Louis Vuitton Loses Trademark Lawsuit Over Joke Bag; Judge Tells Company To Maybe Laugh A Little Rather Than Sue

from the get-a-sense-of-humor dept

When I was very little, my father drove a 1972 Ford Pinto (yes, one of the exploding versions) that had a faded bumper sticker reading "My other car is a Porsche." I remember this very clearly because I remember, at a very young age, asking my father to explain the "joke" and still not really getting it. Of course, that "my other car is a..." joke has been around for a long time. It may not be a good joke, but it's a pretty well-known joke. Except, apparently, for the overly serious trademark lawyers at Louis Vuitton.

We've covered Louis Vuitton's ridiculous trademark bullying for years -- including shutting down an art exhibit that commented on LV's trademarks, suing an artist for calling attention to the situation in Darfur by painting a refugee child holding a bag that kinda, but not really, looked like an LV bag, and suing Hyundai for showing a basketball decorated decorated with the LV symbols in a commercial for 1 second (incredibly, LV won that lawsuit for reasons I still can't understand). Yes, this brief image was "trademark infringement" according to the court: And that's not all. It used the victory over Hyundai to sue Warner Bros. because an LV bag appears briefly in the movie (thankfully, they lost that one). Oh, and then there was the time LV's lawyers actually threatened UPenn's law school for holding a trademark symposium with the following poster: And that brings us to the latest case, spotted via The Trademark Blog, in which Louis Vuitton sued a small company called "My Other Bag" which made (you guessed it!) bags that play off the "my other car..." joke: Thankfully, while Louis Vuitton's lawyers didn't get the joke, Judge Jesse Furman, totally got the joke, and thought that perhaps Louis Vuitton's lawyers might want to loosen up a bit and enjoy the joke as well:

Louis Vuitton is, by its own description, an “active[] and aggressive[]” enforcer of its trademark rights.... In some cases, however, it is better to “accept the implied compliment in [a] parody” and to smile or laugh than it is to sue.... This — like Haute Diggity Dog (and, arguably, Hyundai) — is such a case. MOB’s use of Louis Vuitton’s marks in service of what is an obvious attempt at humor is not likely to cause confusion or the blurring of the distinctiveness of Louis Vuitton’s marks; if anything, it is likely only to reinforce and enhance the distinctiveness and notoriety of the famous brand. Accordingly, and for the reasons stated above, MOB is entitled to summary judgment on all of Louis Vuitton’s claims; it follows that Louis Vuitton’s own motion for partial summary judgment must be and is denied.

You'll notice the mention of that nutty Hyundai ruling in this one. Here, the judge distinguished the case from the Hyundai one, noting that in this case, unlike the Hyundai case, the commentary is clearly about Louis Vuitton and its brand, making it clearly parodying the mark itself. However, the judge also adds a footnote that more or less says that he probably would have decided that case differently too:

Even if Hyundai were not distinguishable, this Court would decline to follow it. In the Court’s view, the Hyundai Court blurred the distinction between association and dilution. As discussed in more detail below, association is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for a finding of dilution by blurring.

Either way, throughout the ruling you can see that the judge is mainly just frustrated that Louis Vuitton's lawyers can't just enjoy a joke. From the opening:

Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. (“Louis Vuitton”), the maker of Louis Vuitton bags, is perhaps unfamiliar with the “my other car” trope. Or maybe it just cannot take a joke.

And, later, during the discussion on Hyundai, the judge again notes the lack of a sense of humor by LV's lawyers:

...the fact that Louis Vuitton at least does not find the comparison funny is immaterial; Louis Vuitton’s sense of humor (or lack thereof) does not delineate the parameters of its rights (or MOB’s rights) under trademark law.

Either way, this is a good ruling, pushing back on yet another case of Louis Vuitton's trademark bullying. One hopes that the company will take up the judge's suggestion to maybe accept the compliment and laugh a little, but somehow that seems unlikely.

Filed Under: jokes, my other bag, my other car, parody, trademark
Companies: louis vuitton, lvmh, my other bag

DailyDirt: Computers Creating Content...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Artificial intelligence is getting better and better. Computers can beat humans at all kinds of games without breaking a sweat. To stay ahead of the machines, we keep moving the goalposts on what qualifies as "strong AI" by coming up with more and more tests that computers can't quite pass. If you think software will never be able to write poetry as well as Shakespeare, perhaps you'll have to modify your test in a few years.

• A machine learning algorithm (named DeepBeat) writes rap lyrics based on its analysis of over a hundred human rap artists. Artificial intelligence might be able to create some rhyme schemes that are far more complex than many humans, but it's not so good at conveying a coherent story or message with its skills (yet). [url]
• There's a computer program that writes formulaic sexist jokes, modeled after some human comedians who use the same technique. These algorithmically-generated jokes are generally bad puns -- such as "I like my women like I like my gas ... natural" and "I like my men like I like my court ... superior." [url]
• Computer generated images (CGI) are usually easy to spot because they don't look like a human could draw them by hand, but what about cartoons drawn by an algorithm that was specifically made to look hand-drawn? Randall Munroe might be able to go on an indefinite vacation if he can combine the right algorithms to replace himself. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: ai, algorithms, artificial intelligence, cartoons, cgi, comedians, deepbeat, jokes, machine learning, puns, rap lyrics, turing test, xkcd

2 Hockey Players And Elisha Cuthbert Want Cash From A TV Station For Airing A Joke Tweet

from the streisand-shoots-and-she-scores! dept

I'm a little surprised to say that we have yet another Streisand Effect story involving NHL hockey players. The previous post had to do with a rookie hockey player who tried to trademark a nickname with some negative connotations to it in order to control how that nickname was being used. This one is a little bit different and, honestly, it sounds like the start to really bad joke: two hockey players and actress Elisha Cuthbert want an apology and cash from a sports station that aired a joke tweet about a love triangle between the three of them during the trade deadline coverage.

That's the joke tweet. It was part of a rolling tweet embed that sports stations do all the time, instructing viewers to use a particular hashtag and then pulling those tweets and putting them on the air. This particular tweet, concerning the Toronto Mapleleafs' Joffrey Lupul, Dion Phaneuf, and Phaneuf's wife, who happens to be Elisha Cuthbert, probably would have made it past any automated filters the station, TSN, had set up. After all, there's no obvious vulgar words or anything like that. So, whether such filters exist or not, the tweet pops up on air.

And the three subjects of the joke are pissed.

"On behalf of our clients Dion Phaneuf, his wife Elisha Cuthbert and Joffrey Lupul, we have sent a letter to TSN demanding that TSN issue a formal apology and pay a significant amount of damages to each of our clients for broadcasting a false and defamatory tweet during their trade deadline show yesterday. We are sending a similar letter to the author of the tweet, Mr. Anthony Adragna.

It is bad enough that there are people who spend their time using social media to publish such false and malicious stories, but it is made much worse when a reputable media outlet like TSN gives broad circulation and credibility to these false stories by republishing them as TSN did. If TSN and Mr. Adragna do not immediately comply with the demands set out in our letters, we have instructions from our clients to immediately commence a lawsuit against them. Our clients will not be discussing this matter with the media. Any questions should be directed to the undersigned."

So, a couple of things here. First, it's questionable how much validity a lawsuit against either party would be. The tweet itself is obviously a joke to anyone who bothers to read the wording of it, which makes a defamation case problematic. TSN has alreay issued an apology to the three of them and they clearly had no intention of defaming anyone at all.

But, finally, and most importantly, what the hell, you three? It was a flash of a joke tweet that was on a Toronto TV station for, like, a couple of seconds. But because you three freaked out about it and got the lawyers involved, there's been national media attention on the very thing you wanted to erase from our collective consciousness to begin with. Talk about Streisanding your way towards the opposite goal.

Filed Under: dion phaneuf, elisha cuthbert, hockey, joffrey lupul, jokes, lawsuits, streisand effect, threats, tv, tweets
Companies: toronto mapleleafs, tsn

Joke Tweet Gets Man Arrested

from the funny-story dept

Joke tweets: the ones that land people in jail or under arrest typically aren't all that funny, usually aren't all that offensive or believable, and too often result in a massive overreaction that is more about emotions and cover-your-ass than about anything remotely resembling justice. From obviously not-serious jokes about blowing up an airport simply for being closed to obviously over-the-top sarcasm about the state of one's own mind, there's simply no reason why we must criminalize humor that deals with serious topics. Just because a joke is in bad taste, or isn't particularly funny, shouldn't make it illegal. Otherwise, the entire concept of comedy breaks down completely, where any topic of a joke can simply claim offense and have me the comedian arrested.

Yet it's happened again. Over in the UK, a 19-year-old man made a mildly offensive and mildly funny joke in the wake of a garbage truck driving over a 100 people after the driver lost control. And he totally got arrested for it.

The tweet said: "So a bin lorry has apparently driven in 100 people in Glasgow eh, probably the most trash it's picked up in one day".

Tasteless? Meh, I guess. Funny? Eh, perhaps a tiny bit. Criminal? Oh, possibly, according to the Northumbria Police, who informed the media that the young man, Ross Loraine, was being sought on suspicion of making a malicious communication. Loraine has since made bail and is presumably shaking his head vigorously at how silly this all is.

See, the problem with magically using the law to make something "offensive" into something "malicious" is that there are no literal limits on something so subjective. Suddenly you have the Danish cartoons situation on your hands, except that the self-censorship results from the actions of a state willing to be offended on behalf of its citizens. So much so, in fact, as to allow that state to levy criminal complaints against people for thinking some stuff is funny when other people don't. The lever that puts this insane machine into action appears to simply be "offense taken", which puts any semblance of free speech, not to mention humor, at grave risk.

Filed Under: free speech, glasgow, joke tweet, jokes, malicious communication, offensive, social media, uk

University of Oregon Slaps Student With Five Conduct Charges Over Four Words

from the UO:-because-the-world-needs-a-higher-grade-of-whiner dept

Ah, college. The embodiment of the open exchange of opinions and ideas, where today's youth go expand not only their horizons but their worldview. In this hopelessly idealistic portrayal, today's teens would grow into adults ready to face a world that isn't nearly as pleasant as previously indicated.

In reality, many colleges are helicopter parents who believe the right to never be offended is guaranteed by the Constitution or, failing that, by a set of restrictive policies paired with disproportionate penalties.

In reality, four words can get you five conduct charges.

Here are the four words:

On June 9, 2014, the female student in question was visiting with friends in UO’s Carson Hall dormitory. According to the student, looking out of the dormitory window, she spotted a male and female student walking together (she did not know either of them) and shouted “I hit it first” at them in jest. The female of the couple responded with two profanities…

That's the free exchange of ideas and opinions on display there. One student jokingly suggesting she had sexual relations with a member of the couple (male/female not specified by "it") and one student responding with profanities. Case should have been closed right there, what with each party getting their verbal jabs in. But note the ellipsis above…

… and the couple reported the student’s comment to the Resident Assistant of the dorm.

So, at this point a third party has been dragged in because apparently the couple didn't feel the shouted profanities properly redressed their (minor, fleeting) grievance. So, the Resident Assistant did some assisting.

The Resident Assistant located the student and insisted that she apologize to the couple for her remark. The student readily obliged.

Case closed.

No, wait. Five conduct charges. FIVE CONDUCT CHARGES. The aggrieved couple, having shouted out profanities and having acquired an apology still felt this student's offhand remark hadn't been properly addressed. So, up the ladder they went. Thanks to the school's inability to laugh the angry couple of the office, the joking student was hit with five conduct charges:

Unreasonable noise/community disruption
Violation of the university housing contract
Harassment
Disrupting university [sic]
Disorderly conduct

The student was given two options: face an "administrative panel" whose decision would be final and unable to be appealed (but suspension or expulsion not an option) or face a Student Conduct Panel, which would leave room for appeal but put suspension/expulsion back on the table.

The administration's "bright line" for determining guilt is (I AM NOT KIDDING) whether the incident "more likely than not" occurred. Any discussion about whether the shouted joke "more likely than not" should have resulted in having the book thrown at the student apparently isn't up for discussion.

If either panel finds the student "more likely than not" guilty of making an offensive, one-line joke, she pays the administrative fees and deals with whatever punishment is decided. If declared "more likely than not" not guilty, no one pays anything, not even the couple whose existence was rendered ghastly and nightmarish by a couple of seconds of careless window shouting nearly three months ago.

FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) has responded to this overblown reaction.

FIRE wrote to UO President Michael Gottfredson on August 1, demanding that the charges against the student be dropped. FIRE also called on UO to revise its unconstitutional speech codes—in particular, the harassment policy under which it charged the student. That policy contains unconstitutionally broad and vague prohibitions on “[u]nreasonable insults,” “gestures,” and “abusive words” that may cause “emotional distress” to others, subjecting UO students to punishment for any expression deemed subjectively distressing.

The college has responded with: When colleges allow their speech policies to expand past the point of common sense, that's when free speech gets crushed. Ideally, universities would never have to deal with anyone ever being offended, but it's far from an ideal world. Throwing the book at a student just because someone complained is ridiculous. All it does is make it easier and easier for a small minority of easily offended people to strip away the rights of the rest of the student body. An institute of higher learning should be working harder to ensure the rights of every student, not teaching them how to most effectively deploy a heckler's veto.

Filed Under: conduct charges, free speech, insults, jokes
Companies: university of oregon

Finally, We Have Proof That The Washington Redskins Are Run By Replicants

from the paging-rick-deckhard dept

Yeah, I get it, with great claims must come great evidence, and you're thinking there's no way I can prove that Dan Snyder and the people who run the Washington Redskins are androids from Tyrell Corp. as seen in the Blade Runner movies. But think about it. Thiiiiiink about it, people. How are we told we can identify replicants, bio-android robots that are nearly indistinguishable from honest to goodness human beings? Well, as anyone who knows the mythology will tell you, "skin-jobs" are known for being unable to have true empathy and for their lack of emotional response. For the former, one need only combine the history of the Washington Redskins' inappropriate name and their inability to recognize the rights of those around them to comment on the team. As for emotional responses, it's a bit trickier. How do you demonstrate someone's lack of emotion without strapping them down and properly performing the Voight-Kampff test?

Here's how: you create a humorous parody of the team and their play, find out that the Redskins are threatening to sue as a result, and then explain to them, "Hey, guys, it was just a joke." Then, when the legal team for the Redskins drops their threats as a result, claiming they weren't aware all was done in jest, you've proven they are unable to produce the human emotion of humor. Boom, replicants. And, no, I'm not exaggerating.

The Skins were up in arms over a series of mock game broadcasts aired by WJFK, a CBS affiliate and direct rival to the Snyder-owned ESPN affiliate. They're critical of the team, the owner, and the unincorporated hellhole that is FedEx Field (listen to Monday's fake Giants-Redskins play-by-play for a taste), but they're obviously, obviously fake. Note to Snyder, and everyone really: If the guy doing a bit is a comedian, it might be comedy.

Yet attorney Tony Wyllie, who works directly for team owner Dan Snyder, threatened the CBS affiliate, saying the obvious parody was malicious. He threatened a lawsuit. Then he rescinded the threat. Why?

Wyllie's anger over the broadcasts prompted Chris Kinard, WJFK's program director, to call time out. He met with Wyllie on Tuesday to discuss the comedy routines. Kinard declined to comment, but Wyllie insisted after the meeting that peace was at hand.

"All we did was ask questions about what they were doing," he said in an interview. "Once they said it was all in jest, we were fine with it."

"Oh, the ridiculously over-the-top fake broadcast you did was a joke? Well, in that case, we're all good!" I can't give that exchange enough currency here, as it is central to my thesis that Wyllie and Snyder are not human beings, but replicants trying to live a human's life. Nobody who hadn't suffered severe head trauma could listen to the "offending" content and think it was anything but a joke done as parody. In this case, revelation indicates ignorance on a level that simply isn't human. It seems Wyllie knew he'd let the android out of the bag, as well, as he followed up with another comment.

"I have a sense of humor, like everyone else. It's a joke, and I take it as a joke. Once they said it was all a joke, that's all there was to it."

Nobody's buying it, skin-job. What, you think we really believe the team's strident reluctance to give up the Redskins name is simply because you're too ignorant to recognize a racist term when you see one? Please, nobody's that ignorant. No, you just can't give up the "skins" name because you're androids. You may have some people fooled, replicants, but not this reporter!

[Editor's Note: And this is just for Dan Snyder and Tony Wyllie -- everyone else, please go about your day. Tim's comments here, in which he suggests you are not human and are, in fact, replicants from Tyrell Corp., is also a joke. Just getting that out of the way ahead of time, so as to avoid any confusion.]

Filed Under: dan snyder, jokes, parody, redskins, replicants, tony wyllie

Keith Alexander's Lobbying Calls To Congress Kicked Off With A Joke About How He Already Had Their Number

from the not-so-funny dept

Last week we had a story about how Nancy Pelosi helped kill the Amash Amendment to defund the controversial practice of having the NSA collect tons of info on every phone call made, in part by dragging along a bunch of Democratic representatives. Now, the National Review has some of the story from the other side of the aisle, about how the GOP leadership tried very very hard to keep the amendment from even coming to the floor, trying all sorts of procedural tricks. Eventually, it appears that John Boehner allowed the amendment to be voted on after a brief chat with Amash -- though no one seems exactly sure why. Boehner supports the surveillance program and voted against the amendment (which they note is rare, since he normally abstains from such votes).

However, there is one tidbit in the article that struck me as interesting. We'd already mentioned how Keith Alexander of the NSA went on an emergency lobbying campaign with Congressional reps after learning that the amendment would actually come to a vote, but there's this little tidbit to add some color:

Alexander, the NSA chief, was forced to personally lobby members, calling their cell phones and opening with a joke that, yes, he already had their number.

I'm all for people in government having a sense of humor. In fact, I think the world might be a better place if more people had a sense of humor, but somehow it seems insanely out of line and not particularly funny that the guy in charge of this massive spy program that we now know is collecting data on every single phone call would then call someone and kick off with a joke about his access to their phone numbers. This is not exactly a joking matter.

Filed Under: congress, jokes, keith alexander, nsa, nsa surveillance

DailyDirt: The American Bacon Obsession

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Americans reportedly eat, on average, more than 18 pounds of bacon each year. This unhealthy obsession with bacon apparently began in the 1990s when the high-protein, high-fat, low-carb Atkins Diet started gaining popularity. Now there are tons of bacon-inspired products available to the bacon lover, such as bacon ice cream, chocolate-dipped bacon, bacon doughnuts, bacon candy, bacon soap, bacon toothpaste, and bacon air freshener. Here are a few more examples.

• Next time you make yourself a drink, why not make a "Bacon Sour"? All you need is St-Germain Liqueur infused with applewood smoked bacon, Basil Hayden's Bourbon, lemon juice, maple syrup, Peychaud's Bitters, and some egg white. [url]
• You can be a real bacon lover with J&D's Baconlube, a bacon-flavored personal lubricant and massage oil. Apparently, Baconlube began as an elaborate April Fool's joke, but when J&D's revealed that it was never intended to be a real product, bacon lovers everywhere protested. So now, for a limited time, you can buy an actual bottle of Baconlube. [url]
• On April 1st (wink), Scope announced that it was introducing an entirely vegetarian (i.e. "synthetic") bacon-flavored mouthwash. Too bad it's not real because this idea has potential. Imagine, usually nasty-tasting mouthwash now tastes like bacon, and vegetarians could get a 30-second bacon fix without actually having to eat a pig. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: alcohol, bacon, bacon sour, flavoring, food, gag gifts, jokes, mouthwash, novelty
Companies: scope

DailyDirt: Ads Gone Wrong

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Commercials are always trying to get people's attention -- sometimes by being controversial and sometimes by being shocking. But even when a company tries to broadcast only sensitive and feel-good messages, there will always be some folks pointing out that companies don't really care about people as much as profits. Here are just a few advertisements that might have just missed getting their message across.

• Why is it that car companies seem to have a hard time NOT making offensive ads? Ford India recently apologized for some terrible ads depicting bound and gagged women in the spacious hatchback trunk of a Ford Figo. But Ford wasn't the only example, Hyundai and GM also had some horrible commercials to retract recently. [url]
• Dr Pepper posted an ad on Facebook with a common geeky joke, showing the evolution of humans -- starting with a chimp-like ancestor and ending with a modern upright person holding a can of his favorite beverage. Poking the beehive of anti-evolution religious folks might be a fairly safe way of creating some controversy, but it probably doesn't sell that much more sugar water. [url]
• The Economist once ran an ad for itself, asking "Why should women read The Economist?" Maybe publications written by -- and read by -- mostly men should be a bit more careful when trying to step away from being a "Maxim for nerds"..? [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: ads, advertising, commercials, economist, failures, jokes, publicity
Companies: dove, dr pepper, ford, gm, hyundai

Major Media Fails To Fact-Check iPhone Joke

from the egg-on-face dept

Since some folks in traditional media still love to pretend that they are part of a select group of information filters that can provide fact-checked news items and that their internet counterparts cannot, I'm going to keep driving this point home: internet news groups and blogs are no more susceptible to hoaxes than major news media. We saw a wonderful example of it recently with the Manti Te'o story, in which major news not only bought the BS hook, line and sinker, but through their inaction, actually perpetuated the story. Still, while that was a story that was, at best, a very sad case of someone lying their tail off, some examples can provide a little more levity.

Such as, for instance, when the L.A. Times and UPI write up very real accounts of a very fake iPhone case that includes a retractable cup-holder. The kicker being that Network World's blog dismissed it as a prank days earlier. Writer Paul McNamara didn't miss the chance to point this out.

Hate to say I told you so ... No, wait, I'm fine with saying I told you so: That combination cup holder/iPhone case (right) that was mocked here on Friday is indeed a joke, or a publicity stunt if you prefer (and I do), according to the Dutch marketing firm that pitched it to reporters and the crowdsourcing site Indiegogo.

Yet, despite their forewarning, and despite the pure ridiculousness of a case for a phone where the largest part of the equipment holds a Starbucks coffee cup, the L.A. Times wrote about it in all seriousness.

In a video that can go toe to toe with any of the best infomercials ever made, Natwerk shows off its "Uppercup." The case is more than two inches thick, but it has a slide out cup holder that iPhone owners can use while they text with two hands or play a video game. Natwerk says the Uppercup will hold any size cup.

They go on to note that the Dutch company has thus far only raised $765 of their $25k goal, which probably should have been a sign that something might be off. They note that it might be something of a publicity stunt, but it wasn't. It was completely made up. That did not stop UPI from writing up their own piece, based entirely off of the L.A. Times article. UPI does not note anywhere that it might be a hoax or a publicity stunt.

So how much fact-checking would have been required to find out that this was all a joke? Apparently one email from McNamara, asking the marketing company responsible for this if it was a joke. Their response?

Yes, pretty much. For instance, the fact that we've made the whole thing about 3 times as thick as necessary we hoped would give away we weren't all that serious. Nevertheless, we really think it is a cool device and we would really want to have it produced so we can walk around and be cool with it attached to our iPhones.

It was a joke. So, it would appear, were the fact-checking abilities of two writers for major news media. Good thing there are blogs around to filter out their nonsense.

Filed Under: cup holder, fact checking, iphone, jokes