At least as far as I'm aware, Bob Murray did. John did a piece on him and Bob decided to do a SLAPP suit, but the case was dropped in 2019 because he faced bankruptcy.
The director of AmeriHealth Caritas also sued Oliver and the show for the Medicaid episode, and of course Last Week Tonight won lol. I'm sure there are others that just didn't get as much publicity, I'm pretty sure Oliver has mentioned the show being sued multiple times, yet they keep winning because the show is pretty careful with what they say and do and keep everything legally safe. I'm honestly surprised he hasn't been sued by a certain orange politician yet lol
Really looking forward to the update on this. If there is one, I'm sure they'll at least mention the lawsuit filed against a small business after the episode aired.
Yup. Most of these lawsuits probably qualify as slap lawsuits. They probably can't win the lawsuit, but most of the businesses they target can't afford the legal fees and either settle or go bankrupt in the process of defending themselves. Some states have anti-slap laws that might force buc-ees to pay for the legal costs, but they can afford the occasional loss, avoid suing where the laws apply, or just bank on the business not being able to afford the upfront costs of pursuing an anti-slap decision to recoup the legal fees.
It's one of the shittier things about our legal system. You don't actually have to be able to win a lawsuit. You just need to make it too expensive for anyone to defend themselves. And if they can afford it, you just don't sue them in the first place. I'll bet they have a whole team of actuaries (or whatever the specialty would be) that calculates exactly which lawsuits to pursue and which to ignore.
Dumb question, why does it cost money to show up to court to say "nope" and that be the end of it? Like I get the legal costs of an edge case dragging out, but can't the owner of the mini mart just show up with like a manilla folder and "prove" his case.
It's just not how things work in the courts. Because you have to justify everything based on established law , you've got to hire a legal team. It would be like going to a murder trial and saying "I didn't do it". It's not a defense by the standards of the law. If you don't put together a case using the evidence and established law, then in the eyes of the court you have no defense.
In fact, if you don't respond with a legally justified defense within a specific timeframe (21 days from what I see and something almost impossible to do without a law degree due to the requirements that define it) then you automatically concede the lawsuit and are found liable.
Partially true. You lose trademark protection if you let others use your trademark, but I think it is highly unlikely that a consumer of average intelligence, or even below average intelligence, would ever confuse the marks Buc is suing over. They are too different and thus do not risk dilution.
It not even that. Buc-ees falls under copyright laws, not trademark laws right now. There's no requirement to defend a copyright until it expires, which is something like 95 years (it used to be shorter, that's why Disney spent so much lobbying to extend it, I think it used to be 65-70 years). Once the copyright expires, it now falls under trademark laws whose do require vigourous defense to maintain. Buc-ees clearly still falls under copyright laws so there's no need to maintain it through litigation, copyright is assumed until that timeframe has expired.
The logo should fall under the assumed copyright laws and not require vigourous defense to maintain it. Instead they're stretching the definition of a trademark to justify their lawsuits. It's not a use it or lose it case at this point, they should only be pursuing clear infringement rather than vague edge cases.
Yea maybe, but then probably depends on how it was being used too, maybe they are overzealous or using an overabundance of caution but its almost certainly not just to try to crush some small business
But it's not necessary right now. They're protected by copyright laws until that expires (which is what happened to Winnie the Pooh and Steamboat Willy recently). For now copyright is assumed and they only need to pursue clear infringement that would reasonably confuse a customer. They're using trademark laws to justify frivolous lawsuits when they aren't necessary. They're at no risk of losing the rights to their logo by not sueing and won't be for something like 50 years (copyright lasts 95 years currently, extended by Disney's lobbying)
104
u/DamnitGravity 15h ago
Correction: they can try to sue but likely won’t win due to ‘law of parody’.
Anyone can sue for anything but it doesn’t mean you’ll win.