I pit corporate lawsuits

[Apos]

People bitch about random personal injury awards being ridiculous, but nothing lawyers can dream up is as insane as large corporate burrecrats. They sue for a lot more money too. And, heck, they are a lot funnier.

Here are a collected few.
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/corporate/pr/pr004620.php3

Caterpillar sued the Walt Disney company for portraying bulldozers in a bad light. Caterpillar tried to block the release of “George of the Jungle 2,” claiming that the film gave the company a bad name because its machines are used to attack the jungle. A judge found that “even the most credulous viewer” would understand that the people operating the machinery, and not the machinery itself, intended to destroy the jungle.

Amway and Proctor & Gamble are engaged in an ongoing fight – which has encompassed 20 years and has stretched to the courts – over rumors that P&G is in league with Satan. P&G claims that Amway is accusing it of ties to Lucifer. A judge dismissed the fight’s most recent incarnation in court, and expressed her hope that the corporate giants would continue their fight at the commercial level, and stop wasting judicial resources.

Allstate sued Kraft Foods, the maker of the Toastette toaster pastry, and Pop-Tart creator Kellogg to avoid having to pay homeowners’ fire claims. Allstate claimed Kraft and Kellogg were responsible for the fires by making dangerous, flammable toaster pastries.

In 1989 Walt Disney Company used a lawsuit to force a public apology from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for an “unflattering” representation of Snow White in the opening sequence of the 1989 Academy Awards ceremony.

[Larry_Mudd]

One of these things is not like the others…

Allstate sued Kraft Foods, the maker of the Toastette toaster pastry, and Pop-Tart creator Kellogg to avoid having to pay homeowners’ fire claims. Allstate claimed Kraft and Kellogg were responsible for the fires by making dangerous, flammable toaster pastries.

When Pop-Tarts ignite, they tend to shoot flames a good four feet out of the toaster, posing a far greater risk of fire than anything that the toasters were actually designed to accomodate (like, say, bread,) would expose a homeowner to.

Why shouldn’t a manufacturer be able to recoup losses that another party is responsible for? I mean, if a consumer loads up a fat slice of bread with butter, sugar, and a cinnamon, and then burns their house down when they pop it in the toaster, that’s clearly their fault – it’s not the fault of the appliance manufacturer, the bakery, the dairy, or the uh, sugar place.

Whose fault is it really if an off-the-shelf pastry spreads napalm death around the kitchen when used as directed? Sure, they have “Do not leave unattended in toaster” stamped on the package, but few people actually hover around the toaster unless they’ve actually seen a column of flame the size of Shagnasty’s mythical cock licking at the cupboards and curtains before.

Toaster manufacturers try to accomodate folks like my brother, who regularly blackened his toast until it was basically a carbon slab, because he liked it that way, because the butter could be spread on it without softening it first. Someone casually toasting a Pop-Tart after him was basically setting up an improvised firebomb, and god help them if they didn’t smell the burn before Fun-O-Rama lost its hypnotic power.

Caterpillar, though. Those kids are on crack. Ayuh. Amway, too, but that’s hardly surprising.

[Sublight]

The Disney one I kinda understand. I mean, did you see what they had Rob Lowe doing to her?

P&G v Amway I understand as well. The P&G:satanism rumor has been going on for over twenty years, and there have been strong indications that Amway has been trying to keep these rumors alive on orders from high up within the company.

[Liberal]

@Apos

Caterpillar sued the Walt Disney company for portraying bulldozers in a bad light. Caterpillar tried to block the release of “George of the Jungle 2,” claiming that the film gave the company a bad name because its machines are used to attack the jungle. A judge found that “even the most credulous viewer” would understand that the people operating the machinery, and not the machinery itself, intended to destroy the jungle.

According to Steven L. Snyder, a specialist in intellectual property and technology licensing and commercial litigation practice with the firm of Wyatt, Tarrant, and Combs:

It is important for trademark owners such as Caterpillar to police the use of their trademarks. Failing to do so may result in the loss of trademark rights. That is because a mark essentially is an indication of a product’s source. If the trademark owner does not ensure that the mark is only used on the owner’s products, the link will be broken between the marked product and its source. When that happens, the mark becomes meaningless. This is a particular problem for marks that become so famous that they are referred to as the name of the product, rather than as a brand of the product. Some victims of that gruesome fate are aspirin, cellophane, and escalator – all former trademarks that can now be used by anyone.

[Desmostylus]

@Liberal

According to Steven L. Snyder, a specialist in intellectual property and technology licensing and commercial litigation practice with the firm of Wyatt, Tarrant, and Combs:

Stopped taking the pills again, I see, Lib.

Firstly, here’s a proper link to the paragraph you cited.

Now, on its own, it’s difficult to see how the paragraph you quoted says anything at all relevant about the topic of the OP.

But if we add in the paragraph preceding your quote:

Regarding trademark dilution, the court recognized the two forms of dilution – blurring and tarnishment. Caterpillar alleged its marks would be tarnished by its products being depicted in the movie as “deleterious dozers” and “maniacal machinery.” Once again, the court doubted that the company could prevail on this claim. The court also doubted that Caterpillar could prove any substantial harm from the film’s distribution: “It is incredible for this Court to imagine a consumer’s decision to purchase Caterpillar’s primary product line of heavy machinery and equipment, costing substantial sums of money, being affected after watching this film." Accordingly, the Court denied the motion for the temporary restraining order.

and the one following it:

While a trademark owner must stop the unauthorized use of its marks, the owner should also realize that it has little control over the use of its products – even though they bear the owner’s trademark. Once the owner has sold its product, anyone may use it. Attempting to stop a filmmaker from equipping a screen villain with your product is a waste of time and money, as Caterpillar discovered.

we can see that you removed all the context that would enable anyone to understand what the author meant by the paragraph you quoted.

You are such an asshole. :rolleyes:

[rjung]

But… but… but… they’re corporations! Everything they do is for the greater good! The Invisible Hand of Adam Smith would never let us down!

[threemae]

@Larry Mudd

One of these things is not like the others…When Pop-Tarts ignite, they tend to shoot flames a good four feet out of the toaster, posing a far greater risk of fire than anything that the toasters were actually designed to accomodate (like, say, bread,) would expose a homeowner to.

Holy crap! That’s incredible, I never knew that Pop-Tarts could blow up like that. I’m glad that I eat mine cold.

[Frank]

Today’s Denver Post had an article about a company–Snow Monsters, which makes skiing videos for kids–pre-emptively suing Monster Cable, who has been going after just about everbody who uses the word “monster” for anything.

[quote]
Scare tactics: Other companies Monster Cable has targeted

Disney

Settled a trademark- infringement suit over the animated movie “Monsters, Inc.”

Monster.com

The online résumé service settled; like Disney and Discovery Channel, deal is confidential

MonsterVintage.com

The online seller of Grateful Dead and other concert T-shirts faces a $50,000 battle.

Chicago Bears

Football’s “Monsters of the Midway” were a potential target for a Monster suit.

[quote]

[Skywatcher]

@Larry Mudd

One of these things is not like the others…

Allstate sued Kraft Foods, the maker of the Toastette toaster pastry, and Pop-Tart creator Kellogg to avoid having to pay homeowners’ fire claims. Allstate claimed Kraft and Kellogg were responsible for the fires by making dangerous, flammable toaster pastries.

When Pop-Tarts ignite, they tend to shoot flames a good four feet out of the toaster, posing a far greater risk of fire than anything that the toasters were actually designed to accomodate (like, say, bread,) would expose a homeowner to.

Why shouldn’t a manufacturer be able to recoup losses that another party is responsible for?

Or, in this case, an insurance company.

[Guinastasia]

Am I the only one who read this thread and then immediately got an urge to buy a box of Pop Tarts?

[Harborwolf]

Four feet out of a toaster??? Sweet!

I’ve got a fire extinguisher and a toaster. All I need to do is figure out how to make a pop tart based flamethrower and my life would be complete

If only I could find a way to get it past my better (and smarter) half.

[Liberal]

@Desmostylus

You are such an asshole.

That would make you one of those clinging turds.

[Desmostylus]

Phbbbttt! Neener neener neener!

Take the pills, Lib. You’ve lost the plot completely. :rolleyes: