And a hard place…
Originally posted 2010-10-14 21:56:00. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
Figure this one! Michael Cohen — who, now that I think of it, does kind of slather his blog’s home page and name with SEO goodness (but unlike certain, say, Minnesota intellectual property attorneys, however, he is for real) — reports about a hotel named, it turns out, after the material packed into its braincase:
Among the already-raunchy assortment of reality TV shows, the new “Rehab: Party at the Hard Rock Hotel” is pushing the envelope. And the Hard Rock Cafe International, Inc. chain . . . doesn’t find the debauchery very entertaining. The Hard Rock CafÃ© recently filed a law suit for trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and a variety of other charges regarding the tarnishing of Hard Rock’s image. Hard Rock Hotel is a licensee of the Hard Rock brand. But Hard Rock CafÃ© now wants to revoke that license agreement.
The case is No. 1:10cv07244-UA, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
According to the suit, Hard Rock CafÃ© was founded as a celebration of Rock and Roll, good times, and fun. But sexual harassment, violence and crime are not part of its credo.
“A celebration of Rock and Roll” but not associated with “sexual harassment, violence and crime”?
Well, gosh. Didn’t I read something recently about the role of the word “plausible” in federal practice? Never mind that — heck, I’m before that same court all the day long, and last I heard Federal Rule of Procedure 11 (“Rule 11“) was still in effect there. You know:
By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper — whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it — an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
. . .
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery …
Well, I’m going to have to do some serious reflecting, considering how the firm that filed this suit is well known to me and eminently respectable, and then some.
Now, personally I always thought of rock and roll as just good clean fun! But I had the distinct impression that some others did not.
Still, it must be that, regarding what other people perhaps thought, I was wrong. So it is: I was very wrong.
But not as wrong as the Hard Rock Hotel.