Ridiculously Thin Skinned Donald Trump Threatening Critics With Totally Bogus Trademark Infringement Lawsuit

from the so-presidential dept

So just last week, we wrote about the ridiculousness of Presidential candidate Ben Carson threatening a trademark (and copyright and publicity rights) lawsuit against people making Ben Carson (both pro- and anti-) clothing. And, now it appears that Donald Trump is doing the same ridiculous, censorious thing. Fresh off of threatening a completely bogus defamation lawsuit against a critical political organization, Alan Garten, one of Trump's lawyers, fired off a hilariously bogus threat letter to the website StopTrump.us. As you can probably guess, the operators of that site are not fans of Mr. Trump. And, of course, that's both completely allowed and encouraged in a democratic country with freedom of expression.

But not to Donald Trump or his censorious lawyers, apparently. They're claiming it's trademark infringement, as you can see in the ridiculous letter that was sent to the site. Garten throws out lots of scary sounding legal claims -- almost all of which are totally bullshit.
... it has come to our attention that you have registered the Domain Name STOPTRUMP.US and have made a deliberate attempt to sell T-shirts online using TRUMP and DONALD TRUMP brands without any authorization from Mr. Trump. Please be advised that the unauthorized use of this Domain Name infringes upon Mr. Trump's common law and statutory trademark rights in that the name Trump® is protected by US. Trademark Registration No. 3,526,411. Indeed, the Trump® trademark has even been declared "incontestable" by the US. Patent and Trademark Office pursuant to §1065 of the US. Trademark Act (15 U.S.C. § 1065). As such, your use of the Domain Name constitutes a violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), entitling Mr. Trump to recover (i) your profits, (ii) any damages sustained by Mr. Trump, and (iii) the costs of bringing an action against you (which may be tripled by the reviewing court).

Your registration (and use) of the Domain Name also constitutes cyber-piracy in violation of the US. Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15. U.S.C. § 1125(d). Like the Lanham Act, under Anti-Cybersquatting Act, any person who, in bad faith, registers a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark of another person can be held liable for damages -- up to $100,000 per domain. 15 U.S.C. § 1117(d).
Scary, scary and completely bullshit. Law professor Eugene Volokh nicely dismantles Trump's trademark claims, pointing out that political criticism is clearly protected free speech and not covered by trademark. Even if it was, any such lawsuit would fail dreadfully. There's no likelihood of confusion here. There's no dilution (which "expressly exempts uses of a trademark for 'identifying and parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the goods or services of the famous mark owner.'"). Volokh even leaves out the fact that the one registered trademark named only is for "Real estate services, namely, listing, leasing, financing, and managing commercial, residential, and hotel properties." Protesting Trump's political aspirations is none of that.

The cybersquatting claim is also a complete joke. There are so many cases on the books these days saying it's fine to use a trademarked name for criticism, as it's regularly approved for so-called "sucks sites," and there's no way that StopTrump doesn't qualify.

So just this week alone, we've seen Trump and his lawyers make completely bogus threats using defamation law and trademark law to try to stifle political criticism. What's next? Will he ask the FCC to silence his critics? Yup, that too.

I'm curious if there's ever been a Presidential candidate so thin skinned and so willing to make baseless legal threats to stifle pretty ordinary critics?

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 10:18am

    Trump

    A millionaire who loves and seeks attention.

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

  • identicon
    Anernermiss Cerwerd, 24 Sep 2015 @ 10:28am

    Seriously. Please stop

    Please stop writing stories about this guy. He is a joke and a distraction from real candidates and real issues. Even stories about how rediculous he is make him seem like a legitimate candidate. Stop legitimizing him. Please.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 10:58am

      Re: Seriously. Please stop

      He is a joke and a distraction from real candidates and real issues.

      So... the pollsters have been lying all this time eh?

      I want you to name any candidate from either side that is not a joke?

      the closest non-joke is Rand Paul for wanting to follow the constitution, but I am betting you think the constitution is an illegitimate joke as well.

      Please keep in mind none of the candidates are a joke, they are all serious about what they want and the power they gather from the people working for them or voting them into power.

      You are the joke sir! And acting like every other simpleton in politics is a joke when it greatly impacts your life, is the joke!

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

      • icon
        Mason Wheeler (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 11:12am

        Re: Re: Seriously. Please stop

        I want you to name any candidate from either side that is not a joke?

        I've been watching both sides pretty closely, and it appears that we have two this time around: Hillary Clinton, (who by all rights ought to be a joke but unfortunately she's deadly serious, with emphasis on the "deadly",) and Bernie Sanders (who's running on fixing a lot of problems not only in American politics but in the campaign process itself, and actually having a noteworthy amount of success. Which hasn't stopped the segments of the mainstream media who want the next election to be a coronation for Hillary from doing their best to pretend he doesn't exist, unfortunately.)

        On the Republican side, no non-joke candidates that I can see this time. And that's unfortunate, especially since whichever Republican candidate wins the primary is very likely to become the next President.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 11:22am

          Re: Re: Re: Seriously. Please stop

          ...Hillary Clinton, (who by all rights ought to be a joke...

          Ronald Kessler recently published a book involving the White House staff and some of their stories. If even half of the stories involving Ms. Clinton are true she's no joke and folks won't be laughing should she be elected.

          And yes this release appears to be politically motivated, instead of waiting until the election is over.

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

          • icon
            Mason Wheeler (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 12:03pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously. Please stop

            I haven't seen that one, but I did see Clinton Cash, and if any of the stories in that one are true, Bill and Hillary both belong behind bars (for straight-up treason, in a few cases!) and not out on the campaign trail.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 4:39pm

          Re: Re: Re: Seriously. Please stop

          Bernie Sanders (who's running on fixing a lot of problems not only in American politics but in the campaign process itself, and actually having a noteworthy amount of success. Which hasn't stopped the segments of the mainstream media who want the next election to be a coronation for Hillary from doing their best to pretend he doesn't exist, unfortunately.)

          Hi Mason, You're getting better!

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 6:28pm

          Re: Re: Re: Seriously. Please stop

          "whichever Republican candidate wins the primary is very likely to become the next President."

          Based upon what, exactly?
          Both eight & four years ago, there were many in the GOP who figured they had things wrapped up nice and neat - but then reality set in ruining their parade and making them very angry, they almost had to put Carl in a straight jacket. They then spent the next seven years doing their best to disrupt any and all federal government functions, except for their wars of course.

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

          • icon
            Mason Wheeler (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 7:24pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously. Please stop

            Based upon a pattern I've explained multiple times on here before, that goes back decades.

            Remember Bush Sr.? Remember "read my lips, no new taxes?" And then there were new taxes, and a sucky economy, and people got sick of him and threw him out.

            They picked a new guy who was kind of the anti-Bush: (relatively) young, charming, with an informal air about him. Problem is, he turned out to be thoroughly corrupt and oh-by-the-way also a sexual predator, and the country had to sit through years of scandal upon scandal upon scandal. (Everyone remembers Monica Lewinsky; do you remember the rest of them? I do.) The Clinton presidency was worse than the Bush presidency, and after 8 years of Clinton screwing around, people were fed up... so we got sick of him and threw him out.

            Of course, it seems utterly bizarre now, but do you remember what Bush Jr.'s campaign platform was, the first time around? "I will restore dignity to the White House." It was sorely needed, and he did a great job of portraying himself as the anti-Clinton, so we elected him. And we all remember how that went: he was utterly incompetent and in way over his head, especially after 9/11, and the Bush Jr. presidency turned out to be worse than the Clinton presidency. After 8 years of him screwing things up, we got sick of it and threw him out.

            Well, you can guess what happened next, right? Yup: we elected the guy who managed to portray himself as the Anti-Bush. Hope and Change and all that. Well, things have changed since then, but it's been mostly more of the same changes we were getting through the Bush years: changes for the worse. The Obama administration has been even worse than the Bush Jr. administration, and after 8 years of him screwing things up... it's not hard to guess what's going to happen in the next election.

            The next President is going to be whichever Republican candidate most successfully portrays himself as the Anti-Obama. (And he or she will most likely end up being even worse than Obama... somehow.) You can say no, that's not going to happen, but consider this: for a significant percentage of today's voters, that's the only pattern they've ever known. And the ones older than that are... well... older, and statistically speaking older demographics are more likely to vote Republican.

            I don't like it, but I believe that it's going to happen. Just watch and see.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2015 @ 5:37am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously. Please stop

              I suppose you are correct, given the mass quantities of low information voters.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2015 @ 7:12am

        Re: Re: Seriously. Please stop

        "So... the pollsters have been lying all this time eh?"

        If that was sarcasm, I can only assume you haven't lived here very long. Yes. Absolutely. Polls quoted by the unholy trinity of cable news are complete B.S.

        This guys support comes from the fact that people hate news-o-ganda MORE than they hate him. If Fox, CNN, and MSNBC all hate you, you must be doing something right.

        Of course liking a scrappy unhousebroken dog at the pound doesn't mean you want to bring it home.

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

  • identicon
    Anernermiss Cerwerd, 24 Sep 2015 @ 10:28am

    Seriously. Please stop

    Please stop writing stories about this guy. He is a joke and a distraction from real candidates and real issues. Even stories about how rediculous he is make him seem like a legitimate candidate. Stop legitimizing him. Please.

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

  • icon
    kehvan (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 10:33am

    Speaking of thin skinned, Obama just blocked a 13 year old on Twitter.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 10:40am

    Trump is NOT a presidential candidate

    He's a fucking cartoon villain, and I'm appalled that there are actually people (if I might use that word liberally) who are so amazingly stupid that they actually support him.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 10:46am

    Hey Big Hair -

    Welcome to the political world, ya fuckin' sissy.

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

  • icon
    Black Art (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 10:47am

    Homeopatic Trump

    I think dilution is the solution.

    Trump should be repeatedly diluted until no actual molecule of him is left.

    Trump is the placebo, not the cure.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 10:57am

    Trademark is supposed to protect the consumer from fraud, not the politician from criticism.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 11:03am

    This just goes to prove how incapable he is at being the president, who's job is 90% taking criticism.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 11:03am

    A related joke from Reddit:

    What's 18 inches long and hangs in front of an asshole? Donald Trump's tie.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 11:07am

    He's going to win.....

    As a people, we (Americans) are like rubber bands. When we are not happy with something, we tend to go the other direction to the extreme. Look at Bush to Obama.. you couldn't be any different, yet in a short span we went from one to the other. We hated Bush.. so we went to Obama..now we hate Obama.. and if history is any indication, we are about to swing wildly in the other direction...

    Personally, I hope his first executive order is to create a "National Hairstyle" that looks like his... LOL.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 11:09am

      Re: He's going to win.....NOT

      I like obama.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 11:25am

        Re: Re: He's going to win.....NOT

        Good.. we'll make you first in line for a haircut.. if you don't have any hair, we will provide you with some! :) See how your government can help you Lib? As a bonus, well... unless the far right blow up the planet with their nukes before you can get to a barber, we'll even let you name the haircut...

        What say you?

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 1:55pm

          Re: Re: Re: He's going to win.....NOT

          Id say you are a little full of yourself.

          I do like how you hide you your lack of 'reasoning' behind a wall of useless threats and name calling.

          I hope your posting makes you feel better. I can see your not having a good decade.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 2:07pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: He's going to win.....NOT

            I think that whooshing sound was you missing the part where the post was making fun of Trump lol.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 3:11pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He's going to win.....NOT

              I guess the poster is not a good communicator if they are not able to convey sarcasm.


              Sounds real to me. Have you heard some of these trump supporters?

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 3:18pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He's going to win.....NOT

                I think that part about the nukes gave it away..... but meh.

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

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 4:47pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He's going to win.....NOT

                  Hey, I've seen guys put drones over life and property, declare that their daughter is sick and they would prefer to let the earth burn in order to not pay any taxes to save the earth, ironically - this was to save his daughter, and even nuke this and nuke that.

                  You should clearly mark sarcasm in some way, or expect to be taken at face value.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 11:23am

    Thin skinned? No. Pragmatic? Certainly.

    It's interesting watching obvious leftists try to dismantle someone like Trump--a little like watching terriers worry at a bear: a lot of noise, but ultimately the bear probably doesn't even notice they exist.

    On to the meat of my post:

    1. Trump banks on over the top gestures and aggressive behaviour--which, last I checked, is gaining him massive popularity. He even has 25% of the black vote, which is about four times the average support given Republicans by blacks. His support with Latinos is also quite strong--30% or so, last I checked. So claiming he's "thin skinned" for another one of his aggressive antics is simple minded at best, and disingenuous at worst.

    2. Trump has already made it clear he sees absolutely no problem with (mis)using any legal means at his disposal to get ahead. This is not a character flaw, it is a strength. He has also made it clear that just because he'll use a law, doesn't mean he agrees with it--see his answer on taxes. To paraphrase: "Of course I pay as little as possible--what do you think I am, an idiot? But I'm going to close a lot of the loopholes guys like me use, because they're bullshit."

    It's a little depressing I have to explain this, but liberals always seem to have difficulty seeing what isn't immediately in front of their noses.

    Oh well.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 11:29am

      Re: Thin skinned? No. Pragmatic? Certainly.

      It's a shame we can't have someone in the middle. Their are some policies the Lib's have that I like, and their are some that the Righties have that I like.

      We have to go from one extreme to the other... How about a center candidate?

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

      • icon
        Roger Strong (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 11:43am

        Re: Re: Thin skinned? No. Pragmatic? Certainly.

        Define "center."

        If Reagan ran today as a Republican he'd be tarred and feathered as left-wing lib'rul. It's questionable which side of "center" Obama is on, having stuck almost entirely to pre-2009 Republican policies. Even ObamaCare is best described as "15 years of Republican policy until the moment Obama adopted it."

        And Hillary Clinton should be the Republican candidate running against Bernie Sanders.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 12:24pm

          Re: Re: Re: Thin skinned? No. Pragmatic? Certainly.

          Define "center."

          A candidate that doesn't identify as Left or Right, Democrat or Republican, but tries to understand the will of the people collectively, and form policies to reflect this will.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2015 @ 12:33am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Thin skinned? No. Pragmatic? Certainly.

            That is not the political centre, which is where a candidate tries to gain favour with electors from both sides of the debate.
            What you described is a politician that represents the people, rather than trying to rule them, such as members of the Pirate party, and currently have little chance of being elected.

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

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 12:13pm

      Re: Thin skinned? No. Pragmatic? Certainly.

      It's interesting watching obvious leftists try to dismantle someone like Trump

      It's interesting to watch obvious partisans try to classify people they disagree with. Hint: I'm not a "leftist."

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

      • icon
        tracyanne (profile), 25 Sep 2015 @ 3:29am

        Re: Re: Thin skinned? No. Pragmatic? Certainly.

        I'm a 'leftist', and from where I'm sitting ALL the US presidential candidates make Ghengis Khan look like a socialist.

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

      • identicon
        Wendy Cockcroft, 28 Sep 2015 @ 2:36am

        Re: Re: Thin skinned? No. Pragmatic? Certainly.

        And THAT is why no centrist candidate has a flippin' chance. Karl Bode calls it "Partisan Nitwit Disease" and he's right.

        America will get a centrist candidate with a reasonable chance of success when the partisan nonsense and "ideological purity" (extremism!) stops.

        Right now, Bernie is about the best hope you've got of pulling political discourse back towards the middle like Jeremy Corbyn is over here. I doubt they can deliver what they want but they can reverse the rightward surge and that needs to happen.

        As it is, to be in the middle is to automatically get labelled "leftist," merely for disagreeing with right wing talking points. That's got to stop.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2015 @ 12:00am

        Re: Re: Thin skinned? No. Pragmatic? Certainly.

        1. The really horrible thing is that you really believe what you just said. You don't even realize how slanted the narrative has become, and the predictable, relativist bullshit that one might posit to the contrary is only further (depressing) evidence of this very fact. I've been reading you for years--because most of your technical writing is quite intelligent--but you are only "moderate" because the political climate in the US is so insanely, wildly slanted leftwards that true moderates are painted as right wing extremists, middling leftsts are considered "moderate", and batshit extremists are "left wing".

        2. If you're so politically unbiased, where is the cutting analysis of how Clinton would be in jail ten times over if she were anyone else? FFS, you went ON AND ON AND ON about (IIRC, it's been a while) Petraeus and Manning and Snowden and Aaron whats-his-name, who were all nailed on various state secrets related charges . . . and now that our would-be psycho Empress has been caught committing perjury, trafficking in state secrets, violating numerous classified info guidelines, and committing multiple obstructions of justice (destruction of evidence, witness tampering, etc), there's an eerie silence on the entire subject. Weird. Of course, maybe I'm just missing something; I don't read TD as closely as I did a few years ago.

        3. You care a lot more about the kind of superficial placation of technical freedom than you do actual freedom & innovation, at least when it's come to net neutrality--although I may have some of Cory's articles mixed up with yours; I don't really pay much attention these days to who writes what--yes, net neutrality is a wonderful idea, but giving the government the perceived moral right to tamper with (admittedly abusive and monopolistic) companies' "network management" is almost certain not to end with simple fair treatment of packets. There are too many potential loop holes that could be used to silence inconvenient parties at some point in the future. I do agree the short term benefits of Title II have been promising, but I'm waiting with great trepidation for the other shoe to drop, and I haven't seen any evidence that you (or the other writers) have even the faintest apprehension that this is even a possible problem. To me, that's classical leftist shortsightedness, and it only ends well when blind luck is involved.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2015 @ 3:17pm

        Re: Re: Thin skinned? No. Pragmatic? Certainly.

        The same AC: if you want a legitimate opportunity to criticise Trump, you should paint a little spotlight on his recent Twitter attack on Snowden, or his support of the bulk data collection.

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

        • icon
          Monday (profile), 30 Sep 2015 @ 8:25pm

          Re: Re: Re: Thin skinned? No. Pragmatic? Certainly.

          AND, and, Trump has evolved those attacks into unfounded attacks on former U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.
          The Gov't isn't even sure they're going to even prosecute now. They've conducted their internal investigation and so far don't want to charge him.
          Trump still carries on with his attacks. He doubles down on every racist, bigoted, or misogynistic word that comes out of his pathetic mouth.
          Everyone I speak with is all for Trump... "[h]e's the best thing to happen to the Democrats since the creation of the 'Reality show'", and I agree. Trump is the best show out there, and he has FoxNEWS in his corner, 'cuz he tells it like it is, except, what it is, is eighty percent of the American population laughing at him, and NOT with him.

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

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 8:42pm

      Re: Thin skinned? No. Pragmatic? Certainly.

      2. Trump has already made it clear he sees absolutely no problem with (mis)using any legal means at his disposal to get ahead. This is not a character flaw, it is a strength.

      Ah the perks of being rich... If I were to abuse the legal system for my own gains I'd be slapped down by an irate judge, but when someone as rich as Trump does it you get people saying that it's one of their 'strengths'.

      I will agree that in a sense such a character 'quirk' is indeed a strength, as it certainly benefits the one who has it, but given it often comes at the cost of everyone around them, anyone with that particular 'quirk' is not someone that should be put in any position of power, and certainly not the position of President.

      Someone who focuses first on what benefits them is someone who's not going to pay much attention to collateral damage, so the less power they have, the less damage they can cause.

      He has also made it clear that just because he'll use a law, doesn't mean he agrees with it--see his answer on taxes. To paraphrase: "Of course I pay as little as possible--what do you think I am, an idiot? But I'm going to close a lot of the loopholes guys like me use, because they're bullshit."

      And if you believe him when he says that I've got some lovely lunar property I'd be delighted to sell you. "I have no problem using these loopholes for my own gain, but I promise I'd close them, eliminating my ability to use them, if put in a position to do so." Yeah, I'm sure.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2015 @ 12:05am

        Re: Re: Thin skinned? No. Pragmatic? Certainly.

        And like any good socialist, you assume that closing one money making opportunity isn't opening the door to another.

        Besides: you probably believe the promises of your chosen candidates--and I haven't especially chosen Trump as MY candidate, but I certainly enjoy watching people yammer ineffectually about his methods.

        TBH, even if he lied about everything he's said, at least he's not asking for us to apologize for being white and American, and the effect he's had on public discourse by that mere fact alone warrants him more respect than any other candidate.

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

  • icon
    Todd Shore (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 11:44am

    Let us see how many states respect his trademark and don't include the name "Trump" on the ballot.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 11:57am

    You guys really, REALLY need to find synonyms to the word "bogus" (fake, fraudulent, pretend, false, incorrect, charlatan, and many others). As it is, it makes for less interesting and repetitive reading.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 12:15pm

    Proper Reply

    Dear Sir,
    Attached is a letter that we received on September 23rd, 2015. I feel that you should be aware that some asshole is signing your name to stupid letters.

    Very Truly yours,

    General Council
    StopTrump.us

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

  • icon
    John85851 (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 4:00pm

    I'm not a lawyer, but...

    ... don't people give up rights to their name and likeness when they run for public office? This is why people could sell things with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, but not when he was an actor.

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

  • icon
    Monday (profile), 25 Sep 2015 @ 7:35am

    Right-wing Dick in a Boiler Suit...

    I am just curious. Has anybody ever "fired-off" a letter back with the cons of filing a bogus lawsuit, filled with false claims?
    I mean, there has to be some kind of standard boiler plate reply that someone can send in response to these malicious and false legal claims.
    You are going to foot the bill; let's go to court, we could use the publicity, etc etc... They have no 'gag' order, so why not just make the threat as public as humanly possible?
    Bring a gun to their knife fight.

    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
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.