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

[Hulk]

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

[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.

[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]

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]

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

[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]

You're not reading my posts correctly.

Actually, it's more like you, Thomas, speak without understanding what you're misinterpreting. This is not the first time. It happened regarding Paramount. I am used to it.

I have nothing against people suing to protect their intellectual property.

Then you should be fine with this, as from what I understand from the original post,
Paris has trademarked the statement "That's hot"----understand THAT and you're golden

Don't understand that...and you're speaking nonsense with whatever else you say

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).

I respect that, but that's no reason to shoot down Paris for doing what the law entitles her to....she's not a "Marlboro and McDonald's thing" issue

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.

Firstly, maybe if you specified that THAT'S what sparked you----I wouldn'tve been that
flabbergasted by your reply post----it still doesn't excuse your post in my eyes...I
thought it was a bit crazy

By the way...I'm on the opposite side of the spectrum as you regarding this issue
---if you CAN make a quick buck----then why NOT?

You'd hold it against John if he suceeded with my "advice"? I surely wouldn't.

I admit I might be a little envious of his newfound wealth though

SECONDLY, you're freakin' TWISTING MY WORDS again---I didn't:
suggest to John that he: "quickly trademark a sentence and then sue anyone using it"

All I did---- was say:

"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"

You're either a jerk or ignorant for making it look like I meant anything CLOSE to what
you just said I said

So again, trademarking "That's hot" has nothing to do with intellectual property (This is Paris we're talking about).

Um..that's neither witty OR relavant---but nice way of repeating ABMAC's lame joke

If you can honestly defend her over this then you're the idiot.

Strike that ....reverse it....

When you say:

"That's hot" was already a catchphrase long before she was born... so what does she have to do with it?

It shows you are are the one spewing nonsense. Its the law...here...anyway...and it
makes perfect sense to me and many others as well...especially in the creative and
marketing fields

Then what gives her the right to trademark it and sue people for using it?

The law. And she was smart---or "her people" were smart ---for doing so---

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.

Are you an artist? Are you a big business mentality kind of person? Free enterprise type?
Capitalism type? Anything? I guess not...well, I am, and we disagree..that's fine.

Is that anti-American? Fine, so be it

But for you to go hog wild spouting off against Americans and their ways when you've proven
that you totally twisted my words and ideas, was insane....and yes, it did come
off as scathingly "Anti-American"-----which was weird because it my words were never
meant to unleash the fury on Americans and their values...but more to say how its a
great place for opportunities----and the ability to sue someone if they are encroaching
on an OPPORTUNITY ---YOU PURSUED -----IN THE BUSINESS WORLD

Now please, can ya quit it with the "Big Bad Paris" and "Big Bad America" junk
and allow others their pursuit of happiness?

[thunderbolt]

For some reason, every time I see her name, the "Stupid Spoiled *****" song from South Park plays in my head.

[huedell]

For some reason, every time I see her name, the "Stupid Spoiled *****" song from South Park plays in my head.

That's funny---every time I see her name --the words "That's hot"
play in my head

(oh yeah, that, and I get a bit turned on)

[Meule]

Yes, I twist your words
Yes, I am an ignorant F***
And yes, I hate America

Happy now? Now can you please give it a rest already. SHEESH

[Hulk]

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

I stand by this quote, somehow, amazingly, not being persuaded otherwise by arguments to the contrary.

[The Toyroom]

I went to McDonald's yesterday and ordered a coffee (why I don't know 'cause I don't drink coffee..but anyway)...when she gave it to me, the girl at the register told me "Be careful...That's Hot!"

So even though I can't sue Mickie D's over hot-spilt coffee because she gave me a warning...I'm assuming Paris Hilton's attorney will be contacting McDonald's very shortly for copyright violation of her intellectual property.

[ramsey37]

I wonder if it would be possible to add "No Paris Hilton Posts" to the "No Religion or Politics" header on this forum... Seriously though, have we *ever* had a Paris topic that didn't turn into a multi-page brawl?
George

[SlipperyLilSuckers]

I can't help thinking you adore the sound of your own voice Huedell.

[toys2cool]

Holy crap ,I don't check this thread for a couple of days and all this happens?

come on guys relax,all this over Paris? she is a cutey though

I still think it's just for more attention and a quick buck too