Share/E-mail This Story

Email This



Woman Sues Yankees Over Their 75 Year Old Logo

from the ownership-society dept

Another day, another ridiculous lawsuit in a society that teaches people you can "own" anything. This time it's a woman, Tanit Buday, who claims that the NY Yankees owe her money because of the team's famous tophat logo, which she says was designed by her uncle in 1936, for which he was never paid:
Um. Yeah. So, I would imagine that the Yankees will pretty quickly point the court to the principle of laches, which is regularly used to dump trademark infringement lawsuits where there was an "unreasonable delay pursuing a claim." 75 years seems like an unreasonable delay in my book.

As for why it took so long, the woman is not particularly clear. She says that part of it was due to "trust in [the] Yankees owners." Um. Okay. While she claims that her uncle didn't realize the team had used his design until 11 years after he designed it... she also notes that he helped the team revise the logo in 1952... so it doesn't sound like he was all that upset about not getting paid the first time around.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Skeptical Cynic (profile), Apr 22nd, 2011 @ 7:43am

    Just another example of why we should make the loser pay

    Why can't we get that simple rule passed?
    Answer: Because lawyers have to create the law to effectively cut off a big source of income.

     

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

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 22nd, 2011 @ 8:28am

    Re: Just another example of why we should make the loser pay

    Lawyers don't write the laws; however, they will sue anyone who tries to put this into law.

     

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

  3.  
    icon
    ComputerAddict (profile), Apr 22nd, 2011 @ 8:30am

    She'll probably win because the judge will be a huge Red Sox fan and he won't recuse himself because he'll want the Yankees to lose as much as possible no matter the cost.

     

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

  4.  
    identicon
    ScytheNoire, Apr 22nd, 2011 @ 8:36am

    I can't wait for the apocalypse. When someone asks what a person did, and they say lawyers, we'll just kill and eat them. Lawyers aren't human, afterall.

     

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

  5.  
    icon
    Skeptical Cynic (profile), Apr 22nd, 2011 @ 8:46am

    Re: Re: Just another example of why we should make the loser pay

    Technically true but most law makers in Wash are or were a lawyer.

     

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

  6.  
    icon
    xs (profile), Apr 22nd, 2011 @ 8:49am

    Re: Just another example of why we should make the loser pay

    If that's the rule, then good luck finding any help when a big entity violates your right.

     

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

  7.  
    identicon
    PRMan, Apr 22nd, 2011 @ 8:54am

    Re: Just another example of why we should make the loser pay

    Agree. Loser should pay the winner the lower of the 2 legal bills at each level, regardless of appeal.

    Situation 1: Corp sues individual and wins. The individual pays double what they pay now. Since awards are almost always based on ability to pay in this situation, nothing much would change, since this amount would be extracted out of their "ability to pay".

    Situation 2: Corp sues individual and loses. The individual's legal fees are paid in full by the corporation. People cannot be bankrupted by corporations by "dragging it out", because if they win, they get their legal fees paid. And this happens at each stage, so repeated appeals can't be used for financial punishment to the individual.

    Situation 3: Individual sues corporation and wins. Their legal fees are paid by the corporation, in addition to whatever awards are due. This causes corporations to want to settle quickly if they know they are wrong, instead of the current strategy of dragging it out until the individual runs out of money.

    Situation 4: Individual sues corporation and loses. Frivolous lawsuits are curtailed, because double legal bills are harder to come up with.

     

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

  8.  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Apr 22nd, 2011 @ 9:07am

    Re: Dunno

    That just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

     

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

  9.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Apr 22nd, 2011 @ 9:13am

    Re:

    A Cannibal ate a lawyer. He turned to his friend and said, " This isn't murder because he was trespassing on my property and I was in fear of my life."

     

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

  10.  
    icon
    Qritiqal (profile), Apr 22nd, 2011 @ 9:17am

    Re: Re: Just another example of why we should make the loser pay

    LAWYERS DON'T WRITE THE LAWS?????

    Ask your representative who ACTUALLY did the writing of the Health Care Reform Bill.

     

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

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 22nd, 2011 @ 9:35am

    Re: Re: Dunno

    that's what she said

     

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

  12.  
    identicon
    Rusty Shackelford, Apr 22nd, 2011 @ 10:58am

    Normally I would laugh at the woman, but like most of the world, I hate the Yankees.

     

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

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 22nd, 2011 @ 12:59pm

    Um, copyright

    Not a trademark lawsuit. A copyright lawsuit.

     

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

  14.  
    identicon
    Bruceahz, Apr 22nd, 2011 @ 1:02pm

    Re: Re: Just another example of why we should make the loser pay

    Uh, for this to be good you must presume that everybody who sues a corporation and loses had a frivolous lawsuit.

    "situation 4" should say "frivolous lawsuits are curtailed, along with any suit that is not a slam dunk"

     

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

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 22nd, 2011 @ 1:30pm

    first why didn't the uncle demand the money years ago!! You mean to tell me that now after all these years a women who by the way had nothing to do with the design now thinks she is entitled to the money. If you ask me if the uncle wasn't smart enough to get paid then too bad for her espically after 75 years.

     

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

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous a-hole, Apr 23rd, 2011 @ 6:58am

    Re: Re: Re: Dunno

    We're not talking about your mom.

     

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

  17.  
    icon
    The Devil's Coachman (profile), Apr 23rd, 2011 @ 11:20am

    Re: Re: Just another example of why we should make the loser pay

    That's the intent. Just fell off the turnip truck, did you? Reading comprehension is nontrivial your forte.

     

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

  18.  
    icon
    The Devil's Coachman (profile), Apr 23rd, 2011 @ 11:22am

    Re: Re: Re: Just another example of why we should make the loser pay

    Goddamned predictive speller! How the hell misspelling not became nontrivial, I'll never know. Better proofread before hitting submit.

     

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

  19.  
    identicon
    just as smug as you, Apr 24th, 2011 @ 11:42am

    "75 years seems an unreasonable delay in my book"

    well, the flipside is worth thinking about too.

    copyright law protects any company from infringement for 99 years - thanks to eisner at disney. which is, well, longer than her claim against the yankees. copyright law also says that if the artwork wasn't paid for then it remains the property of her uncle. so the statute protecting her still has some legs. assuming she can claim the inheritance.

    now flip this puppy over and see what happens.

    she goes to the cheapest cut and sew operation in china and starts selling original-real-deal-merchadise-just-like-old-man-drew-it-in-'36 which she buys for 3 bucks a pop, to yankees fans for 100 bucks a pop. now it is the yankees lawyers turn to say hey, that's our IP! pay up sweety or stop. and she sez. good luck with that. talk to my lawyer.

    nice work if you can get it. and you can get it if you try.

     

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

  20.  
    identicon
    dwg, Aug 24th, 2011 @ 11:37am

    Re: Re: Just another example of why we should make the loser pay

    Yea, dude, sorry about this, but that's exactly wrong. Almost everyone in the law-writing business is a lawyer. Add to that the judges (lawyers) who make law from the bench in the form of written opinions, and...fail. Sorry: I know you didn't mean to do wrong.

     

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

  21.  
    identicon
    dwg, Aug 24th, 2011 @ 11:43am

    Re:

    Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. I'm not asking you to say something nice or nothing at all--I'm asking you to say SOMETHING or say nothing at all. The empty-headed lawyer-bashing is some of the lamest stuff I see on TD. Too bad, because it grossly lowers what is otherwise often great conversation.

    So, Scythe, I'll ask you: if you were a DOE defendant in an open-wifi downloading case, where would you turn for help or advice? EFF? ACLU? A friend of yours who's (gasp) a lawyer? Let me spin a quick yarn for you: a woman leaves her wifi open, and someone siphons it and uses it to illegally download a movie; then the owner of the wifi gets sued as a DOE by Big Content and offered a $3,000 "settlement." I'm a lawyer, and I help her avoid this brand of extortion, and I do it for free. Am I part of the problem?

    Please think a little.

     

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

  22.  
    identicon
    dwg, Aug 24th, 2011 @ 11:45am

    Re: Re:

    Brilliant. Meaningless and illiterate--thanks for that. If you're going to attack an entire profession, at least don't stammer the punchline.

     

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


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