• Owners of Who Dat?, Inc. sue the NFL and the New Orleans Saints for trademark infringement, seeking to protect the mark that "has become one of the most recognizable in all of America and quickly became well-known around the world."
Who Dat?, Inc. v. NFL Properties
• Army bomb disposal expert sues the makers of "The Hurt Locker" for plagiarizing his life story. The film is "nothing more than the exploitation of a real life honorable, courageous, and long serving member of our country’s armed forces, by greedy multi-billion dollar 'entertainment' corporations."
Sarver v. The Hurt Locker
• Former patient sues the Cincinnati hospital where he was sexually assaulted by a transgender nurse. The nurse's "employment while masquerading as a member of the female gender in a hospital environment involved an unreasonable risk of harm to others."
Evans v. University of Cincinnati
• Federal judge enjoins the City of Phoenix from enforcing a noise ordinance against "sound generated in the course of religious expression," finding the right of churches to ring bells outweighs "the City's interest in preserving the peace and tranquility of its neighborhoods."
St. Mark Roman Catholic Parish v. City of Phoenix
• 5th Circuit says a Texas city's junked vehicle ordinance applies to a cactus planter made out of wrecked Oldsmobile 88. "Irrespective of the intentions of its creators ... the car-planter is a utilitarian device, an advertisement, and ultimately a 'junked vehicle.'"
Kleinman v. City of San Marcos
• Oklahoma City bomber Terry Nichols notifies a federal judge that he has gone on hunger strike, saying he is "prepared to die if necessary because he is done allowing his body to be defiled by [ ] refined and dead foods."
Nichols v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
• Texas judge finds the makers of a film about Rin Tin Tin did not infringe on the trademarks of a breeder of German Shepherds. "Defendants['] title 'Finding Rin Tin Tin: The Adventure Continues" is a fair use of the term 'Rin Tin Tin.'"
Rin Tin Tin, Inc. v. First Look Studios
• Illinois appeals court says the contact sports exception to negligence liability does not apply to the case of an athletic trainer who was struck in the eye by a hockey puck while refilling water bottles. Michael Weisberg "suffered injuries as a result of alleged conduct that was not inherent to the sport of hockey."
Weisberg v. Chicago Steel
 
|
|
P&G Satan Rumors Case Settles After Epic Battle |
 |
 After an epic 13-year legal battle, four Amway distributors who spread a rumor linking Procter & Gamble (NYSE: PG) to Satanism have dropped their appeal of a $19.25 million jury award and reached a settlement with the consumer products giant.
The settlement mercifully ends a case that resulted in one of the largest awards ever for false advertising and no fewer than three published appeals court opinions (see table below). A Utah jury found Randy Haugen and three members of his Amway distributors' group liable in March 2007 for perpetuating the Satanism rumor to gain an unfair advantage over their competitor.
In an April 1995 message posted on the Amvox internal phone-mail system, Haugen said P&G's president had appeared on a TV talk show and “stated that a large portion of the profits from [P&G] products go to support his satanic church.” The message listed 43 specific products.
The defendants filed an appeal in July, but the following month U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart awarded nearly $13 million in prejudgment interest to P&G, bringing the total award to more than $32 million.
P&G attorney Tracy H. Fowler declined to comment on the settlement, citing confidentiality, but it's probably safe to say the award of interest encouraged the defendants to cut their losses. A court document filed Nov. 24 states only that the judgment “has been fully satisfied.”
If the appeal had failed, the defendants could have been liable for post-judgment interest. P&G had also cross-appealed for treble damages.
P&G's rumored associations with Lucifer go back to the 1980s when some claimed that its man-in-the-moon logo was a satanic symbol. Based on that history, the Amway distributors argued that P&G could not show its sales were specifically damaged by the Amvox message.
“Hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of people had been taken in by [the rumor] between 1980 and April 20, 1995,” the defense said.
But Stewart upheld the jury verdict in a June ruling, finding that
the evidence of the difference between the growth of sales of the [43] targeted products and those of Plaintiff’s nontargeted products, together with the other evidence at trial, provided “a broad basis from which” the jury as finder of fact could “arrive at a fair, if not precise amount with which to compensate” Plaintiff ...
P&G's expert estimated damages at $545 million. The company had profits of nearly $13 billion during the alleged damage period.
|
A DEVIL OF A CASE
|
|
Citation
|
Decision
|
|
P&G v. Haugen, 222 F.3d 1262 (2000)
|
Reversed summary dismissal of Lanham Act claim against all defendants and tortious interference claim against Amway.
|
|
P&G v. Haugen, 317 F.3d 1121 (2003)
|
Upheld dismissal of all claims against Amway.
|
|
P&G v. Haugen, 427 F.3d 727 (2005)
|
Reversed dismissal of remaining Lanham Act claim against distributors.
|
|
Other P&G v. Haugen Sources
|
By Matthew Heller
12/16/08 
|
|
-
"Upskirting" Victim Loses Privacy Suit Against Store
A customer at a T.J. Maxx store in upstate New York has lost her lawsuit against the retailer for allowing a man to take photos up her skirt by using her as “human bait” in a sting operation.
Read more...
-
Perfume Allergy Case Settles for $100,000
A Detroit city planner with an allergy to perfume is savoring the sweet smell of legal success after the city agreed to pay her $100,000 and be more sensitive to the chemically sensitive.
Read more...
-
Teen's Suit Puts Mug-Shot Publisher Against the Wall
A new publication in Lincoln, Neb., milks mug shots for humor. But a teenager whose arrest photo appeared in Cuffed doesn't see the funny side of it and has sued the publisher for misappropriating his image.
Read more...
-
BA Settles 'Reckless' Baggage Handling Suit
Limiting its liability to a group of only 13 airline passengers, British Airways (NYSE: BAY) has settled a first-of-its kind lawsuit that accused the airline of being “inexcusably reckless” in its handling of passengers' baggage.
Read more...
-
Judge Says "Gay" Still Defamatory in Texas
What one court has called “a veritable sea change in social attitudes about homosexuality” has evidently not reached Texas where a judge ruled that an airport security guard can sue a radio show host for calling him “gay” on the air.
Read more...
-
Mom Says Hospital Gave Her Wrong
Baby to Nurse
Because of a hospital's error, Jennifer Spiegel became an involuntary wet nurse to another woman's newborn son. Now she is suing the hospital for its malpractice in providing her with the wrong baby to breastfeed.
Read more...
-
Case Over MySpace Page Chills Student Speech
Several recent court rulings have been protective of off-campus student speech -– with the exception of a very shaky decision that a dissenting judge said “vests school officials with dangerously overbroad censorship discretion.”
Read more...
|
Newdow v. Rio Lindo Union Sch. Dist.
Subject: Pledge of allegiance
Document: Opinion
Vance v. Rumsfeld
Subject: Detainee abuse
Document: Opinion
Stern v. Sony Corp.
Subject: Disabled gamers
Document: Opinion
Churchill v. Univ. of Colorado
Subject: Academic freedom
Document: ACLU amicus brief
KBR/Halliburton v. Jones
Subject: Sexual assault
Document: Petition for review
more
|
|
Spears v. Allergan, Inc.
Court: Orange County (Calif.) Superior
Subject: Botox death
Verdict: Defense
Patterson v. Hudson Area Schools
Court: USDC, E. Mich.
Subject: Student harassment
more
|
|
McClain v. Pfizer, Inc.
Date: 3/2/10
Court: USDC, Conn.
Hearing: Jury trial in case over unsafe lab conditions.
Sherman v. McDonald's Corp.
Date: 3/23/10
Court: Washington County (Ark.) Circuit
Hearing: Jury trial in case over nude photos.
more
|
|
|
