Berry disappointing
June 3rd, 2009 by Ron Coleman | Print
Not a significant source of fruity nutrition or berry things
“Plaintiff did not explain why she could not reasonably have figured this out at any point during the four years she alleged she bought Cap’n Crunch with Crunchberries in reliance on defendant’s fraud.”
Figured out … what? You have to click the link to find out. Let’s just say that CRUNCH BERRIES is a trademark and not a generic term.
Next lawsuit? Couple sues for misrepresentation, claims to have been married at sea by Cap’n Crunch himself, who, it turns out, is not an actual Cap’n.\
UPDATE: “Duped by the loops made of froot”! Via @MegLG.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Breaking news: Crunchberry cereal does not contain *actual* berries. Shocking, I say! Just shocking! http://ow.ly/b0HA RT @RonColeman
June 4th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
RT: @RonColemant LIKELY / CONFUSION Berry disappointing: Walter Olson: “Plaintiff did not explain why she could.. http://tinyurl.com/r97lgs
June 4th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
You’ve committed a boo boo(berry) (i kill me)! You can’t link to TESS.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Right you are! I have fixed it.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
What kind of plaintiff’s attorney would agree to represent a plaintiff in this harebrained kind of case?