Victoria's Not Secret
In another example of why it's better for these large corporations to stop suing the small guy, Victoria's Secret is suing a small adult novelty store in Elizabethtown, KY called Victor's Little Secret. Victoria's Secret claims that the store is hurting its trademark. Apparently escaping the geniuses behind this suit is that no one outside of the 34 or so people that live in Elizabethtown KY has ever heard of this store. Until now. Maybe it should sue itself for hurting its trademark instead.
By the way, this case is now being heard by the Supreme Court. Of the United States. We'll have to wait to see how they rule, but from comments made in the article, it doesn't look good for Victoria.
Comments
SCOTUS is hearing this?? If there is a Judicial Activist God, they will rule in favour of the little store.
Posted by: Jane | November 13, 2002 07:53 AM
Not only that, they will award him his legal fees too.
Posted by: Lesley | November 13, 2002 09:38 AM
What's the matter with them? The, good old fashioned, American way to handle this kind of problem is just to buy the dumb little company. Then, can't you just see the name: "Victor Victoria's Secret"? Of course, then they'll probably get sued. Sorry, you just can't win some days.
Posted by: SS | November 14, 2002 07:34 PM
to paraphrase Jimmy Buffett righteous underwear is safe in the 21st century.
Victoria's Secret Loses Case Vs. Sex Shop
28 minutes ago
By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP)- Victoria's Secret, which sold $3.6 billion in lacy and racy underthings last year, lost a Supreme Court case Tuesday that would have forced a mom-and-pop sex toy shop to change its name.
(I think it's in his intro to Vampires Mummies and the Holy Ghost on the Fruitcakes CD where Buffett mentions righteous underwear)
Posted by: Justin | March 4, 2003 03:17 PM