Motion Denied for Incomprehensibility

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Simon says:

    Isn’t this just a slightly more abusive version of Judge Kozinski’s (possibly apocryphal) CA9 opinion which concluded “the parties are advised to chill“?

  2. Bruce says:

    Not apocryphal; it’s from one of the many Barbie trademark infringement cases, the one over the song, “Barbie Girl”:

    MCA filed a counterclaim for defamation based on the 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 eyepatches and peg legs who board galleons to plunder cargo. In context, all these terms are nonactionable “rhetorical hyperbole,” Gilbrook v. City of Westminster, 177 F.3d 839, 863 (9th Cir. 1999). The parties are advised to chill.

    Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, 296 F.3d 894, 908 (9th Cir. 2002).

    The same opinion begins, “If this were a sci-fi melodrama, it might be called Speech-Zilla meets Trademark Kong.”

  3. Simon says:

    Marvellous stuff. Those without Lexis can find it here: