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.

Filed Under: , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Woman Sues Yankees Over Their 75 Year Old Logo”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
PRMan (profile) says:

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.

dwg says:

Re: 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.

just as smug as you says:

“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.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...