Every now and then, as I am poring over scholarly tomes of legalness, I come across something that makes me laugh out loud. I'm sure it is quite disconcerting to the other people here in the library of JPSLS, but I just can't help it.
I've just finished reading the very important case of Mattel v. MCA Records, 296 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002). I'm sure all you pop culture aficionados out there remember a totally awesome song that came out circa 1997, a song called "Barbie Girl". It contained such classic lines as, "I'm a blond bimbo girl in a fantasy world", and "You can brush my hair, undress me everywhere". Super-smart social commentary, dontcha think?
Anyway, Mattel, makers of the iconic Barbie doll and owners of the trademark rights in same, in a fit of righteous indignation, decided to sue the record label that marketed "Barbie Girl" in the US. Rather than suing them for total suckitude (a cause of action I would have solidly supported), they sued them for trademark infringement, dilution, unfair competition, yaddayaddayadda. Long story short, Mattel lost.
The fun part is, Judge Kozinski, that paragon of sober judiciousness, issued the opinion. He helpfully framed the issue at the very beginning of the case.
"If this were a sci-fi melodrama, it might be called Speech-Zilla meets Trademark Kong"
At the end of the case, he addresses MCA's cross-claim against Mattel for defamation.
"MCA filed a counterclaim for defamation based on [a] Mattel representative's use of the words "bank robber," "heist," "crime," and "theft". But all of these are variants of the invective most often hurled at accused infringers, namely "piracy". No one hearing this accusation understands intellectual property owners to be saying that infringers are nautical cutthroats with eye-patches and peg legs who board galleons to plunder cargo. In context, all these terms are nonactionable "rhetorical hyperbole". The parties are advised to chill."
Heh.
No comments:
Post a Comment