Stefanie J. Lipson

Contact Stefanie

Most days, this blog is all about analyzing entertainment news stories.  Today, it’s just about analyzing an entertaining news story.

Forty-eight year old Florida billionaire John Goodman (owner of the International Polo Club Palm Beach, not Roseanne’s TV husband) recently shocked courts and bloggers alike with the headline-grabbing adoption of his 42-year-old girlfriend, Heather Hutchins, making Heather his eldest (and creepiest) of three children.  But if the fact of a 48-year-old man adopting his adult girlfriend as his daughter doesn’t give you the heebie-jeebies, here’s betting the reason he did so will.

Goodman is currently facing both criminal DUI manslaughter charges and a wrongful death civil action for causing the death of 23-year-old Scott Wilson, who drowned when his car overturned and plunged into a canal after being struck by Goodman’s Bentley in February 2010.  (Of course he was driving a Bentley.)  Goodman could forfeit a significant portion of his net worth should the jury find against him and award punitive damages in the wrongful death case.  But even if Wilson’s family wins a massive judgment against Goodman, they can’t take from what he doesn’t own — and “what he doesn’t own,” says Florida Circuit Judge Glenn Kelley (who is presiding over the wrongful death suit against Goodman), includes a $100-million irrevocable trust, created all the way back in 1991, for the benefit of Goodman’s “children.”

Observers have speculated that Goodman — knowing that his money may soon become the Wilsons’ money once their lawsuit is finished — adopted Hutchins as a way to indirectly access a fortune which the Wilsons cannot.  In other words, Goodman’s maneuver seemingly isn’t so much about making Hutchins a wealthy woman as it is about keeping himself a wealthy man.  The head-spinning development caused even Judge Kelley to observe that the court was entering a “legal twilight zone.”  So what is really going on here? Continue reading the full story . . . »

Elisabeth Moriarty

Contact Elisabeth

In honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., last Monday my husband and I found ourselves with three glorious hours to kill midday, while our daughter visited a friend.  We could have cleaned out the garage, but instead we went to lunch at a new-ish bar and grill which prides itself on serving over 100 beers on tap.  As I perused the vast beer menu, I was struck by the creativity (and in some cases absurdity) of the names these breweries had invented for their ambers and ales.  There were a few that were a bit embarrassing (“Flying Dog Doggie Style Pale Ale?”  Seriously, I don’t think I can’t ask for that without blushing, so it better be good).  Some made me laugh out loud (I thought “Unibroue Ephemere Cassis” was hysterically punny, until I learned that “Unibroue” is the actual name of the Quebec-based brewery).  Few names were conventional and many were downright clever.

I knew vaguely about the ancient and globe-spanning trademark dispute between American brewer Anheuser-Busch and the Czech beer producer Budejovicky Budvar over the right to use the trademarked name “Budweiser” — a battle which has been brewing since 1870.  But with so many beers and so many creative names and logos, I wondered, as even slightly tipsy lawyers tend to do, how often breweries found themselves in a legal kerfuffle over their beloved (and lucrative) alcoholic beverages.  Aren’t these guys supposed to be mellow and laid back (well, except, perhaps, for the guys who make Arrogant Bastard Ale)?  They make beer, for Pete’s sake.

Well, it turns out that brewers stir up litigation more often than you might think. Continue reading the full story . . . »

Rachel Wilkes Barchie

Contact Rachel

This blogger is proud to say that I have never watched any show featuring a member of the Kardashian family (okay, okay, unless you count their step-brother Brody Jenner…you know I could never resist The Hills).  I normally try to pretend to steer clear of anything Kardashian, as I fall into the camp of people who wonder, “why the heck is she famous, anyway?”  (Yes, that’s a rhetorical question — I know it’s because of her video debut.)  But I can’t resist writing an update about the Old Navy commercial we posted about back in March 2011.  (Extra shout-out to fellow blogger Megan Rivetti for anticipating Kim K.’s lawsuit, which wasn’t actually filed until July.)

Kim’s lawsuit claims that Old Navy and its parent company The Gap Inc. violated her right of publicity and misled and confused consumers, and seeks $15­–20 million in damages.  (For more on the right of publicity, see here; for more on consumer confusion, see here; for more on how the actress who starred in the Old Navy commercial is totally re-living Kim Kardashian’s life in other ways, see here.)  But now The Gap’s lawyers are moving in on Kim’s “private life” (and the use of air quotes has never seemed more appropriate).  Among other things, they have sought financial records that show how much stores Bebe and Sears earned by making deals with Kim and why Bebe dropped Kim, and information about “Kim Kardashian’s reputation as a singer and dancer.”   As Eriq Gardner of THR, Esq. points out, one reason The Gap may be seeking information about Kim’s business dealings is to make out an argument — often used in defamation cases — that the plaintiff is “libel-proof” because her reputation is so ruined that no additional damage could be caused.

So let’s take a look at the contours of the so-called “libel-proof” defense. Continue reading the full story . . . »

Dan Nabel

Contact Dan

The famous Czech writer Milan Kundera once wrote that “business has only two functions — marketing and innovation.”  But some industries — like the alcohol industry — have pretty much hit the limit on innovation (unless you consider things like a tequila bottle top which doubles as a shot glass “innovative”).  This means that the entire business is marketing.  Which is probably why I enjoy drinking the same beer as the most interesting man in the world and think Guinness is good for me.  Just kidding.  But seriously, I do prefer those beers.

As we all know, marketing plans can go awry.  For example, in 2008, a Tustin-based alcohol importer called Sans Wine & Spirits Co. decided to rebrand its tequila “to position it as a luxury brand.”  The “brand enhancement” plan required the Mexican distiller to “use an industrial hand-blown bottle for the tequila,” “a wooden bottle stopper with cork veneer to match other luxury brands of tequila,” and to have a bottle-maker mold an image of an agave agricultural worker into the back of the bottle.  Lastly, Sans Wine & Spirits hired a Mexican design firm to upgrade the label design that the distiller had been using since 2004.  Unfortunately for Sans Wine & Spirits, it turned out that the original label design and the new label design both copied a José-Pablo Fernández photograph sin permiso.  Mr. Fernández was muy molesto (bothered) when he found out and sent Sans Wine & Spirits a cease-and-desist letter.

Now, Sans Wine & Spirits is suing Fernández, preemptively, for a declaratory judgment that the label design is not infringing, and more importantly, if it is infringing, then for a declaration that Sans Wine & Spirits was an “innocent infringer.”

Let’s break down the “innocent infringer” defense. Continue reading the full story . . . »

Dan Nabel

Contact Dan

On a Saturday night in September, I took my wife to the first ever “Call of Duty” convention, hosted by Activision Blizzard inside a hangar on the old airfield where Howard Hughes built the Spruce Goose. Did I tell her ahead of time that I was taking her to a nerd convention where the only food available would be burgers and fries from a recreated fictional in-game restaurant called “Burger Town?” No way! I told her I was taking her to a Kanye West concert! Which was kind of true. Kanye was the “big performance” at the end of the geekfest (which explains why increasingly better looking people started showing up as time went by). Unfortunately, even Kanye’s harem of near-naked dancers could not distract from the utter awfulness of Kanye’s performance. Worst. Concert. Ever. (And yes, he did have an I-am-a-Greek-god theme going on in the background.)

Since that disaster of a concert, Kanye (or “Ye” as he is [unfortunately] sometimes referred to by fans) has been fighting two lawsuits (unrelated to said disaster of a concert, but no promises I don’t start a class action lawsuit out of that one) — one that alleges that he stole ideas for his hit song “Stronger,” and one that alleges he used a sample from Syl Johnson’s song “Different Strokes,” without permission, for Kanye and Jay-Z’s album, “Watch the Throne.” These cases are interesting to look at side-by-side because, while both cases deal with copyright issues, one case involves (allegedly) copied lyrics while the other case involves (allegedly) copied sound. And in the sometimes confounding world of copyright law, that could actually make a huge difference. Continue reading the full story . . . »

Ken Basin

Contact Ken

This time of year, the legal press is pretty well flooded with articles summarizing the most important cases and decisions of the last year, or looking ahead to the most important cases of the coming year.  This is all well and good — indeed, just this Tuesday, I offered my own list of five important cases to watch in 2012.  But what’s the fun of spending all of one’s time following important cases, when there are so many amusingly absurd cases to watch out there instead?  In that spirit, here are five cases that may not break any legal ground in the coming year, but that you’ll still want to keep an eye on (if only to have something funny to talk about at cocktail parties). Continue reading the full story . . . »