Barbie: for bloody hell's sake...

[istara]

The ruling on Wednesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed an earlier victory for Universal Music against Mattel, which had claimed that the hit by the obscure Danish quartet Aqua infringed on its trademark for its iconic Barbie doll and sullied her image with a song laced with sexual innuendo.

…if having a six-foot 18" waist figure, with huge plastic tits, waist-length bleach blonde hair, permanent smile and make-up, a wardrobe of whorish rags and spending your time being pimped round by a creepy bastard called Ken doesn’t already give you sexual innuendo, I don’t know what does.

[Coldfire]

You forgot the pink Corvette, man. That chick’s a slut.

[butter_pie]

Math is hard!

[Gorgon_Heap]

You ain’t kiddin’, *jin!

having a six-foot 18" waist figure

Damn! Finally making those plus-size barbies for the big ladies, huh?

[TwistofFate]

Don’t ask me, I’m just a girl!

[Gorgon_Heap]

*jin!

Well done, asshole. :mad:

[Kantalooppi]

I wonder how many Barbie dolls, at least ones which have been bought, have gone on their faux-lives without Ken topping them at least once.

[ivylass]

Wasn’t there a car commercial where Barbie left preppy Ken for GI Joe? I laughed every time I saw it.

[Nutty_Bunny]

From “Under God” to Barbie? Boy, the Ninth Circuit Court is busy these days!

[LurkMeister]

The final paragraphs caught my eye:

The record company then filed a counterclaim for defamation after a Mattel representative was quoted comparing MCA’s stance to that of a “bank robber” who hands over a note of apology during a “heist.”
That claim was also rejected by the appeals court. “The parties are advised to chill,” Judge Kozinski wrote in the judgment affirming the lower court ruling.

(bolding mine)
I’d be interested in a legal definition of “chill” in this context.

[tomndebb]

Given the frivolous nature of both lawsuits, it seems to me that both the decisions handed down by the 9th and their choice of language were totally appropriate, here.

[swampbear]

Mattel should be thinking about the potential goldmine this can be for them. Magistrate Court Barbie, Superior Court Barbie, US Court of Appeals Barbie, SCOTUS Barbie…a whole judicial Barbie line just waiting to be created! She won’t have to do math and would be so cute in her little black mini judges robe holding her itty bitty judges gavel. Add in a dressed in skintight business suit Personal Assistant Ken, the Judge Barbie courtroom (decorated in pink, of course) complete with DA’s, Defense Attorneys, Court Reporters, juries, news reporters, spectators…a goldmine I tell ya!

I want a Supreme Court Barbie doll of my very own.

[Honey]

*Originally posted by istara *
**
…if having a six-foot 18" waist figure, with huge plastic tits, waist-length bleach blonde hair, permanent smile and make-up, a wardrobe of whorish rags and spending your time being pimped round by a creepy bastard called Ken doesn’t already give you sexual innuendo, I don’t know what does. **

Not to mention the perpetually pointed toes.

[Zoff]

Here’s a full version of the decision relating to MCA’s counterclaim:

After Mattel filed suit, Mattel and MCA employees traded
barbs in the press. When an MCA spokeswoman noted that
each album included a disclaimer saying that Barbie Girl was
a “social commentary [that was] not created or approved by
the makers of the doll,” a Mattel representative responded by
saying, “That’s unacceptable. . . . It’s akin to a bank robber
handing a note of apology to a teller during a heist. [It n]either
diminishes the severity of the crime, nor does it make it
legal.” He later characterized the song as a “theft” of “another
company’s property.”

MCA filed a counterclaim for defamation based on the
Mattel representative’s use of the words “bank robber,”
“heist,” “crime” and “theft.” But all of these are variants of
the invective most often hurled at accused infringers, namely
“piracy.” No one hearing this accusation understands intellectual
property owners to be saying that infringers are nautical
cutthroats with eyepatches and peg legs who board galleons
to plunder cargo. In context, all these terms are nonactionable
“rhetorical hyperbole,” Gilbrook v. City of Westminster, 177
F.3d 839, 863 (9th Cir. 1999). The parties are advised to chill.
AFFIRMED.

Classic.

[KalliopeCU]

If Supreme Court Barbie had been on the bench for these landmark cases!

Miranda vs Arizona
Ernest Miranda: The police violated my civil rights!
Supreme Court Barbie: I don’t know about that, but maybe you should be nicer to girls. Tee hee!

[B}Roe vs Wade**
“Jane Roe:” Women should have control over their own bodies! Abortion should be legally protected under federal law!
Supreme Court Barbie: I don’t know about that, maybe you should have gotten married instead. That’s what Ken says “good girls” do! He also says that the femal orgasm is a myth! Ken is sooooo smart!

Brown vs Board of Education
Linda Brown: Segregation in schools is unconstitutional!
Supreme Court Barbie: Math is hard! Tee hee!

[Medea_s_Child]

I love that song, btw.

[ElwoodCuse]

Ivylass: yeah. It was for Nissan I think. They played David Lee Roth’s cover of “You Really Got Me”.

[SuaSponte]

The Circuit Judge was in a goofy mood. He started the opinion with:

IF this [case] were a sci-fi melodrama, it might be called Speech-Zilla meets Trademark Kong.

Yeah, not so funny, but at least has a sense of humour.

There are some hilariously funny court decisions out there. My two favorites are: (1) a Western District of New York case, in which a man sued Satan. The judge decided that, contrary to some people’s belief, hell wasn’t in the Western District of New York, and the court therefore lacked jurisdiction over Satan.
(2) a Virginia judge had to deal with two bickering attorneys seeking sanctions against each other. The situation, the judge noted, “makes one mourn the demise of dueling.”

Sua

[irishgirl]

i’m a blonde bimbe girl
in a fantasy world
dress me up
make it tight
i’m your dolly!

oh the early 90’s were full of delightful europop hits!

[red_dragon60]

That’s actually a pretty funny ruling. Eyepatches and peg legs…

Sua, those examples are hilarious!