Paris Hilton Sues over "that's Hot" greeting card

[Meule]

And believe me, me and the other people that are proud to be Americans
don't give a flying fig WHAT you feel

You have a lot of a lot of nerve calling out me and other Americans just
because I went thru the trouble of explaining to someone that its
okay to make a quick buck by trademarking something and getting use out
of it (and defending that trademark when its violated)

but, Thomas, I should know better----as you showed the same kind of
ignorance when Paramounts lawyers tried to protect their rights

You see if people DON'T do that (look after their intellectual property)
---it's called: "stupid"

To liken suing someone spilling coffee on their lap and suing---
or the "cancer/Malboro" suing thing you cited, or the "fat/heart attack"
thing to the "PARIS protecting her effin' trademark" ordeal here is also stupid

Congratulatioins on making yourself not only look like an idiot in
that respect----but you took THAT a step further
and made yourself out also to be a bitter anti-American froriegner in a thread
where you were totally unprovoked in acting as such

You're not reading my posts correctly. I have nothing against people suing to protect their intellectual property. However, I loath people who go for a quick buck for doing absolutely nothing or because they blame others for their own stupidity (like the Marlboro and McDonald's thing). My "stupid and ignorant" rant came after you suggested to John that he quickly trademarked a sentence and then sued anyone using it. That just rubbed me the wrong way.

So again, trademarking "That's hot" has nothing to do with intellectual property (This is Paris we're talking about). If you can honestly defend her over this then you're the idiot. "That's hot" was already a catchphrase long before she was born... so what does she have to do with it? Nothing! Then what gives her the right to trademark it and sue people for using it? I'm sorry, but that happens only in America. And whether you wanna believe it or not, but that sort of stupid courtcases happen almost solely in America, which sometimes make the rest of the world roll their eyes. Is that anti-American? Fine, so be it

[huedell]

Now, in Hallmark's defense, I think the 1st post in this thread said:

"Hallmark defended the card as parody, which is normally protected under fair-use law."

This is a very valid point as well. Just remember the Jerry Farwell case against Larry Flint. Lary said Jerry had sex with his mother and other very rude stuff. The US Supreme Court found in favor of Flint because it was a parody.

I thought exactly the same thing...even the Larry Flynt example...but I'm
under the impression that once a trademarked phrase comes into play, its a
completely different scenario

Sounds like a spin tactic HALLMARK is using to make Paris' case seem like
something it is not in order to make themselves look innocent and Paris
the "villain" (hmmm, that seems familliar!)

I'm not above admitting I'm wrong, if I am...heck I didn't go to
school for this---its just that what I've heard in general, it seems to
be the case here that HALLMARK is in the wrong
__________________________________________

I'm just amazed Hugh has managed to sucker everyone back into his Devil's Advocate arguments in this and other threads. Bravo.

and Paul---I'd like to say a second thing regarding this unfair statement....

Its funny that of the people that were "suckered back", one
brought up anti-American stuff totally unprovoked and 99% unrelated
to the topic, and another jumped in defending such nonsense with MORE
nonsense along the same lines----seems like all I have to do is
give an opening so they can spew their built up frustration with me
at an inopportune time

at least when I take an opportunity like that with some of my usual
debaters, I try to keep my criticsms of their posts somewhat realisticly linked
to what they were actually saying

[theantiquetiger]

Now, in Hallmark's defense, I think the 1st post in this thread said:

"Hallmark defended the card as parody, which is normally protected under fair-use law."

This is a very valid point as well. Just remember the Jerry Farwell case against Larry Flint. Lary said Jerry had sex with his mother and other very rude stuff. The US Supreme Court found in favor of Flint because it was a parody.

[huedell]

I'm just amazed Hugh has managed to sucker everyone back into his Devil's Advocate arguments in this and other threads. Bravo.

If you believe that's my intention Paul that's unfortunate...

I only get "Devil's Advocate-y" when I believe in what I say...
and want to discuss it and/or debate it---it's not to "sucker" anyone

I am not a troll. (God, I feel like Nixon here---heh)

I take offense that you would say this because you're trying to make
me out to be "the bad guy"

Problem is---a lot of my detractors here seem to have already made up their
minds and it makes them say silly or ignorant things---" too bad" is all I can
say regarding that
__________________________________________

ABMAC, Huedell never said USA was or was not sue happy. He was saying it is a bad comparison of the topic of trademark infringements to people who are sue happy.

Like you said, "That's Hot!" has been around alot longer than Paris, but she (or more than likely her manager) trademarked it, because she is famous (sad to say) for saying it. Hallmark may have stepped over the line in using it. If they had a picture of a beach with some bikini clad women on it and "That's Hot!" was on the front, they would probably get to use it; but by using her image, or even some one who looks like her with these words on it my have crossed the line.

It's a point(s) like this, Paul/Hulk, that support what I'm saying---you either
get my spirited debates or don't----fine----but don't make me out to be
something that I'm not

Making me out to be something else and/or twisting my words is what Meule
AND ABMAC have done in this thread and (along with other board stalwarts)
have done repeatedly

ABMAC---re-read my thread post(s) and Antique's thread post for the cold hard facts
about why trademarks and Paris' team's concern over the HALLMARK
incident mean something important in favor of Paris having the proper
concerns for this incident ....I certainly am not going to carry your last
post any further than that in a discussion because you're more interested
in trying to show some kind of pseudo-wit and/or intelligence with lines like:

To have intellectual property, you must first have an intellect. If she ever had any living brain cells, she killed them long ago.

That's a silly stance----it has no merit---- and I don't respect that
and can't carry on a discussion because of that

[theantiquetiger]

ABMAC, Huedell never said USA was or was not sue happy. He was saying it is a bad comparison of the topic of trademark infringements to people who are sue happy.

The topic here is basically about a major company violated the trademark rights of another, not Paris Hilton. It doesn't matter whether it is Paris or who ever. There are many famous people who have trademarked sayings:

Ed McMahon - "Here's Johnny"
Michael Buffer - "Let's Get Ready to Rumble"
Donald Trump - "You're Fired!"

Its not against the law to say these things (I've heard "You're Fired" many times ). It is against the law to use them to gain profit in the same context as the person who trademarked the phrase.

Hue did slam Muele alittle hard, but Muele hit first and Hue took offense to it.

Like you said, "That's Hot!" has been around alot longer than Paris, but she (or more than likely her manager) trademarked it, because she is famous (sad to say) for saying it. Hallmark may have stepped over the line in using it. If they had a picture of a beach with some bikini clad women on it and "That's Hot!" was on the front, they would probably get to use it; but by using her image, or even some one who looks like her with these words on it my have crossed the line.

I am most likely in violation with my LSU aviator and selling stuff on here. LSU made Bobby Jindel stop making the purple and gold bumper stickers that read "Tiger's for Bobby" because he violated their trademarks even though he never mentioned LSU.

[Hulk]

I'm just amazed Hugh has managed to sucker everyone back into his Devil's Advocate arguments in this and other threads. Bravo.

[ABMAC]

And believe me, me and the other people that are proud to be Americans
don't give a flying fig WHAT you feel

You have a lot of a lot of nerve calling out me and other Americans just
because I went thru the trouble of explaining to someone that its
okay to make a quick buck by trademarking something and getting use out
of it (and defending that trademark when its violated)

but, Thomas, I should know better----as you showed the same kind of
ignorance when Paramounts lawyers tried to protect their rights

You see if people DON'T do that (look after their intellectual property)
---it's called: "stupid"

To liken suing someone spilling coffee on their lap and suing---
or the "cancer/Malboro" suing thing you cited, or the "fat/heart attack"
thing to the "PARIS protecting her effin' trademark" ordeal here is also stupid

Congratulatioins on making yourself not only look like an idiot in
that respect----but you took THAT a step further
and made yourself out also to be a bitter anti-American froriegner in a thread
where you were totally unprovoked in acting as such

How can you deny that too many Americans sue over stupid crap. I don't know how we compare statistically to Belgium in that regard, but it's obvious they don't have a serious problem with abuse of their legal system or else Thomas wouldn't have commented on it. Good for them, and good for Thomas.

To protect a trademark, a company has to prove that they use it for trade, and that they have a proprietary right to its exclusive use. I don't believe Paris Hilton can do either. "That's hot" is a common phrase and has been since before Paris Hilton was a tiny skankling. She may be able to stop them from using her picture, although I doubt it, but to seriously suggest that she owns "That's hot" is absurd. She'll be lucky if Hallmark doesn't sue her for interfering with their use of the phrase.

Paris Hilton is a stupid media ***** who didn't even finish regular high school. For a person with her kind of money, that's inexcusable. To have intellectual property, you must first have an intellect. If she ever had any living brain cells, she killed them long ago. All she has now is her willingness to do anything to keep her worm-like self feeding midstream in America's high colonic spotlight. At least we know she'll end up succumbing to her excesses before she reaches her thirties.

[huedell]

That's what's wrong with your country. You people think sueing and making a quick buck is the answer to everything.
"Ooh, I have cancer, better sue Marlboro."
"Crap, I'm fat and I had a heart attack, better sue McDonald's."

Stop smoking and exercise in stead, but don't blame someone else for your own mistakes.

And believe me, there's a lot of people over here who feel that way about it.

And believe me, me and the other people that are proud to be Americans
don't give a flying fig WHAT you feel

You have a lot of a lot of nerve calling out me and other Americans just
because I went thru the trouble of explaining to someone that its
okay to make a quick buck by trademarking something and getting use out
of it (and defending that trademark when its violated)

but, Thomas, I should know better----as you showed the same kind of
ignorance when Paramounts lawyers tried to protect their rights

You see if people DON'T do that (look after their intellectual property)
---it's called: "stupid"

To liken suing someone spilling coffee on their lap and suing---
or the "cancer/Malboro" suing thing you cited, or the "fat/heart attack"
thing to the "PARIS protecting her effin' trademark" ordeal here is also stupid

Congratulatioins on making yourself not only look like an idiot in
that respect----but you took THAT a step further
and made yourself out also to be a bitter anti-American froriegner in a thread
where you were totally unprovoked in acting as such

[arrowfiend]

This thread, "That's Hot!!!"

No!!!!!

Now she's going to sue the museum.

[Meule]

Instead FIND something as simple as "Hi John" that can be worth something in the marketplace---have it trademarked---and make some dough---that's the American way---and its better than the ol' "9 to 5" to make a buck

That's what's wrong with your country. You people think sueing and making a quick buck is the answer to everything.
"Ooh, I have cancer, better sue Marlboro."
"Crap, I'm fat and I had a heart attack, better sue McDonald's."

Stop smoking and exercise in stead, but don't blame someone else for your own mistakes.

And believe me, there's a lot of people over here who feel that way about it.

[theantiquetiger]

This thread, "That's Hot!!!"

[batmanmc]

Thirded.

amen steeler. couldnt agree more.

[huedell]

I'm still waiting for Paris to create something worthwhile

Believe me, I was thinking of a million ways to word what I typed ---knowing
that someone would say as such ---hey, you know, its something that has
value in the marketplace---whether or not you or I would buy it---well,
that's a different story
__________________________________________

What a joke! How can you own a phrase?
So I can go buy "Hi John" and whenever someone says "hi John" to me, they owe me a couple bucks?
Funny thing is, people I know have used "Thats Hot" in the same context Paris does BEFORE SHE WAS BORN.
Its about time some of the parents of these spoilled little rich girls spank some asses.

Spank her all ya want ---if yer lucky enough

But really man---the thing that you're ruffled about? Don't be.

Instead FIND something as simple as "Hi John" that can be worth something
in the marketplace---have it trademarked---and make some dough---that's
the American way---and its better than the ol' "9 to 5" to make a buck,
I'd say----and would have nothing to do with you being a "spoiled kid"

And, by the way---I'm right there with ya-----before PARIS became popular,
I had a comic strip that used the phrase "That's hot" in it one time---
Someone saw it a few years later ---after Paris hit the scene---and they
assumed I was making a Paris reference-----oh well

[Comic Book Geek]

I sure am glad that I had "Are you ready for Beans?" trademarked, because as soon as they do this to me I'm cashing in.

[Meule]

When people work to create something that is worth something in the marketplace, expect them to fight anyone that is trying to intrude or feed on that

I'm still waiting for Paris to create something worthwhile