questions. why are your prices so much higher than most mall clothing that looks the same?
where are the garments sewn and how do you check the labor practices at those factories?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Carmen (profile), 15 Aug 2010 @ 5:49pm

Of course Judge Sippel was amused. But being a judge, I trust Sippel restrained himself from observing that Roy Cohn could not have given a more homoerotic defense of a client.

After reading attorney Watkins' interview at http://www.stlmag.com/St-Louis-Magazine/April-2010/Q-ampA-Albert-Watkins/index.php, all doubt is removed about Watkins' motives.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jennifer, 9 Feb 2011 @ 7:53am

Yea not sure if the judge know what he is doing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]