The Law Doesn't Always Suck

I can’t speak to the Lindt case specifically, but have you ever seen Aldi’s store brands? They’re like a masterclass in material design as far as looking suspiciously similar to the original without literally copying the design element-for-element. It goes well beyond the standard palette-and-font similarities that you see in other private label products. It’s closer to, like… finding knock-off Adidas on AliExpress. I’m kind of shocked they hadn’t been sued for this previously.

To be sure, I am not a laywer (and especially not an IP lawyer), but speaking as someone who has spent a lot of time browsing Aldi and not infrequently confusing the knockoff for the original (at least at a glance), I’m not sure we can dismiss the case on its merits so quickly.

(For fun, here’s a couple random ones stolen from the internet:)

image

11 Likes

That first one isn’t that different from Walmart’s version:


I think they’re both pretty distinct from the Cheerio’s original, most notably lacking the cartoon bee:

I dunno. Maybe Trademark law is stricter in Europe, but the Lindt ruling seems a bit much to me.

9 Likes

I’ve got to disagree with this assessment. To my eye, the Great Value one is in the same genre. On the other hand, the Millville one is one of those note-for-note not-quite-covers of a song that shows up in commercials not willing to shell out for the original.

9 Likes

Ok. Regardless, I’m not going to celebrate a legal victory for one large multinational corporation over another large multinational corporation, which will probably raise prices for consumers, as an example of the law not sucking.

10 Likes

Absolutely; there are no good guys here.

9 Likes
6 Likes

Not sure if this belongs here, but it’s a discussion on the law and crime, and what’s actually going on…

5 Likes

Here’s a funny one: the other day, I commented in a Reddit thread about how undocumented immigrants actually commit fewer crimes that natural born citizens, and I was told that had been debunked and obviously isn’t true because we have no idea how many crimes undocumented people have committed because they’re undocumented. “Duh.”

13 Likes

11 Likes

11 Likes

This was a procedural win for the plaitiff. The Court saw no reason to lift the stay on Dellinger’s firing pending a hearing in two weeks. But the dissenting judge believes the president shouldn’t have to work with someone he has fired, and the president has, in his view, full authority to fire Dellinger under his Article II executive powers.

Not so fast said the other two judges. The firing may have been illegal, even for the president. Better to let the lower court hear and fully decide that issue first.

If the Supreme Court grants review, though it still may decide not to, this will be a Rubicon moment for our system of justice. It could destroy what limits still exist upon the president to act unilaterally within the Executive Branch, even against independent prosecutors.

17 Likes

New Mexico spearheaded the lawsuit, filing it with Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

What’s their argument? As Democracy Docket explains, “The plaintiffs argued that Musk, DOGE and President Donald Trump violated the Appointments Clause and the separation of powers principles of the U.S. Constitution.

“Musk has wielded the power of an official who would need to be formally appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but he hasn’t gone through that constitutionally required process, the states argued.”

That might cause a judge to put the kibosh on all DOGE activity. Or even reverse everything it’s done, though that’s a far tougher ask.

An emergency hearing for a temporary restraining order is scheduled tomorrow morning before Judge Tanya Chutkan in D.C.

16 Likes

15 Likes

Their response will be that those are abnormalities and don’t count.

13 Likes

13 Likes

He’s not actually quitting. It’s a typical clickbait title, but one quote in the video I absolutely loved:

We get a lot of comments along the lines of “I liked Legal Eagle before it was 24/7 Trump bashing.” Yeah . . . well . . . I DID TOO!

15 Likes

Good stuff.

15 Likes

Just came to post this same clip. Rebecca is a treasure!

11 Likes

In response, Trump rescinded his executive order that targeted the firm and could have cost it significant business.

The agreement shocked many in the legal community, and for Rachel Cohen, an associate at another large firm — Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP — it was the final straw.

On Thursday night, Cohen fired off an email to her firm that said she was giving her two-weeks’ notice, unless leaders there agreed to a number of conditions that would, in effect, stand up to the Trump administration — including by refusing to cooperate with the targeting of DEI programs.

“This is not what I saw for my career or for my evening, but Paul Weiss’ decision to cave to the Trump administration on DEI, representation and staffing has forced my hand,” Cohen wrote in her firmwide email, which went viral on social media after she shared it publicly. “We do not have time. It is now or it is never, and if it is never, I will not continue to work here.”

The Rest

Representatives for Paul Weiss, Skadden and the White House did not immediately return requests for comment.

Cohen told NBC News on Friday that her calculus wasn’t whether her letter was going to backfire, nor was it whether she was going to be fired. (Cohen said her email access was suspended soon after she sent her letter.)

Her key question was: “Is this going to be unhelpful to the aim that I am working towards, which is the protection of not just my colleagues, but the rule of law in the United States of America? Because the stakes really are that high.”

Cohen said she consulted with a family member and had a close friend from law school look over her draft. And then she pushed send.

One of the challenges, Cohen said, is that this administration is able to inflict permanent damage before the court system has a chance to catch up.

“They move so quickly that you have to make judgment calls — that can cost you a lot — off of what you think is going to happen next, because you do not have time to wait it out and see what happens next, you will be too far behind,” she said.

Cohen said she didn’t want to be in this position and wishes she weren’t. She believes “a coup” is happening in America right now. She wishes the most powerful attorneys in the country had immediately banded together and decided to send a clear message that Trump’s actions were unacceptable.

“We are in this moment where the president is testing what he can get away with and whether the structures that we have in this country that are supposed to prevent us from having a dictator will hold,” she said. “We are not the first or the biggest line of defense. The big law firms are not going to save us, but we are a brick in a wall, and we’re pretty close to the bottom.”

One lawyer with a large firm in Washington said the move by Paul Weiss to make a deal was “as craven and despicable a decision as you will find.”

The agreement “will make other law firms more scared” and less likely to publicly stand up for the profession, said the lawyer, who, like others in this article, requested anonymity out of fear of retribution.

Any joint effort by firms to make a public stand against Trump has so far fizzled, although there is an ongoing discussion among firms over filing an amicus brief in a case brought by Perkins Coie against an executive order Trump issued targeting that firm, the lawyer said. Reluctance about speaking up is driven mostly by commercial interests, namely the fear of losing clients, the lawyer added.

“The conversations are happening at the firms. The people that I know in the law will say out loud, ‘This is what is happening.’ And they are just scared, and they’re hiding behind notions of fiduciary duty,” Cohen said.

A lawyer at another major law firm said the justification their firm has used for keeping its head down is that it needs to keep its management team happy — not look out for the welfare of the country. The lawyer said the Trump administration’s goal appeared to be to bankrupt several of the big law firms.

George Conway, a frequent Trump critic and a former partner at a major law firm, told NBC News that firms need to look beyond the bottom line.

“They have a moral duty to defend the very system that has allowed them to make the kind of money that they make. These law firms are now basically so profit-driven that they are putting their own economic interests…above the system,” Conway said. “That to me is not only morally appalling and morally fraught and just contemptible, but at the end of the day, self-defeating.”

Asked by NBC News what message she had for those in positions of power who are staying quiet, Cohen said: “Their silence is not only not going to protect them, it is going to kill people.”

15 Likes

I’m just gonna say it, since the media isn’t spelling this out. Trump solicited a bribe from Weiss, and they gave it to him. It’s not a “deal”. It’s a bribe that Trump extorted from them. And it is an absolute disgrace that they gave it to him. Good for Cohen, because my guess is that Weiss won’t be the only law firm that does this. Big Law is just as corporate as Amazon and Meta.

16 Likes