19 Mar 2014 at 2:49 PM

Gay, Hotties, Intellectual Property, Jews, Reader Polls, Trademarks

Oy Vey! Dueling Calendars Of Jewish Hotties Trigger Trademark Throwdown

By David Lat

Two of my favorites: Jesse Eisenberg and Andy Samberg.

Earlier in the week, I came across an interesting intellectual-property fact pattern in the New York Post. The Post reported on a calendar conflict in which the creator of the Nice Jewish Guys Calendar, an established brand, alleges trademark infringement by a newcomer, the Naughty Jewish Boys Calendar.
I must now confess to a weakness for the Chosen People. I admire them not just for their socioeconomic and educational attainment but for their sex appeal. So I was more than happy to investigate.
Let’s check out the competing calendars, the cease-and-desist letter, and the response thereto — along with some Hebraic hotties, of course….

The word is already out about hot Jewish women like Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson; it’s the men who need greater exposure.

The New York Post is diversifying nicely beyond gossip, sex, and scandal (a strategy we can appreciate here at Above the Law). In addition to book reviews, the Post now offers coverage of IP disputes:

A battle to define male Jewish sexuality is playing out on two competing wall calendars — one filled with mensch after mensch, another that’s decidedly less kosher — and now, the battle’s gone legal.
In 2011, a television producer named Adam Cohen founded the “Nice Jewish Guys” wall calendar, featuring pictures of smiling, fully clothed young Jewish men that any Jewish mother would be proud to call mishpacha (family). The calendar is now annual, and growing in popularity. The 2014 edition has sold more than 10,000 copies, and Cohen even secured a cross-promotional deal with the popular Jewish dating site JDate.
But not everyone is onboard with Cohen’s version of how nice Jewish men should be — or how they should be portrayed. When Astoria playwright Duncan Pflaster placed a Craigslist ad in February for models for a “Naughty Jewish Boys” calendar, he called it an alternative to the “emasculating ‘Nice Jewish Boys’ [sic] calendar currently out,” claiming that his would “show the sexy side of Judaism.”
Pflaster soon received a letter from a lawyer representing the other calendar — actually called “Nice Jewish Guys” — claiming that “Naughty Jewish Boys” was close enough to their trademark to confuse consumers and requesting that Pflaster stop using the name.

You can read the cease-and-desist letter — sent by Michael L. Lovitz on behalf of Jumbo Jet Inc., owner of the “Nice Jewish Guys” trademark — over here. This is the core of its kvetshing:

Our client is understandably concerned. The Infringing Name [of "Naughty Jewish Boys"] being used for your wall calendars is highly related to our client’s registered trademark [in "Nice Jewish Guys"]. The common interplay of the terms “naughty” and “nice” makes it likely that consumers and potential customers would believe, in error, that the Infringing Name is being used in connection with products that are related to, affiliated with or under license from JJI, a belief that is reinforced by your continued reference to and comparisons with JJI’s Calendars. The products you are promoting under the Infringing Name are a natural expansion for JJI of its line of wall calendars, and therefore the use of the Infringing Name in connection with your calendar products would interfere with JJI’s prospective business opportunities, to JJI’s detriment.

You can read the response of Duncan Pflaster — creator of the “Naughty Jewish Boys” calendar, and a fan of naughty Jewish boys himself — over here. His response, which he accurately describes on his website as “polite,” is sadly not snarky (unlike such classics as the C&D responses sent to West Orange, the American Bankers Association, and Starbucks). It seems that Pflaster is taking the situation seriously.
What’s the gist of his defense? He articulated it when he spoke with the Post:

“I don’t think there’s any way our calendars can be confused,” he says. “I’ve tried to make that clear on the Web site and on all of the materials.”
The calendars take a very different approach to Jewish men.

Indeed. This side-by-side comparison prepared by the Post shows the divergence (click to enlarge):

This image captures the contrast in approach. The “Nice Jewish Guys” calendar features mensches you can “take home to Mom.” The “Naughty Jewish Boys” calendar boasts shirtless (and presumably brised) men you can take straight to bed.
I’m not an IP lawyer, but I’m hoping that Pflaster and his “Naughty Jewish Boys” calendar prevail. I really want to get my hands on that calendar (which you can pre-order through this website).
For those of you who are IP lawyers or who take an interest in these issues, who is in the right in this mishegas? Read the full Post article, the C&D letter, and the response, then comment on this post and vote in our reader poll:

Does the owner of Nice Jewish Guys have a valid trademark infringement claim against Naughty Jewish Boys?

• Yes - creating the Naughty Jewish Boys calendar showed a lot of chutzpah (not the good kind).
• No - the Nice Jewish Guys cease-and-desist letter is pure bupkes.

View Results

 Loading ...

Sexy Jewish pinup calendars in ‘naughty vs nice’ holy war [New York Post]
Naughty Jewish Boys™ Calendar [official website]
Nice Jewish Guys™ Calendar [official website]

26 Feb 2014 at 5:59 PM

Asians, Biglaw, Blog Wars, Blogging, California, Politics, Reader Polls, Weirdness, Women's Issues

A Biglaw Firm’s ‘Disgusting’ And ‘Despicable’ Lawsuit?

By David Lat

A lawsuit filed earlier this month has raised the ire of several leading lawyers and legal bloggers. Noted First Amendment attorney Marc Randazza — a panelist at our Attorney@Blog conference, by the way — describes the case as “truly disgusting.” Ken White of Popehat, another prominent commentator on the legal profession, calls the suit “despicable” and “thoroughly contemptible,” writing that he “cannot remember a lawsuit that so immediately repulsed and enraged.”
Let’s find out what all the buzz is about. Which law firm filed this controversial complaint, what is the case about, and how bad is it?

Here is what Randazza writes over at The Legal Satyricon:

Every law firm gets confronted (on a pretty regular basis) with the question: “should I put my name on this?“ That soul searching comes into play when you wonder, “is this honorable?” You know when it is, and when it isn’t.
I’m not talking about representing a client that you know is guilty — they deserve a defense. I’m not talking about representing a really evil client — because there might be an important legal issue in play.
I’m talking about when you do something truly disgusting.

Now, Biglaw firms sometimes represent some pretty unsavory characters — corporations that profit from dangerous or defective products, companies that pollute the air and water, greedy white-collar criminals. Is this latest lawsuit any worse? Per Randazza:

Mayer Brown brings you this masterpiece — a lawsuit where they are trying remove a memorial for World War II “comfort women” from a public park. You see, it “offends” some of their clients. The cause itself is a bit slimy, but how they’re going about it qualifies them as “the least honorable law firm in the world.”
For those of you who do not know what the “comfort women” were — they were about 200,000 women (some say as many as 400,000) who were forced into working in whorehouses for Japanese soldiers during World War II.

After describing the atrocities inflicted upon the comfort women, who were basically turned into sex slaves, Randazza scrutinizes the plaintiffs behind this suit:

Two of the plaintiffs are Japanese-Americans who live in Glendale. The third plaintiff is an “organization” called “GAHT-US.”
“Plaintiff GAHT-US Corporation (GAHT-US) is a non-profit public benefit corporation organized under the laws of the State of California. The purpose of GAHT-US is to provide accurate and fact-based educational resources to the public in the U.S., including within California and Glendale, concerning the history of World War II and related events, with an emphasis on Japan’s role.” (Complaint at Para. 7)
Well, if we look for GAHT-US (The “Global Alliance for Historical Truth”), what do we find? We find that it is a corporation that someone created on February 6, 2014. After 14 days of legal existence, this lawsuit was GAHT-US’s first act — well after slapping up a web page. This “Global Alliance’s” address is 1223 Wilshire Boulevard #613. That’s a UPS Store.

What is the plaintiffs’ issue with the memorial? From the complaint:

As a Glendale resident of Japanese heritage, [plaintiff Michiko Shiota Gingery] believes the Public Monument presents an unfairly one-sided portrayal of the historical and political debate surrounding comfort women….

Over at Popehat, Ken White provides more of the necessary background:

During the Second World War, the Empire of Japan sexually enslaved women — at least tens of thousands, and perhaps hundreds of thousands — to be raped by its troops. They were forcibly seized from the countries Japan occupied, primarily Korea. Though Japan officially apologized in 1993, in recent years right-wing forces in Japan have been seeking to retract those apologies, asserting that the enslaved women were actually voluntary prostitutes, or that the Empire itself wasn’t involved in any coercion. This attempted walkback can best be understood in the broader context of Japanese nationalist politics, in which right-wing politicians play to their base by doing things like visiting shrines honoring war criminals.
Now Japanese-American plaintiffs, served by American megafirm Mayer Brown, are pursuing the agenda of reactionary Japanese politicians through despicable litigation.

So one could argue that this lawsuit constitutes an attempt to deny historical horrors that most people (at least here in the United States) would agree actually occurred — or if not to deny those horrors, at least to shift the blame for them.
What are the plaintiffs’ legal grounds for opposing the memorial? Per Popehat:

Plaintiffs argue in part that the City of Glendale did not follow its own rules in approving the exact language on the memorial. But their primary argument — the most shocking one — is that the City of Glendale cannot erect such a memorial because it violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and interferes with the federal government’s sole right to conduct U.S. foreign policy.

In a nutshell, the plaintiffs argue that because “the historical and political debate surrounding comfort women” is so charged — implicating relations between Japan and its neighbors in Asia, and between Japan and the United States — Glendale cannot put up this memorial without violating the federal government’s “power to exclusively conduct the foreign affairs of the United States.” This argument seems like a bit of a stretch to me, for the reasons outlined by Randazza at The Legal Satyricon and White at Popehat.
(You should definitely read both of their posts, which are vigorously argued and stylishly written. Whether you agree or disagree with Randazza and White, you can at least enjoy their prose.)
So Gingery v. City of Glendale doesn’t strike me as a particularly meritorious lawsuit. But does that make it “disgusting” and “despicable”? Maybe I’m taking too amoral a view — perhaps years of observing and writing about the legal profession have made me jaded — but I’m not sure. It seems not terribly different from any other case in which a Biglaw firm represents some powerful interest opposed to human rights (or arguably opposed to human rights, if you want to be a comfort-women-denier about it).
My reaction to this case is less angry and more puzzled, or at least curious. I’m curious about the plaintiffs, especially the mysterious, newly formed GAHT-US entity. I’m curious about why the plaintiffs care so deeply about disputing the historical record on the comfort women — do they have ties to right-wing Japanese politics? I’m curious about how much the plaintiffs are paying Mayer Brown to handle this matter and who is funding the litigation. And I’m curious about why Mayer Brown decided to take this controversial case — do the plaintiffs have ties to existing corporate clients of the firm? This is not the kind of case that a firm like Mayer would typically handle.
(By the way, we did reach out to Mayer Brown to see if the firm had any comment on this case. They did not get back to us.)
That’s just me. Readers, what do you make of this matter? Sound off in the comments, and take our reader poll.
UPDATE (3/4/2014, 11:45 p.m.): A quick clarification in response to Jack Marshall’s post over at Ethics Alarms. My argument is not “everybody does stuff like this, so therefore it’s okay.” Rather, my argument — reflecting my perspective as a Biglaw admirer, which perhaps I should have made explicit — would be better phrased as follows: “Biglaw firms frequently represent powerful interests allegedly opposed to human rights; there’s nothing wrong with such representations, which involve unpopular parties receiving zealous advocacy on their behalf; and Mayer Brown’s involvement in the Gingery case isn’t materially different from these representations.”

What do you think about Gingery v. City of Glendale?

• Disgusting and contemptible. (41%, 954 Votes)
• Not disgusting, just frivolous. (38%, 889 Votes)
• Shrug; par for the Biglaw course. (19%, 445 Votes)
• Courageous and commendable. (2%, 54 Votes)

Total Voters: 2,342

 Loading ...

Mayer Brown, shame on you. [The Legal Satyricon]
Controlling Public Art By Lawsuit: Japanese-American Citizens Sue To Remove “Comfort Women” Memorial [Popehat]
Earlier: I’m Pretty Sure The Japanese Peace Constitution Doesn’t Allow For Sex Slaves

51 Comments

• 
• Print

Topics

Asians, Biglaw, Blog Wars, Blogging, California, Comfort Women, GAHT-US, Gingery v. City of Glendale, Glendale, Jack Marshall, Japan, Japanese, Ken White, Koichi Mera, Marc Randazza, Mayer Brown, Michiko Gingery, Michiko S. Gingery, Michiko Shiota Gingery, Politics, Reader Polls, Weirdness, Women's Issues

01 Feb 2013 at 5:13 PM

Job Searches, Legal Ethics, Reader Polls

And This Is How We Turn Good People Into Unethical Lawyers

By Elie Mystal

This cheese isn’t a good deal.

Today’s story about Georgetown’s Marc Gersen has me thinking about how regular people become criminals. Gersen’s story is the kind of thing books are made of, it’s big and bold and colorful.
But on the smaller scale, people are pushed into unethical decisions all the time, and it rarely comes with the stark choices of, “Should I, or should I NOT, start a meth ring?” People, especially the kind of risk averse people that end up in law school, don’t make one big decision to “become a criminal.” It’s a bunch of little decisions that incrementally take you from “normal, law abiding citizen” to “bad actor.”
Today, we got an email from a person who is thinking about making an unethical choice out of desperation for a job. Why don’t you read her dilemma for yourself and tell her what you think she should do….

A reader sent us an email and asked if the ATL audience could weigh in on her career decision. Jobless, this recent graduate has an offer from an attorney who is allegedly unethical. Here’s how she describes her potential employer:

Negative reviews are everywhere saying his firm is a scam and he is a rip-off. This guy is being sued for stealing clients money. The gov’t issued a search warrant and confiscated his computers and clients’ files last year. I don’t know the result of this investigation.
The state bar also initiated the disciplinary proceeding for violating 29 counts of state business and professions code. They are recently discharged. He filed ch.7 to get rid of his debts and recently established a P.C. His ex-employee told me he was not a scrupulous guy and she did not want to get involved with him again. He has a very bad reputation in town. (But I live in a very big city, so I assume it may not be that fatal.)

She says that under normal circumstances, she would turn down the offer. But, she has no job and has bills to pay. Thus, her question to our readers:

So here is my question…
Is this really bad for an entry-level lawyer to work for an (arguably) bad lawyer? Is it an absolute NO? Which one is more important: get some experience or working at a right/good firm?
To put it another way, which one is worse: having no experience or working at a bad firm? I keep searching job postings and there is no opening for entry-level. Everyone looks for experienced lawyers. So I get the impression that no experience is the worst.
I don’t know what to do with this offer. Feels not right to accept this offer but cannot just forgo. So give me some advice — should I accept his offer?

This is how it starts. If she’s so desperate to get the job that she’s willing to work with a disreputable attorney, what is she going to be willing to do in order to keep it?
Young lawyers need to remember that generating clients has a lot to do with one’s reputation. It’s really not worth the risk of sullying your own long term reputation for the short term cash. It’d be better to work at McDonald’s while taking on clients for free than drawing a paycheck signed by a guy nobody respects or trusts.
What do you guys think? Should this woman do what she has to do to pay some bills, or are some offers not worth the reputational risk?

Should this jobless law graduate take a job with an allegedly unethical lawyer?

• Yes. Beggars can't be choosers.
• No. Your reputation is your most valuable asset.

View Results

Loading ...

(20) Comments

• inShare0

• Tags: Desperation, Ethics, Job Searches, Legal Ethics, Reader Polls

http://abovethelaw.com/2013/02/and-this-is-how-we-turn-good-people-into-unethical-lawyers/

27 Nov 2012 at 3:53 PM

ATL Career Center Survey, Career Alternatives, Career Center, Reader Polls

Calling All Lapsed Lawyers

By Brian Dalton

‘…to take a survey (if you’re a non-practicing lawyer).’

You almost never hear of someone enduring the rigors of med school, becoming a doctor, practicing medicine for a few years, and then just ditching the profession altogether. The same could be said of licensed plumbers and electricians. Yet lapsed lawyers are everywhere: making chocolate, writing novels, blogging, leading the free world, whatever.
Obviously, there are myriad reasons for leaving the profession. Some ex- (or “recovering”) lawyers were nudged out or fired, while others left of their own free will to follow their muses onto different career paths. Some simply hated being a lawyer. Some hated the clients (e.g., “[W]hat do I care about some stranger let alone his problems?” — Columbia Law grad turned soldier-of-fortune Denis Clifford).
Not everyone buys into the idea that a law degree is so versatile (hi, Elie), but some non-practicing JDs do find that that their legal training was great preparation for the next stage of their careers.
We are reaching out to lapsed lawyers to ask them their personal stories. Why did you choose the law in the first place? Why did you leave? What are you up to now? Looking back at your time practicing law, how would you describe your experience? And so forth.
Are you an ex-lawyer? Please click here to take our survey and share your experiences. This survey is the first in a series of research projects in partnership with our friends at AdamSmithEsq, where the Lapsed Lawyer survey will also be hosted.

(5) Comments

• inShare0

• Tags: ATL Career Center Survey, Career Alternatives, Career alternatives for attorneys, Career Center, Ex-lawyers, lapsed lawyers, Reader Polls, reader surveys, recovering lawyers

http://abovethelaw.com/2012/11/calling-all-lapsed-lawyers/

The Most Honest Law School

12 Mar 2012 at 7:03 PMPosted in:


Contests, Law School Deans, Law Schools, Legal Ethics, March Madness, Reader Polls

ATL March Madness (2012): The Most Honest Law School

By Above the Law

Get your brackets ready, March Madness is here! It’s the most wonderful time of the year, at least for those who enjoy illegally gambling with co-workers.

Every year, we here at Above the Law like to put together a little bracket of our own. In the past, we’ve asked you to vote for such things as the coolest law firm or the douchiest law school.

This year, we’ve come up with a question that you don’t hear a lot of people asking when they’re talking about pursing a career in law: Which law school is the most honest?

Don’t start checking you LST transparency index just yet. Sure, being honest to prospective or incoming students can be a factor in a law school’s reputation for honesty. But we want to look at this question in the broadest possible sense….

Whether a law school provides full and fair disclosure of its employment statistics to prospective students would certainly seem relevant to whether the school is “honest.” Whether a law school’s administration is direct and upfront when handling the crises and controversies that inevitably arise (and that we love to cover) would also seem like part of the honesty equation.

But honesty goes beyond the central administration and the career services office. It should show itself in the classroom as well — and beyond.

We expect law schools to shape our next generation of lawyers. We expect law schools to teach their students to think like lawyers. But do we expect law schools to teach people to be honest lawyers? Are some law schools better at emphasizing the moral and ethical standards of the law, while others teach a more, well, ethically aggressive style?

Or maybe the process of being an “honest” law school starts earlier than the first day of classes? It’s possible that some schools try to screen for the most upstanding individuals they can find, while other admission committees are more willing to accept academically qualified applicants with murky pasts.

Practicing lawyers, you must have opinions as well. If you are out there in practice, you’ve run across countless attorneys and judges from all sorts of law schools. Have you noticed any patterns when it comes to the alma maters of the honest and dishonest lawyers you meet?
In the words of Jack Nicholson’s Joker, “Hubba, hubba, hubba, money, money, money, who do you trust?” Which law schools have a reputation for producing graduates who are honest in their professional and personal dealings? Which law schools teach people that rules are made to be broken? Which law schools understand that honesty starts at the top?

We’ve tossed out several ways of measuring honesty. Ultimately, though, the definition of “honesty” is up to you.

Click on the next page to see the bracket and begin voting

Please read complete article and page 2 for voting at link below:


http://abovethelaw.com/2012/03/atl-march-madness-2012-the-most-honest-law-school/

Editor's note: Your ProbateShark finds the fact that this article is even "published" to be frightening and an indictment to the legal profession.  Do the bottom feeders end up in the Probate Court of Cook County? What about the 90% of lawyers found to be less honest?  Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com