Judge Not Amused By South Butt's Amusing Legal Filing

from the not-a-judge-of-humor,-apparently dept

When we recently wrote about South Butt's response to the lawsuit from The North Face, I wondered how the judge would take it. While that post got a ton of traffic, and we heard from lots of people -- including many lawyers -- claiming that it was one of the "best" legal filings they had ever seen, you could see how a judge might be offended and think that it somehow mocked the judicial process. Indeed, while the judge doesn't appear pissed off about it, he also was not that pleased. Eric Goldman points us to the judge's refusal to dismiss the complaint, which also warns the lawyer to knock off the frivolity:
I remind counsel of their obligations under Rule 11 and that, with each filing, they certify to the Court that the motion is not being presented to harass, cause unnecessary delay or needlessly increase the cost of litigation and that the legal contentions are warranted by existing law or nonfrivolous arguments for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law. Although this filing may not reach the level of frivolity, it approaches the line.
Too bad. The judicial system would be a lot more interesting if lawyers felt free to respond as The South Butt's lawyer did originally.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 12th, 2010 @ 1:36pm

    Frivolous Arguments

    If South Butt's filing approaches the frivolous line, then North Face's complaint far exceeds it. The frivolity rule should apply to both parties and the judges refusal to dismiss the complaint then, I think, indicates a strong prejudicial bias.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Alan Gerow (profile), Feb 12th, 2010 @ 1:43pm

    How dare the lawyers talk like regular people. They need to speak in legalese! Otherwise, why else would someone need several degrees and certification to understand what everyone else is talking about?!?

    What about the law professors right to get paid?!?!?!?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Perry K (profile), Feb 12th, 2010 @ 1:51pm

    you missed the best part

    the judge said:

    "I do not find it to be implausible that the marks cannot cause a likelihood of confusion or dilution"

    The judge is unable to distinguish between a face and a butt.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Dark Helmet (profile), Feb 12th, 2010 @ 1:58pm

      Re: you missed the best part

      Well, perhaps the judge is either a butthead or an assface....

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        :Lobo Santo (profile), Feb 12th, 2010 @ 2:03pm

        Re: Re: you missed the best part

        Or both!
        (and he's got no sense of humor about it...)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Dark Helmet (profile), Feb 12th, 2010 @ 2:19pm

          Re: Re: Re: you missed the best part

          "Or both!
          (and he's got no sense of humor about it...)"

          Well, perhaps he does indeed have a sense of humor, but we're misinterpreting him. If he's indeed a butthead or an assface, perhaps what he's saying is mere flatulance and his gas is laughter....

          Did I....Yeah, I just blew your mind/sphincter....

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 12th, 2010 @ 2:05pm

      Re: you missed the best part

      The judge does not know his head from his butt.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 12th, 2010 @ 4:52pm

      Re: you missed the best part

      "I do not find it to be implausible that the marks cannot cause a likelihood of confusion or dilution"

      Wait. So the judge finds the claim that "the marks cannot cause a likelihood of confusion or dilution" to be plausible? Isn't that claim the basis of South Butts motion for dismissal? So why didn't the judge grant the dismissal? That doesn't make any sense.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      lawless, Feb 13th, 2010 @ 11:49am

      Re: you missed the best part

      This may have the funniest connotation, but the judge's sentence structure (completely avoidable double negative) is awful.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), Feb 13th, 2010 @ 5:15pm

      Re: you missed the best part

      Holy triple negative, Batman. I think he said exactly the opposite of what you think. If you cancel out the first two negatives, it becomes "I find it to be plausible that the marks cannot cause a likelihood of confusion or dilution."

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Willton, Feb 12th, 2010 @ 2:53pm

    Needless to say,

    the South Butt got spanked.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Pixelation, Feb 12th, 2010 @ 4:06pm

    I own a number of North Face products. I will now vote with my wallet.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      disappointedagain, Feb 12th, 2010 @ 4:21pm

      Re: North Face

      sigh....once upon a time North Face used to be my outerwear company of choice...my money will go elsewhere.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    The Monerable Mector The Mangman, Feb 13th, 2010 @ 4:13am

    Idiocracy

    When I read about a Judge that can not tell the difference between a butt and a face the first thought that came to mind was a scene from the movie Idiocracy that goes something like this:

    Judge:
    Now...I'm fixin to commensurate this trial here
    We gonna see, if we can't come up with a verdict up in here
    Now didn't yall say, you ain't got no money?
    We have propritearily obtained, one of them court appointed lawyers
    So put your hands together and give it up for, Rico Bandeho!

    Later on the Narrator speaks:
    Joe stated his case logically and passionately
    But his perceived effeminate voice only only threw big gails of stupid laughter
    Without adequate legal representation Joe was given a stiff sentence.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Burton, Feb 15th, 2010 @ 4:01am

    Y'all don't speak Judge

    lawless et at.

    The sentence "I do not find it to be implausible that the marks cannot cause a likelihood of confusion or dilution" seems to be a carefully chosen construction, rather than a double/triple negative.

    He's saying that he doesn't dismiss the defendant's argument out of hand, but he says it in a way designed not to betray his thoughts on any other matter.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    BBT, Feb 15th, 2010 @ 5:21am

    Well, it may be "carefully chosen", but it's not "rather than a triple negative". It IS a triple negative. Perhaps a carefully chosen one, but a triple negative nonetheless.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    ragman, Feb 22nd, 2010 @ 11:03am

    the other branch

    we know our gov't is broken based on 86% of the people who own it saying so. and then 81% say they believe it can be fixed.
    Thats the executive branch.
    now what about the judicial branch??
    Are we to believe that the adults no matter their age in both companies are acting like Congress, refusing to work together to figure this out.
    Do both sides know their butt from a hole in the ground??
    On a more serious note one cannot work with out the other.

    So why not move on as the Judge is suggesting and get the two parts working before the Judge has to do some required surgery>>
    Most folks know the best deal is the one you work OUTSIDE OF COURT.

    As far as branches goes when are both sides going to see the forest from the trees??

    Now corporate America is playing in Judicial places not just Executive halls of Congress.
    Maybe some time behind bars might bring them ALL to the table of common sense and respect for what millions do every day to make a living. get along... bars go up and bars go down depending on which way you look and from what level of ground you are on..

    the trash talk in this site is not what clothing is all about. it is rich in innovation, dreams and hundreds of years of hard work.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    ragman, Mar 4th, 2010 @ 8:44am

    when are the facts going to come out?

    the so called "iconic" denali is on sale in nordstrom rack under a brand name for 39.99 making the south butt look a like almost twice the price at $59.99
    the $27.99 south butt sweatshirts are found all over the malls at $19.99

    looks like the south butt lawyers and south butt are making a ton of money
    selling on the internet instead of retail stores in malls like others do. leaving out thousands of college kids part time jobs at retailers.

    the kids buying the south butt are supporting a for profit parody that makes far more per garment than most others selling similar clothing including the north face and their over one thousand workers.. only numbers of units sold separates south butt from north face and many others. it looks like the profit margins of south butt will make tons more money very quickly.
    asking the question does anyone at south but know what kind of cheap labor is making their clothing ie child sweatshops??
    are the fabrics really the same quality as the north face?

    lets let the real folks who know be the judge ask south butt two questions. why are your prices so much higher than most mall clothing that looks the same?
    where are the garments sewn and how do you check the labor practices at those factories?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Carmen (profile), Aug 15th, 2010 @ 5:49pm

    Of course Judge Sippel was amused. But being a judge, I trust Sippel restrained himself from observing that Roy Cohn could not have given a more homoerotic defense of a client.

    After reading attorney Watkins' interview at http://www.stlmag.com/St-Louis-Magazine/April-2010/Q-ampA-Albert-Watkins/index.php, all doubt is removed about Watkins' motives.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Jennifer, Feb 9th, 2011 @ 7:53am

    Yea not sure if the judge know what he is doing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This