Okay, I have some great cases for Friday--6 of them! I have to start with the one that had me literally laughing out loud...
1. Kim Kardashian v. The Gap Inc. et al - 2:11-cv-05960
- The lowdown is that Kim Kardashian is suing Old Navy for hiring an actress/model for one of their commercials that looks like her.
- I have to interject here-- this is absolutely HILARIOUS to me. I'd never watched an episode of Keeping Up With the Kardashians (still have never watched a full episode), but I have watched parts of random episodes thanks to my old roommate (RKB RKB!), [and must admit that those clips were extremely entertaining]; I think Kim Kardashian is absolutely gorgeous... but I have to say, unless the Old Navy actress claims outright to be Kim Kardashian or mimics her actions with the intent to trick the general audience into thinking she is Kim Kardashian, this suit is ridiculous.
The current estimate of the world's population is 6.9326 BILLION people; chances are, someone out there looks like you--whether they intend to or not is questionable (and often depends on your point of view / how vain you are). As Chuck Palahniuk writes, "You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everyone else, and we are all part of the same compost pile" (Fight Club). Simply looking like someone else is not a crime (unless you go around trying to con people into thinking you actually are that other person, in which case, stealing others' identities is certainly a criminal act). How could someone else, then, sue a company for finding a model who happens to look like you, depriving her of a job because you share similar physical features? Simply disqualifying a candidate based upon appearance, if the candidate meets all other qualifications [has the applicable knowledge/skills/abilities], should be considered almost as egregious as disqualifying a candidate based upon sex, race/ethnic background, religion, or sexual orientation.
- Continuing with the case synopsis: Kim believes that the model Old Navy hired for their ad, Melissa Molinaro, looks "so much like" herself ... SO MUCH so that "people may become confused and believe" that it actually is her in the ad, and therefore believing that she "endorses" Old Navy. "'Defendants knowingly and intentionally took steps to exacerbate and perpetuate the likelihood of confusion and actual confusion in the minds of the consuming public and to perpetuate their unlawful exploitation of Kim Kardashian's likeness, identity and persona [via advertisement storyline] for the defendants' commercial gain'" claimed the prosecutors. {http://www.law360.com/ip/articles/259284}
- More commentary: Molinaro is filmed "getting a pedicure, dancing in a park, and shopping at Old Navy". No where in the video is she showing off what many consider to be Kim Kardashian's "best asset".
This makes you wonder if anyone even remotely looks like a reality TV star/celebrity, if that person should all avoid shopping (to not accidentally endorse products/companies) or going out in public in general, so he/she does not run the risk of putting unknowing filmmakers or photographers in danger of getting sued. I'd also like to point out that Kim Kardashian never called Molinaro out on "looking" like her when Molinaro was a reality star (just like Kardashian) on The Pussycat Dolls Present: The Search for the Next Doll and Making the Band 3.
2. US v. Beda Singenberger - 1:11-cr-00620
- On Thursday, Beda Singenberger, financial adviser and owner of Sinco Treuhand (Zurich-based), was charged with conspiracy which aided a number of taxpayers hide over $184 million dollars from the IRS (Internal Revenue Service). He hid his clients' identities by moving their accounts to other Swiss banks during the time the US was investigating UBS AG. In total, "former UBS clients were charged with hiding more than $100 million from U.S. authorities". {http://www.law360.com/topnews/articles/259557}
3. Brady et al. v National Football League et al - 0:11-cv-00639
- NFL team owners "ratified a settlement and new 10-year collective bargaining agreement late Thursday that, if approved by the players' union, will end an antitrust class action against the league in Minnesota federal court and save the 2011 football season". The long-term agreement ends the league's lockout. "A lockout threatens the teams' ability to fund ex-players' benefits and semi-independent foundations that retired players depend on for services, including programs that provide treatment for spinal injuries, discount prescription drugs and cardiovascular screening, the ex-players claim." {http://www.law360.com/topnews/articles/259730}
4. Personal Audio, LLC v. Apple, Inc. - 9:11-cv-00120
Personal Audio filed yet another complaint (after winning an initial $8 million verdict against Apple in court) against Apple Inc. for infringing its "playlist technology patent in several of its products, including the latest iPhone model". The latest complaint states that after Personal Audio made it's initial complaint of patent infrigement, Apple continued to release new iPods, iPhones, and iPads that infringed the same patent. However, "the two companies had reached an agreement at the time to limit the first suit to Apple's earlier product lines. 'The jury instructions given by the court specifically instructed the jury to disregard any evidence that Personal Audio was entitled to damages relating to products not accused in that litigation,' the new complaint says. 'Consequently, the damages award issued by the jury on July 8... does not cover any other products.'" {
http://www.law360.com/ip/articles/259396}
5. Marcus Abbe et al. v. City of San Diego - 09-56437
- The Ninth Circuit of the Court of Appeals decided not to "revive" the San Diego police officers' case against the city of underpaid overtime. The plaintiffs "claimed the city failed to pay them proper overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. In a nonprecedential memorandum, the appeals court held that a California federal court had properly entered judgment against all remaining plaintiffs in the wake of a jury verdict on the claims of eight test plaintiffs, holding that the city was not liable for overtime violations under the FLSA...
More than 1,500 police officers lodged the underlying lawsuit in 2005, accusing the city of refusing to pay them overtime for duties performed before and after their shifts, off-duty weapons proficiency training, SWAT training time and court preparation. Despite the large number of plaintiffs, the case was not brought as a class action, and the parties agreed to try the claims of a select number of plaintiffs on core liability issues."
After going to trial and appeals, "the appeals panel affirmed the district court's judgment following the verdicts for the test plaintiffs and its grant of summary judgment on the donning and doffing issue. It also found that the plaintiffs had waived their claims that the lower court erred in entering summary judgment on breach of contract allegations and in denying a motion for a new trial, because the plaintiffs failed to develop those claims on appeal.
The Ninth Circuit also dismissed the appealing plaintiffs' challenge to the court's decision to allow Jackson DeMarco to represent some plaintiffs, finding that the issue did not impact any of the plaintiffs in the appeal." {http://www.law360.com/california/articles/259398}
6. In re: Borders Group, Inc. et al. - 1:11-bk-10614
- Borders' proposed plan to liquidate was approved by a New York Southern Court Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn on Thursday. Borders, a bookstore chain that had, at one point, over 1,200 locations, is currently only left with 389 stores. Today, the majority of Borders' remaining stores commenced "going-out-of-business" sales led by Hilco Merchant Resources and Gordon Brothers Group LLC. However, the 40-year life of Borders may not be completely over.
"A tentative deal with Books-a-Million Inc... might allow as many as 35 Borders stores to continue operating in some form, which would save between 1,000 and 1,500 jobs, according to Borders' attorney Andrew Glenn. That deal is not final. Groups of lawyers from Borders and BAM huddled in negotiations right up to the start of a hearing before Judge Glenn. Even if the BAM sale goes through, that limited deal falls far short of the future that seemed possible for Borders until last week: sale of the retailer to the Najafi Cos., a group that said it intended to continue to operate the chain." {http://www.law360.com/topnews/articles/259628}
 |
|
------
Another interesting case to look up, if you have time [New York Federal Judge Barbara Jones threw out the $1.6 billion-Basic-Yield-Alpha-Fund (hedge fund)-led lawsuit yesterday]:
Basic Yield Alpha Fund v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. et al - 1:10-cv-04537
------
On another note, I'm recording tomorrow! I'll post the finish product whenever it's uploaded. :]
