Steely Dan

It seems some people are acting like he's been named HC. He's the QB coach and appears to have the cred for it. JMO Hopefully he can work with what they have right now.

Thanks, but I think Deerball would like reading all the crap I'm getting.

Continued from the Wiki link above ^^^^^ Cases brought against McDonald's [edit] H.R. Pufnstuf / McDonaldland In 1973, Sid and Marty Krofft, the creators of H.R. Pufnstuf , successfully sued McDonald's, arguing that the entire McDonaldland premise was essentially a ripoff of their television show. In specific, the Kroffts claimed that the character Mayor McCheese was a direct copy of their character, "H.R. Pufnstuf" (being a mayor himself). McDonald's initially was ordered to pay $50,000. The case was later remanded as to damages, and McDonald's was ordered to pay the Kroffts more than $1 million. McDonaldland itself, as it was depicted in the commercials, was a magical place where plants, foods, and inanimate objects were living, speaking characters. In addition to being the home to Ronald and the other core characters, McDonaldland boasted "Thick shake volcanoes", anthropomorphized "Apple pie trees", "The Hamburger Patch" (where McDonald's hamburgers grew out of the ground like plants), "Filet-O-Fish Lake", and many other fanciful features based around various McDonald's menu items. In the commercials, the various beings are played by puppets or costumed performers, very similar to the popular H.R. Pufnstuf program. McDonald's had originally hoped the Kroffts would agree to license their characters for commercial promotions. When they declined, McDonaldland was created, purposely based on the H.R. Pufnstuf show in an attempt to duplicate the appeal. After the lawsuit, the concept of the "magical place" was all but phased out of the commercials, as were many of the original characters. Those that remained would be Ronald, Grimace, The Hamburglar, and the Fry Kids. ________________________________________________ McSleep (Quality Inns International) In 1988 Quality Inns was planning to open a new chain of economy hotels under the name "McSleep." After McDonald's demanded that Quality Inns not use the name because it infringed, the hotel company filed a suit in federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that "McSleep" did not infringe. McDonald's counterclaimed, alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. Eventually, McDonald's prevailed. The court's opinion noted that the prefix "Mc" added to a generic word has acquired secondary meaning, so that in the eyes of the public it means McDonalds, and therefore the name "McSleep" would infringe on McDonald's trademarks. Quality Inns Int'l v. McDonald's Corp. 695 F. Supp. 198 (D. Md. 1988).PDF _______________________________________________ Viz top tips (UK) In 1996, British adult comic Viz accused McDonald's of plagiarising the name and format of its longstanding Top Tips feature, in which readers offer sarcastic tips. McDonald's had created an advertising campaign of the same name, which showcased the Top Tips (and then suggested the money-saving alternative - going to McDonald's). Some of the similarities were almost word-for-word: "Save a fortune on laundry bills. Give your dirty shirts to Oxfam. They will wash and iron them, and then you can buy them back for 50p." – Viz Top Tip, published May 1989. "Save a fortune on laundry bills. Give your dirty shirts to a second-hand shop. They will wash and iron them, and then you can buy them back for 50p." – McDonalds advert, 1996 The case was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum, which was donated to the charity appeal Comic Relief. However, many Viz readers believed that the comic had given permission for their use, leading to Top Tips submissions such as: "Geordie magazine editors. Continue paying your mortgage and buying expensive train sets ... by simply licensing the Top Tips concept to a multinational burger corporation."[18] ___________________________________________ Beef french fries Lawsuits were brought against the McDonald's Corporation for including beef in its french fries despite claims that those french fries were vegetarian (Block vs. McDonald's Corp., Sharma vs. McDonald's Corp., Bansal v. McDonald's Corp., Zimmerman v. McDonald's Corp.) PDF was brought against McDonald's for claiming that its french fries were vegetarian in the early 1990s, when in fact beef flavoring was added to the fries during the production phase. The case revolved around a 1990 McDonald’s press release stating that the company's french fries will be cooked in 100% vegetable oil and a 1993 letter to a customer that claims their french fries are vegetarian [1]. The lawsuits ended in 2002 when McDonald's announced it would issue another apology and pay 10 million dollars to vegetarians and religious groups. Subsequent oversight by the courts was required to ensure that the money that was paid by McDonald's: "to use the funds for programs serving the interests of people following vegetarian dietary practices in the broadest sense." There was some controversy in this ruling, as it benefited non-vegetarian groups such as Muslims, who cannot eat McDonald's fries as they are non-halal, and research institutions that research vegetarian diets but do not benefit vegetarians. In 2005, the appeal filed by vegetarians against the list of recipients in this case was denied, and the recipients of the 10 million dollars chosen by McDonald's was upheld. Further ingredient related lawsuits have been brought against McDonald's in 2006, as McDonald's had placed its french fries on its website as gluten-free. After they changed the recipe, it is claimed that children suffered severe intestinal damage as a result of McDonald's unpublicized changes to its recipe. More recently, McDonald's has included a more complete ingredient list for its french fries. Over 20 lawsuits have been brought against McDonald's regarding this issue, and the McDonald's Corporation has attempted to consolidate these lawsuits. Beef flavoring? I never knew that and if somebody had told me Ida thunk they was bonkers!! Strip search prank call scam Mount Washington, Kentucky incident The final call was made to a McDonald's restaurant in Mount Washington, Kentucky on April 9, 2004. According to assistant manager Donna Summers, the caller identified himself as a policeman, 'Officer Scott', who described Louise Ogborn, a female employee he suspected of stealing a purse. After the caller demanded that the employee be searched at the store, or taken to jail, the employee was brought into an office and ordered to remove her clothes, which Summers took to her car. Another assistant manager, Kim Dockery[1], was present during this time. After an hour Summers told the caller that she was required at the counter, and the caller then told her to bring in her fiance, Walter Nix.[2] Nix arrived and took over from Summers, following the caller's directions for the next 2 hours. He removed the apron the employee had covered herself with and ordered her to dance and perform jumping jacks. He also ordered her to sit on his lap and kiss him, and when she refused he slapped her buttocks. The caller also spoke to the employee, demanding that she do as she was told. During this time the employee said that "I was scared for my life". After the employee had been in the office for 2½ hours, she was ordered to perform oral sex on Nix. Summers had returned to the office periodically, and during these visits the employee was instructed to cover herself up by the caller.[2] Nix was then told he could leave, and that Summers had to find someone to replace him. After Nix left, he called a friend and told him "I have done something terribly bad".[2] The entire incident was captured on a surveillance camera in the office. Summers watched the tape later that night, and according to her attorney, called off the engagement.[2] Summers called in Thomas Simms, a store maintenance man who had stopped at the restaurant for dessert. Simms refused to go along with the caller's demands. It was at this point that Summers, who was not aware of Nix's earlier actions, became suspicious and decided to call the store manager, whom the caller had claimed to have on another phone line. Speaking with her boss, Summers then discovered that the store manager had been napping and had not spoken to any police officers, and that the call had been a hoax. The caller quickly hung up. A quick-thinking employee dialed *69 before another call could ring in, to get the telephone number of the caller's phone. Summers, now hysterical, began apologizing and released the employee (by then shivering and wrapped in an emergency blanket) after 3½ hours of false arrest and then called the real police, who arrested Nix for sexual assault and began an investigation to find the caller. The Mount Washington Police Department was only a quarter mile away.[2] Although their initial suspicion was that the call had originated from a pay phone near the location of the restaurant, where the perpetrator could visually monitor police activity at the police station and the restaurant, the police later determined that the call had come from a supermarket pay phone in Panama City, Florida.

I was wrong McDonald's won this case; Link In 1990, McDonald's took environmental campaigners Helen Steel and Dave Morris to court after they distributed leaflets entitled "What's Wrong with McDonald's?" on the streets of London. The high-profile trial, which came to be known as the McLibel Case, lasted seven and a half years, the longest in English legal history. An anti-McDonald’s leafletting campaign in front of the McDonald’s restaurant in Leicester Square, London, during the European Social Forum season, 2004-10-16. Though a High Court judge eventually ruled in favour of McDonald's, it was something of a Pyrrhic victory. The extended legal battle was a PR disaster, with every aspect of the company's working practices being scrutinised and the media presenting the case as a David and Goliath battle. Additionally, the damages received were negligible compared to the company's estimated £10 million legal costs because the court ruled in favour of a number of the defendants' claims, including that McDonald's exploited children in its advertising, was anti-trade union and indirectly exploited and caused suffering to animals. McDonald's was awarded £60,000 damages, which was later reduced to £40,000 by the Court of Appeal. Steel and Morris announced they had no intention of ever paying, and the company later confirmed it would not be pursuing the money. Steel and Morris went on to challenge UK libel laws in the European Court of Human Rights, claiming that the lack of access to legal aid and the heavy burden of proof that lay with them, as the defendants' requirement to prove their claims under UK law was a breach of the right to a fair trial and freedom of expression. The court ruled in their favour[5] and the UK Government was forced to introduce legislation to change defamation laws. _______________________________ McCoffee (US) In 1994, McDonald's successfully forced Elizabeth McCaughey of the San Francisco Bay Area to change the trading name of her coffee shop McCoffee, which had operated under that name for 17 years. "This is the moment I surrendered the little 'c' to corporate America," said Elizabeth McCaughey, who had named it as an adaptation of her surname _______________________________ McChina Wok Away (UK) In 2001, McDonald's lost a nine-year legal action against Frank Yuen, owner of McChina Wok Away, a small chain of Chinese takeaway outlets in London. Justice David Neuberger ruled the McChina name would not cause any confusion among customers and that McDonald's had no right to the prefix Mc.[9] _______________________________ McMunchies (UK) In 1996, McDonald's forced Scottish sandwich shop owner Mary Blair of Fenny Stratford, Buckinghamshire to drop McMunchies as her trading name. Mrs. Blair did not sell burgers or chips. She said she chose the name because she liked the word munchies and wanted the cafe to have a Scottish feel. The cafe's sign reflected this, featuring a Scottish thistle and a St Andrew's flag. But in a statement to Mrs. Blair's solicitors, McDonald's said if someone used the Mc prefix, even unintentionally, they were using something that does not belong to them. __________________________________ McAllan (Denmark) In 1996, McDonald's lost a legal battle at the Danish Supreme Court to force Allan Pedersen, a hotdog vendor, to drop his shop name McAllan.[11] Pedersen had previously visited Scotland on whiskey-tasting tours. He named his business after his favorite brand of whiskey, MacAllan's, after contacting the distillery to see if they would object. They did not, but McDonald's did. However, the court ruled customers could tell the difference between a one-man vendor and a multi-national chain and ordered McDonald's to pay 40,000 kroner ($6,900) in court costs. The verdict cannot be appealed. ___________________________________ South African trademark law Apartheid politics had prevented earlier expansion into South Africa, but as the apartheid regime came to an end in the early 1990s, McDonald's decided to expand there. The company had already recognized South Africa as a potentially significant market and had registered its name as a trademark there in 1968. Under South African law, trademarks cease to be the property of a company if they are not used for a certain amount of time. McDonald's had renewed the 1968 registration several times, but missed a renewal deadline. The registration expired and McDonald’s discovered two fast food restaurants in South Africa were trading under the name MacDonalds. Moreover, a businessman had applied to register the McDonald’s name. Multiple lawsuits were filed. The fast food chain was stunned when the court ruled it had lost the rights to its world-famous name in South Africa. However, the company eventually won on appeal. ____________________________________ The real Ronald McDonald (US) The company waged an unsuccessful 26-year legal action against McDonald's Family Restaurant which was opened by a man legally named Ronald McDonald in Fairbury, Illinois in 1956.[16] Mr. McDonald ultimately continued to use his name on his restaurant, despite objections by the franchise. Link Devo sues McDonalds Posted by David Pescovitz, June 29, 2008 9:33 AM | permalink Devo is suing McDonald's over New Wave Nigel, a toy that the fast food restaurant gives away with some Happy Meals. New Wave Nigel is part of an American Idol-related line of freebies based on various genres of music. From AAP: "This New Wave Nigel doll that they've created is just a complete Devo rip-off and the red hat is exactly the red hat that I designed, and it's copyrighted and trademarked. "They didn't ask us anything. Plus, we don't like McDonald's, and we don't like American Idol, so we're doubly offended."

Linkage On September 19, 1990 John L. McClain applied to register the mark "MC CLAIM" on the Principal Register for what were subsequently identified by amendment as "legal and legal consultation services." Applicant based the application on his assertion that he had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce. Following publication of the mark, a timely notice of opposition was filed on December 23, 1993 by McDonald's Corporation. As grounds for opposition opposer asserted that applicant adopted the mark with the intention of trading upon opposer's fame and its marks; that opposer operates, licenses and services a worldwide system of restaurants; that opposer licenses a wide variety of products and services under its famous marks; that opposer has developed, through widespread and extensive promotion and use, a family of marks distinguished by "Mc" and "Mac" formatives, including fifty-one specified registered trademarks and service marks; that the public readily associates applicant's mark, particularly as used in the form shown below, McDonald's well-known brand has driven the company's 50 years of successful revenue and earnings growth around the globe. As fast-food sales continue to gain traction in billion-dollar international markets including Brazil, Russia, China and Germany, McDonald's enforces its trademark rights in many serious legal cases. Some cases may seem trivial while others are even laughable. Each challenge, however, poses high-stake consequences for the company's brand-name, image and reputation in the minds of millions of consumers worldwide. Read more at Suite101: Micky Dee Sues Copycats: McDonald's Trademark & Patent Lawsuits Serve Up No Jokes http://internationaltrade.suite101.com/art...s#ixzz0e6xcldPK Israel's Supreme Court decided in favour of McDonald's. The court ruled that Ariel McDonald's name and statements in the magazine article were freely made and that the world's largest fast-food restaurant chain had a right to use the magazine interview in response to Ariel's comments in the Burger King commercial. And although the player has a right to use his name, it is not an absolute right particularly where one is gaining economic benefit at the expense of a business competitor. ___________________________________ Copycats need to meticulously study what they plan to say and do if it pertains to the Golden Arches. In 1990, McDonald's sued an unemployed postman and gardener in London, England for distributing leaflets alleging that the company served unhealthy food, was cruel to animals and bad for the environment, and exploited workers. Why would a US$23-billion-a-year giant sue 2 low-income workers for libel, amassing some 50,000 pages in court documents related to the case? Of prime importance is the claim in the leaflets that McDonald's type of food (i.e., high in fat, sugar, animal products and salt) is linked with breast and bowel cancer as well as heart disease. McDonald's simply cannot afford to have its offerings associated with cancer in the court of public opinion. IIRC, McDonald's lost that lawsuit. ___________________________________ McDonald's brand faced a more anatomical association when an Australian restaurant featured topless wenches serving under the name McTits. McDonald's deep legal resources immediately fired off a cease-and-desist order. ________________________________ McDonald's is just as tenacious in defending its trademarks in cyberspace. Micky Dee's legal machine successfully shut down the website www.mcmurder.com, citing unauthorized and misleading use of McDonald's trademarks including the Golden Arches logo, the McDonald's mark and the Ronald McDonald character. Although mcmurder.com purports to be a humorous site, McDonald's successfully argued that an unsuspecting consumer wouldn't be able to distinguish the humour in the website's false allegations that McDonald's is systematically murdering people in Los Angeles and New York City on behalf of the United Nations. Big Mac also cited unproven claims of harassment and abuse against the company. The website has been forced to predominantly feature McDonald's legal cease-and-desist order on its home page. That order asserts that while America's First Amendment affords the right to free speech, it doesn't protect the gratuitous and deceptive use of trademarks as mcmurder.com does. ________________________________ McDonald's has even gone after the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary when it included the term McJob, defined as low-paying and dead-end work. No less than McDonald's CEO Jim Cantalupo wrote an open letter to Merriam-Webster, arguing that the term is an inaccurate description of restaurant employment and insults the 12 million workers in the restaurant industry. McDonald's legal team advised Merriam-Webster of impending legal action, pointing out that McJOBS is the trademarked name for McDonald's training program aimed at mentally and physically challenged people. ______________________________ Link McDonald's has lost the 8-year lawsuit against Malaysian curry restaurant, McCurry. McDonald's argued that the "Mc" prefix constituted trademark infringement, the owner of McCurry insisted the "Mc" was abbreviation for "Malaysian Chicken" Curry.

Refunds on those pre-orders musta been a biotch to take care of, seeing as how many people were on the bandwagon then.

.

I didn't know that!!! Well someone, very deservedly so, lost a lot of money on that!!

Deerball looks different than I pictured him.

Linky Nutha Nutha And you know this....how?

Maybe someday you'll get enough gray matter saved up to figure out how to use the "ignore" button.

This is even better. It has some good analysis of the situation.

She's reading them to hm and the jokes will lift his spirits. I'm actually helping with his treatment. BTW, I must say Deerball's use of the angry emoticon is superb.

+1

Here's the latest journal entry from the Mrs; John has been resting this whole day for the most part. His brothers Peter and Paul are here from NY and CT. John is the little brother, they are quick to point out. It seemed to us that John knew they were in the room. He moved both arms and legs when they started telling stories. There have been quite a few times I'm seen him bring his knees up a bit and he has started to raise his arms at swioe at the tubes. He can't do any damage because he's restrained but it's a good sign I think to see him show a little strength this way. Philip and Megan arrived this morning and visited for a couple of hours. I sent them home to get some sleep....they were up all night. They came back after a too brief rest and are here now. Lots of Niche family stories are being told as we all drink Starbucks and eat Chipotle takeout. Kat came up with Amanda Jurca and Faith. She got to razz Uncle Paul about the hated Yankees. When Paul told John he was gonna rough her up, John got very active, raising both hands. Hee. Oh, I must explain about the whole Beerball thing....My husband (who rarely drinks at all, honestly) for some reason chose the name Beerball as his identity on the Buffalo Bills message board. If you know John, you know how passionate he is about them Bills! He's been posting there for a looooong time and is one of the "old timers" of that online community. They all know him as Beerball, not John. All I can say is that beerballs are kind of an upstate New York thing....you'd have one at a football party with some nice hot chicken wings. Hehe, when I posted the message about John being sick, I posted as "Mrs. Beerball". Too funny. Some medical stuff....He is getting insulin because the steroids cause his blood sugar to be a bit high. The second scan (this time with "contrast" whatever that means) did not show anything new. The neurologist plans to take him off of sedation in the morning and do a neuro assessment, checking his response. we're hoping this goes well. Thanks to all of you for your messages. I've read them all and will share them with John tonight. I know he hears me....and it's better than singing Chicken Fried We're staying positive and keeping the faith. Love to all and keep praying, please.

"Mona Lisa, Mona Lisa, men have reamed you."

Here's the ad CBS (CBS, Fortune 500) said it turned down the ad partly for financial reasons, but ManCrunch believes that there's more to it than that. "It's straight-up discrimination," said Elissa Buchter, spokeswoman for the Toronto-based dating site. Jacobs of CBS declined to comment on the charge of discrimination. Buchter provided a copy of the CBS rejection letter to CNNMoney, which states that the ad "is not within the Network's broadcast standards for Super Bowl Sunday." The letter also states that the CBS sales department "has had difficulty verifying [ManCrunch's] credit status." Buchter said that basing the rejection on credit status doesn't make sense because "we offered to pay cash." But Jacobs said CBS has no record of any such offer. I guess Mr. and Mrs. tightbutts would find that offensive.

Here this is a good song about you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KynpC1e9I9E I would normally have posted that for Deerball but since we all have to be nice to him since he was near death yesterday I'll give it to you and maybe amend it after wussy boy cheats death, which at this time is more than likely, thank God. I'll have to take that part out too I guess. I don't want him to think I care about him or nuthin.

Since Dev's post is on hiatus until Deerball gets back this one can serve as an outlet as well as an homage to Deerball thread.

A lawyer a doctor and a priest are stranded on a desert island surrounded by sharks. The doctor says that he happens to know they are just 2 miles from a major shipping lane and that if one of them could swim there they could easily get help. The doctor looks at the other two and reminds them that should they be attacked by a shark he should be on the island to help. The priest says he needs to be there to administer last rights. The lawyer says it's no problem and he gets in the water and swims off. When he gets to the line of sharks they all part and open a lane for him to swim through. The priest looks at the doctor dumbfounded. "That's called professional courtesy." BA DUM BUM! Ptsch.

According to the article a lot of lawyers in N.O. are volunteering to help.

Donald Trump gave up on trying to Trademark "You're Fired" because too many business' (mostly pottery shops) were using that name already and were going to fight it.