Burger King Fights Proxy War Against McDonald's Over Hungry Jack Trademark Dispute

Furnished content.


As one of the largest private employers in the world, it probably shouldn't come as too big a surprise that McDonald's is fairly protective of its trademarks. The company, large legal coffers though it has, is not undefeatable, however. It was only a year or so ago, for instance, that McDonald's famously lost its "Big Mac" trademark in Europe when another chain, Supermacs, got it cancelled as it expanded into more European markets.Well, now Mcdonald's is facing another trademark issue in Australia. Down Under, there is a fast food chain called Hungry Jack's, which is actually a part of Burger King. Burger King, of course, is McDonald's chief global rival. There is something of a proxy war currently being waged over Hungry Jack's "Big Jack" sandwich, with McDonald's crying trademark infringement over its "Big Mac" trademark.

McDonald's Asia-Pacific filed Federal Court proceedings on August 28 against Hungry Jack's over its rival's new burger trademark, which it claims is "substantially identical with or deceptively similar" to its own Big Mac trademark.Hungry Jack's has been the owner of the registered trademark "Big Jack" since November last year but McDonald's says the trademark "is liable to be cancelled, and should in the exercise of the court's discretion be cancelled" on a number of grounds, including that it is "likely to deceive or cause confusion" among consumers.

In a defence filed in the Federal Court on Friday, lawyers for Hungry Jack's said consumers were "well aware" of the "competitive rivalry between Hungry Jack’s and [McDonald's]" and it had not infringed the latter's trademarks. Consumers would not be deceived into thinking the Big Jack was a McDonald's product, they said.Hungry Jack's said it was entitled to use the Big Jack trademark, which played on the company's name and the name of "its founder and current owner, Jack Cowin". The word Jack was "closely associated by consumers with Hungry Jack's' goods and services", the company's lawyers said.

0 comments, click here to add the first

Content Moderation Case Study: Ask.fm Responds After A Teen's Suicide Is Linked To Bullying On The Site (August 2013)

Furnished content.


Summary: After a UK teen took her own life in response to bullying on social networking site, ask.fm, her father asked both the site and the UK government to take corrective measures to prevent further tragedies. This wasn't an isolated incident. Reports linked multiple suicides to bullying on the teen-centered site.Ask.fm's problems with bullying and other abuse appeared to be far greater than those observed on other social media sites. Part of this appeared to be due to the site's user base, which was much younger than more-established social media platforms. This -- combined with the option to create anonymous accounts -- seemed to have made ask.fm a destination for abusive users. What moderation existed before these problems became headline news was apparently ineffective, resulting in a steady stream of horrific stories until the site began to make serious efforts to curb a problem now too big to ignore.Ask.fm's immediate response to both the teen's father and UK Prime Minister David Cameron's criticism (Cameron called for a boycott of the site) was to point to existing moderation efforts put in place to deter bullying and other terms of service violations.After major companies pulled their advertising, ask.fm pledged to assist police in investigating the circumstances behind the teen's suicide, as well as consult with a law firm to see if moderation efforts could be improved. It also hired more moderators and a safety officer, and made its "Report" button more prominent.More than a year after ask.fm became the target of criticism around the world, the site implemented its first Safety Advisory Board. The group of experts on teens and their internet use was tasked with reducing the amount of bullying on the platform and making it safer for its young users.More significantly, ask.fm's founders -- who were viewed as unresponsive to criticism -- were removed by the site's new owners, InterActiveCorp (IAC). IAC pledged to work more closely with US law enforcement and safety experts to improve moderation efforts.Decisions to be made by ask.fm:

• Should anonymous accounts be eliminated (or stop-gapped by gathering IP address/personal info) to limit abusive behavior?
• Does catering to a younger user base create unique problems not found at sites that skew older?
• Would more transparency about moderation efforts/features nudge more users towards reporting abuse?
• Should the site directly intervene when moderators notice unhealthy/unwanted user interactions?

• Given the international reaction to the teen's suicide, does a minimal immediate response make the perceived problem worse?
• Does having a teen user base increase the risk of direct regulation or unfavorable legislation, given the increased privacy protections for minors in many countries?
• Are moderation efforts resulting from user reports vetted periodically to ensure the company isn't making bullying/trolling problems worse by allowing abusive users to get others suspended or banned?

0 comments, click here to add the first

Appeals Court Says ICE Detainees Should Be Able To See A Judge In 48 Hours, Just Like Criminal Suspects

Furnished content.


The Fourth Amendment says law enforcement needs probable cause to effect an arrest. Further probable cause is needed -- as determined by a neutral judge -- to continue holding this person. This isn't even controversial. It has been established law for years. And yet, when ICE goes hunting for people it wants to deport, the Fourth Amendment just kind of vanishes. This happens even when ICE is wrong, and the person officers want to eject from the country is actually a US citizen.It seems awful to have to describe this recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as "upending" the Fourth Amendment status quo. It really isn't. It simply affirms what's far too often been ignored by ICE and other border security agencies.Here are the facts leading up to this lawsuit, as recounted in the court's decision [PDF]:

Gerardo Gonzalez is a United States citizen. He has never been removable from the United States. The United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), however, came to a different conclusion in December 2012. After Gonzalez was booked on state law criminal charges by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), an ICE agent ran his name through electronic databases, an automated procedure that ICE uses to determine whether an individual is a removable noncitizen. Because one database flagged Gonzalez’s birthplace as being in Mexico, and the agent could not find records showing that Gonzalez had lawfully entered the United States, the agent determined that Gonzalez was removable from the United States. ICE issued an immigration detainer, requesting that the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD) detain Gonzalez for up to an additional five days in the Los Angeles County Jail after when he was entitled to release from custody on state criminal charges so that ICE could take him into its custody.

On December 31, 2012, ICE issued the immigration detainer against him. Although the detainer had no effect on Gonzalez’s custody when lodged due to a then-applicable parole hold, Gonzalez became eligible for release on bail from LASD custody on state criminal charges in May 2013 when the hold expired. He attempted to post bail with the assistance of his girlfriend, who went to a bondsman. The bondsman informed her that Gonzalez was subject to an immigration detainer. The detainer requested that LASD keep him in custody for up to five additional days after his release from custody on state criminal charges. The detainer, however, prevented him from posting bail. Even if he posted the $95,000 bail as he had intended to do, Gonzalez would remain in custody. Indeed, it was LASD policy to comply with all ICE detainers.

In finding for Plaintiffs on this Database Claim, the district court concluded that the databases are unreliable for determining probable cause of removability, and thus the Government violates the Fourth Amendment by issuing detainers based solely on searches of the databases.

[T]he panel concluded that, because the Fourth Amendment requires probable cause to seize or detain an individual for a civil immigration offense, it follows that the Fourth Amendment requires a prompt probable cause determination by a neutral and detached magistrate to justify continued detention pursuant to an immigration detainer.

0 comments, click here to add the first

Bill Murray Responds To Doobie Bros. Copyright Letter With Snark, No Offer To Pay For Use Of Song

Furnished content.


It's true that you don't often find us here siding with copyright holders in debates over copyright. It's not that there isn't a place for that sort of thing, of course. It's just kinda not our beat. Also, it's a bit of a dog-bites-man kind of thing. As folks who tend to think that ever-expanding copyright laws and a protectionist culture that has lost its way are bad for business, we typically focus more on artists who are doing exciting things in new business models, artists who are overstepping the purpose of copyright law and/or hurting their own causes through protectionism, and artists who choose to go the human and awesome route rather than pulling out the litigious nuclear bombs.In fact, we tried to do just that when we discussed the Doobie Brothers sending famed comedian Bill Murray a rather funny and human-sounding letter about his use of their music in ads for his golf apparel company. The letter was constructed to make it clear that Murray should have paid for the use of the music, but also was chock full of one-liner zingers, self-deprecation, and a general treatment of copyright law as not the world's most serious thing. It was a good copyright letter, which is rare.Well, Murray's legal team has responded. And it seems that they are going all in on the humor part of this exchange, while claiming that Murray's use of the music is fine because the band hasn't been harmed.

I am sure that Howard King of your firm, who argued that the song "Blurred Lines" did not infringe on Marvin Gaye's composition "Got To Give It Up", would agree that your client was not harmed under these circumstances.

0 comments, click here to add the first