Monthly Archives: April 2020

Stop, Hey, What’s That Sound? Trademark!

“If you got a mind to, you can sing. If you got a body, baby, shake that thing.” Name Droppin’ Ray Wylie Hubbard, from the album Growl


The news in trademark litigation land last week was fairly dull. Sure, the Supreme Court handed down a rare decision on trademark law–a unanimous one at that. But it concerned an arcane split among the regional circuit courts about when a trademark plaintiff can recover an infringer’s profits. Some courts had only allowed what’s known as “disgorgement” when the infringement was willful. Other courts had a more liberal standard, where willfulness was not required but was one of several factors to be factored in. Despite being split on contentious social issues, the Justices spoke with one voice. The unanimous Court called the “willfulness” requirement an “inflexible precondition “. So they endorsed the more expansive view. Going forward, every trademark case will include the possibility of a “disgorgement” remedy, even if the infringer didn’t willfully set out to commit infringement. And that can make big difference–the profits in the case the Supremes decided were over $6 million.

The case is Fromag Fasteners v. Fossil, Inc.

The development that really struck a chord last week concerned profits of a different sort–the profits earned by a superstar singer and their affect on getting two unusual trademarks. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has awarded two trademarks to Armando Christian Perez, better know as the hugely successful performer Pitbull. These registrations don’t cover a name, logo, or symbol–they cover a sound–Pitbull’s signature “EEEEEYOOO” yell, or “grito” in Spanish. One registration covers sound recordings. The other, live performances. Mr. Perez’s grito thus joins a rarefied club of trademarked sounds that include the MGM Lion’s roar, the NBC three-note chime, and the New York Stock Exchange’s opening bell.

How, you may ask, can a sound–something heard, not seen–be trademarked? The answer lies in the definition of a “trademark” provided by Congress in the federal trademark statute, the Lanham Act. Like the flexible standard for determining whether a trademark infringer should have to cough-up its profits, the test for what qualifies for trademark registration and protection is broad, defining “trademark” to include “any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof . . . used by a person . . . to identify and distinguish his or her goods, including a unique product, from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the goods, even if that source is unknown.” And even if it’s a sound.

But getting a registration for a sound, like Pitbull’s yell, isn’t as simple as registering a term like GOOGLE. Those types of arbitrary word marks can be registered without having to show that the public associates them with a single source. Pitbull, however, had to show more, and he did. He filed a sworn declaration showing his ten’s of millions of dollars in record sales and an equally massive amount of concert revenues, all featuring his EEEEEYOOO! grito. He acquired trademark rights in his grito the old fashioned way–he earned them.

And Pitbull did something else. Along with his trademark lawyers, he’s written an article the Spring 2020 issue of the NYU Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law Journal explaining not only the law behind sound trademarks, but also the science explaining why his grito serves so effectively as his brand. He writes ” Pitbull’s creation of a unique yell to alert friends in a loud nightclub setting was a highly effective tactic for getting their attention in the early days of his career. Today, his grito has evolved, serving a new purpose: to let people know that they are listening to a Pitbull song.” And what enabled him to win his registrations was that his grito has contributed so much to his bottom line.

Trademarking a sound is pretty rare. Trademarking a performer’s signature aural signal is unprecedented. Could it be a game changer for musicians, who until now have relied on copyright protection for their recordings? Will Pitbull’s two trademark registrations for EEEEEYOOO! lead to a chorus of new trademark filings by other performers? Perhaps even posthumously by their estates? A “circle R” for “Ring a ding ding,” has a nice ring to it!

Quote of the day: “Yelling is a form of publishing.” Margaret Atwood

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Legends of Branding: Vol. 1 Please Don’t Do It!

“Tempted by the fruit of another. Tempted but the truth is discovered. What’s been going on now that you’ve been gone.” Tempted, music and lyrics by Glenn Tilbrook and Chris Dilford, performed by Squeeze

Mr. Whipple

What’s been going on since this advertising legend left us is practically a national disgrace. Desperate shoppers from coast to coast have been hoarding Charmin and every other brand of toilet paper known to mankind—even Euro-grade single ply. There’s no shortage of supply. Just raging demand provoked by FORO—fear of running out in the age of shelter in place. Five weeks into Covid-19 quarantine, the paper goods aisles remain barren. And as many of us come to the ends of our last rolls, there’s no end in sight to the toilet paper panic of 2020.

Would this have happened if George Whipple had been on the job? Mr. Whipple, (pictured above), is of course the fictional supermarket manager who admonished shoppers with one of the most successful ad slogans of all time: “Please don’t squeeze the Charmin.” Played by veteran character actor Dick Wilson, Mr. Whipple appeared in over 500 Charmin commercials. In each one, he confronted someone who simply could not resist prodding, groping, and crushing the “squeezably soft” Charmin brand. Mr. Whipple was dedicated and vigilant, like a toilet paper Inspector Javert. He was also a bit of a hypocrite. Most Charmin commercials ended with someone catching Whipple in squeezit delecti—proving that not even Mr. Whipple could resist the squeezably soft charm of Charmin.

From a trademark perspective, both the character of George Whipple and his signature slogan “Please Don’t Squeeze The Charmin” would qualify for trademark protection. Indeed, any word, symbol, or “device” can be the subject of a federal trademark registration, so long as it is used on or in connection with a product or service or on displays associated with them. So a cardboard cut out of Mr. Whipple next to a stack of Charmin would conceivably have qualified. Sadly, Charmin’s maker never obtained a trademark registration for old George Whipple. But trademark rights can exist even if a mark or symbol is never registered. That’s because trademark rights flow from using a mark or symbol on goods in commerce, not from registration. Federal registration confers many substantive and evidentiary benefits. Even so, use not registration is the fundamental prerequisite to generating and maintaining trademark rights.

Enough tutorial detour. Back to our current community crisis, the epic run on toilet paper that’s making everyone paranoid about contracting well, er, the runs. We can only imagine WWMWD (What would Mr. Whipple Do) in the time of Corona. He would be patrolling the paper goods aisle with his watchful eye and acid stare. And, as surely as a virus can mutate, Mr. Whipple would surely be adapting his trademark slogan to our current crisis. He’s be scolding rabid shoppers to “Please don’t hoard the Charmin.” And true to his ingrained hypocrisy, Mr. Whipple would likely be loading up a pallet of toilet paper into his minivan to hoard it at home.

Quote of the day: “The worst job in the whole world must be recycling toilet paper.” Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club


Filed under Uncategorized

Brady TM Bunch

“Oh what can I do, my Buccaneer? Can you help me get my truck in gear?” Island of Lost Souls, Blondie

Tom Brady attempts to trademark 'Tompa Bay' and 'Tampa Brady ...

At the end of the 2019 NFL season, the handwriting seemed on the wall for the New England Patriots. Coach Bill Belichick, impatient with failure, seemed ready to move on from his 6 time Super Bowl champion quarterback. And the quarterback himself began signalling that his days of throwing soul-crushing strikes to the likes of Julian Edelman and “Gronk” at Gillette Stadium were coming to an end. But not his career.

Down south on I-95, Super Bowl nemesis (and for many outside of Big Blue nation a dubious Hall of Fame candidate) Eli Manning called it quits after 16 years leading the Giants. Although drafted by San Diego, Eli’e entire career had been spent in Blue, with two improbable Super Bowl W’s over the Patriots, the two gems in an otherwise quotidian career. It was a foregone conclusion that the junior Manning would not emulate big brother Peyton and continue his career in another uniform.

But what about the King of New England? The guy had entered his mid-forties in elite condition, thanks largely to a strict diet of eating absolutely nothing anyone would classify as “delicious,” He gave no hint that the Patriots would be his one and only stop on the NFL train. Indeed, he entered 2020 as an unrestricted free agent. And many teams needed a boost at the QB position and the box office.

So what factors and criteria would guide the soon to be former Patriot’s rebellious decision to leave the cradle of the Revolution? How was the Pats undisputed GOAT to choose where to take his talents?

Well, based on filings at the USPTO, one of those criterion apparently was trademarks! Last week, the new QB for the Florida team called The Buccaneers filed two applications for trademarks that could not have been coined if he had signed with any other team: TOMPA BAY and TAMPA BRADY. Both applications were filed based on Mr. Brady’s sworn bona fide intent to use each mark on “Clothing; Headwear; Footwear.” Both appear to have been “audibles,” strategically filed to preempt others from cashing-in on Brady’s lucrative persona. Mr. Brady now will have up to 36 months to begin selling his new signature product line once the Trademark Office approves his applications.

It’s not unusual for sporting legends to brand themselves and use their brands to sell merchandise. Michael Jordan with his AIR JORDAN comes to mind. But it’s either a lucky coincidence or sheer marketing genius for a player to choose to write the last chapter of a legendary career at the one place that synched with his first and last name to provide such potent brand potential.

Maybe Eli Manning would still be looking forward to another season if the NFL had accelerated its UK expansion plans with a team in Manchester?

Quote of the Day: “It’s a blessing for a man to have a hand in determining his own fate.” Blackbeard

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Master of Its TM Domain

“Greensleeves was all my joy, Greensleeves was my delight,Greensleeves was my heart of gold,” Greensleeves, traditional

Forever Champions at the Masters

As we head towards Easter Sunday having polished off the last of the Manischewitz from Passover, the void left in our daily lives by Covid-19 continues to expand exponentially, like the virus itself. Working from home and self-quarantining, mired in Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu, the absence of professional sports from our TV and news landscapes feels particularly stark this weekend.

In normal times, sports fans would be feasting not just on Passover brisket and Easter lamb, but on the first major tournament of the professional golf season–the Masters, held each year in the same place, Augusta National in Georgia. It’s one of the premier events in all of sport, and perhaps the sporting world’s toughest ticket. Even getting a pass to attend a practice round is considered a real coup. Past champions include all of the greats–Palmer, Nicklaus, Player, Watson, Michelson, Mcilroy, and Tiger.

Along with the money and prestige that comes with winning, each Masters champion gets to don and wear the event’s signature wardrobe item–the Green Jacket, like the ones Arnie, Jack, and Gary are sporting above. There’s one caveat. The green jacket stays at the club, where its stored until the former champion returns and can wear it at the annual Champion’s dinner that precedes the tournament’s first round.

It’s only fitting for such a tailor made symbol that it’s become a registered trademark. In March of this year, (which now feels like an eternity ago), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued Registration No. 6,000,045 shown below.

Mark Image

“How can a garment be a trademark ?”, you may ask. Well, standing alone, it can’t. Minnie Pearl, the legendary star of the Grand Ole Opry, was certainly known by her “trademark” straw hat with its band of fake flowers and dangling price tag. (Indeed, “hat” is the answer to the NY Times crossword puzzle clue “Minnie Pearl’s trademark.”) But although Ms. Pearl talked about branding and trademarks when she was the keynote speaker at the International Trademark Association’s annual meeting when it was held in Nashville, she never secured a registration for signature wardrobe accessory. (It does however, reside today at the Smithsonian on the National Mall, not too far from the Trademark Office in Alexandria. Virginia.)

So how was Augusta National able to trademark the green jacket? Two reasons. First, it used the Green Jacket symbol in connection with actual services, namely, ““promotion of goods and services through sponsorship of sports events” and “organizing and conducting golf tournaments.” Second, Augusta National proved that the Green Jacket had acquired trademark significance–what we in the trademark game call secondary meaning–though over 70 years of use. Indeed, Augusta National convinced the Trademark Office that this was no ordinary item of haberdashery, but has long served as the famous brand symbol of Augusta National and the Masters tournament.

There will be no Green Jacket awarded this weekend. With the county not feeling up to par, the Masters has been moved to November, with fingers crossed that the sporting world will eventually reopen for business. This may be frustrating news for players and fans, but there’s one possible silver lining. Last year’s champion and five-time Masters winner Tiger Woods will have six more months for his aching back to heal and be ready to defend his title. If he does, it will not only be another dazzling career achievement, it will save Augusta National several hundred bucks and Mr. Wood’s Green Jacket will fit like a glove. Past winners simply slip on their own jacket. Membership has its privileges.

Quote of the day: “The most rewarding things you do in life are often the ones that look like they cannot be done.” Arnold Palmer

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Color My World . . . Trademark?

“There’s colors on the street. red, white, and blue.” Rockin’ In The Free World, music and lyrics by Neil Young

Registration of Color Trademarks on Product Packaging: The TTAB ...
Registration of Color Trademarks on Product Packaging: The TTAB ...

On a grey day towards the end of week 4 of our Covid conundrum, a little color is a welcome diversion–even if it comes from a trademark case. The latest development in this vibrant sub-set of trademark law concerns the packaging for Forney Hacksaw Blades and other hardware products. Forney claims that its particular packaging palette, shown at the top, featuring a black band at the top and then morphing from yellow to red, is as much of a trademark as the FORNEY name itself.

Now, claiming color is a trademark is nothing new. Way back when, Owens Corning registered “pink” as the trademark for fiberglass insulation, riding the popularity of TV commercials featuring the Pink Panther to prove that the color pink had achieved a “secondary meaning”–i.e., had acquired trademark distinctiveness– besides being a nice color.

Yes Colors can be Trademarked - Owens Corning Fiberglass Pink ...

Owens Corning had to go all the way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to get its registration.

A few years later, the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in, ruling on a single-color trademark claim for the color of a dry cleaning press pad, a color that humorist Jean Shepherd (creator of the classic film “A Christmas Story”) might have called “goat-vomit green:”

Qualitex PC-48 FGR-RC Press Pad

The Supreme Court confirmed that a single color of a product can be a trademark, but only if “secondary meaning” has been earned through long use, commercial success, and substantial advertising. That case was Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 514 U.S. 159 (1995).

But proving secondary meaning for a single color applied to a product or packaging can sometimes be a challenge, as General Mills discovered when it tried to register “yellow” as a trademark for this pantry staple:

The TTABlog®: Precedential No. 24: Yellow Cheerios Box Lacks ...
General Mills' effort to trademark yellow box fails | Food ...

Despite decades of sales and advertising, General Mills’ efforts to establish secondary meaning for its yellow box failed because many other cereals also come in yellow boxes.

Wouldn’t it be easier for aspiring trademark colorists if color marks were treated like word marks, where words that are made-up, like KODAK, arbitrary like APPLE for computers, or suggestive like BEAUTYREST for mattresses, are deemed “inherently distinctive” and instantly protected without the need to prove “secondary meaning.”

In Forney’s case, Forney argued that its non-verbal cascading colors for product packaging were likewise inherently distinctive. But the Trademark Office resisted. It’s ruling turned on the fact that Forney’s application did not include any defined package perimeter or shape. According to the Trademark Office, Forney’s application was akin to claiming a trademark in “color alone,” which the Supreme Court has said can never be an inherently distinctive trademark for a product itself.

But the Trademark Office had overlooked a critical distinction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled. Fornay’s color mark was applied to packaging –not products themselves. And the Supreme Court precedents had left the door open for color to be inherently distinctive when used on packaging. The Court of Appeals said that “Fornay’s mutli-color product packaging mark . . falls firmly within the category of marks the [Supreme] Court described as potential source identifiers. The Supreme Court precedent simply does not support the [] conclusion that a product packaging mark based on color can never be inherently distinctive.”

The Court of Appeals went further, rejecting the Trademark Office’s conclusion that to be inherently distinctive, multi-color marks for product packaging require a “specific peripheral shape.”

The Appeals Court sent the case back to the Trademark Office with instructions to consider whether Forney’s multi-color mark met the test for inherent distinctiveness. That review likely will focus on whether Forney’s cascading color scheme and palette are “unique or unusual” in Forney’s product category.

The takeaway from the Forney case is this: when it comes to claiming color combinations for product packaging as inherently distinctive trademarks, there are, as the saying goes, “No Borders, No Boundaries.”

The case is In re Forney Industries, Federal Circuit, April 8, 2020.

Quote of the day: ““Mere color, unspoiled by meaning, and unallied with definite form, can speak to the soul in a thousand different ways. ”
― Oscar Wilde


Filed under Uncategorized

A Dog Walks Into A Bar . . .

“Persuaded, paraded, inebriated, and down
Still aware of everything life carries on without
‘Cause there’s one too many faces with dollar sign smiles”. Whiskey Bottle, Uncle Tupelo

For decades, parody and trademarks have had a fraught relationship, particularly when it come to the interface between human brands and products for man’s best friend. Back in the 90s, the luxury chocolate maker Godiva sued over a dog treat named Dogiva. And some years later, the luxury clothier and luggage maker Louis Vuitton sued over a brand of dog treats called Chewy Vuitton.

Last week, the latest decision in this line of cases came down, finding that a dog toy shaped like the iconic Jack Daniel’s whisky bottle and bearing both the name Bad Spaniels and the scatological slogan “Old No. 2” did not infringe the venerable bourbon’s trademark rights in the Jack Daniel’s name, the square bottle shape, the black and white labeling, and the slogan “Old No. 7.”

The case turned on whether Bad Spaniels name and bottle were a transformative expressive homage to Black Jack and therefore protected by the First Amendment and its stringent expressly misleading standard, or whether it just was plain old trademark use, in which case the lesser likelihood of confusion standard applies.

The judge came down on the side of parody and free expression. Acknowledging that the Bad Spaniels name, motto, and packaging were a far cry from the Mona Lisa, the judge nonetheless concluded that the canine toy maker had produced an expressive work that did not warrant being relegated to the trademark doghouse. The court explained that “[a] work need not be the expressive equal of Anna Karenina or Citizen Kane” to be considered expressive; nor is a work “rendered non-expressive simply because it sold commercially.”

The decision is sure to add to the ongoing debate on whether punsters deserve punishment when they parody a famous brand not through a cartoon or story but by putting out a product with a humorous twist.

So, when happy hour rolls around Fido, Spot, Snoopy, and Scooby Doo can enjoy their own plastic libation as their best friends break out the Jack and Ginger or have their Tennessee sippin’ whiskey nice and neat. And in these days of Work at Home and sheltering-in-place, it’s always five o’clock somewhere.

The case is VIP Prods. LLC v. Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc., No. 18-16012(9th Cir. Mar. 31, 2020).

Quote of the day: “Basically, I’m for anything that gets you through the night – be it prayer, tranquilizers or a bottle of Jack Daniels.” Frank Sinatra

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Song Goes On Forever; Can the Copyright End?

“Standin’ on the highway with my coffee cup
A-wonderin’ who was gonna pick me up
I had my hopes up high, I never thought that I
Would ever wonder why I ever said good-by
I had my hopes up high” I Had My Hopes Up High music and lyrics by Joe Ely

Joe Ely - Letter to Laredo - Music

The path of a professional musician is rocky and strewn with obstacles. Many struggle to find an audience, to earn a living, to be picked up by a major record label. But even for those who make it, the road is still precarious. One reason is in the devils bargain they had to make to get their first recording contract.

The term “quid pro quo” had gone viral until a real virus took hold of our collective attention. But “quid pro quo” applies to more than just phone calls between heads of state. For most emerging singer/songwriters, the quid pro quo for getting a record deal was this: the record company demanded that the artist assign her copyrights to the label. And that demand came in the form of an offer the artists couldn’t refuse–either assign the copyrights or no deal–a classic case of one party to a deal holding all the cards and having all the leverage.

Congress, back in the day when bipartisanship and legislative compromise weren’t dirty words, recognized the artists’s dilemma and provided a fix. The fix is by no means quick. But is is real and potentially lucrative–the 1976 revision of the Copyright Act, Congress included a “termination right” so that artists like Joe Ely pictured above, Bruce Springsteen, Tom Petty, and others who had signed-away their copyrights at the start of their recording careers can take back their rights, lock, stock and barrel, after 35 years.

But, as Ringo sang, “it don’t come easy.” Artists must follow strict procedures about the timing and content of their termination notices. And as might be expected, the record companies, having given an artist a “big advance,” (like The Boss gets at the end of Rosalita), aren’t exactly keen to see the valuable copyrights revert to an artist whose career the company launched and helped sustain for decades. And so, some of the current corporate copyright holders have vowed not to give up without a fight and have refused to honor termination requests from Joe Ely and many others.

Mr. Ely, however, along with English musician John Waite, “won’t back down,” as Tom Petty sang. They are lead plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against UMG, a major music corporation. In the lawsuit, Ely and Waite argue that UMG has not good reason or legal basis for rejecting their termination notices.

UMG, for its part, argues that the musicians never had a termination right because their original recording contracts included language that called the musician’s songs “works for hire.” So technically, UMG argues, artists like Mr. Ely never owned the copyrights in the songs they wrote and recorded while under contract to the recording companies. They further argue that the musicians should have sued over the “work for hire” issue decades ago, within three years of signing their contracts, so that the statute of limitations applies and bars their current claims.

Earlier this week, a federal judge rejected UMG’s theory, writing that denying the artists’ their termination right based on things they did or didn’t do over thirty years ago “at a time during which the artist and recording company may still have disparate levels of bargaining power — would thwart Congress’s intent and eviscerate the right itself.”

So the case continues on to a trial to determine whether Ely and the rest properly exercised their right of termination and can regain control of their copyrights.

The case is: Waite et al. v. UMG Recordings Inc. et al., case number 1:19-cv-01091, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

One of Joe Ely’s Texas Troubadour compatriots, Robert Earl Keen, sings “The Road Goes On Forever and The Party Never Ends.” This case will determine whether a record company’s party–it’s hold on copyrights it insisted on owning decades ago when it had superior bargaining power, will go on forever, or at least until the copyright expires many years in the future. The recent ruling shooting down UMG’s first line of defense leaves Mr. Ely and the other Plaintiffs with “their hopes up high.”

Quote of the day: “What have you done to me? Can’t you remove the spell you have cast over me?” Johannes Brahms

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Cooped Up Case for Cooped Up Times

“Take a little tip from me. Stay away from my chicken house.” Stay Away From My Chicken House by Gene Autry

No need to be chicken about copying in poultry feeder case ...

Entering our third week of staying at home, we look for connection from any quarter. Yesterday I found it in the form of a new trademark decision from the Fourth Circuit about chicken feeders. The Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court decision that nixed trademark protection for the shapes and color of the chicken feeder shown above on the left. The plaintiff had claimed that the configuration and red color scheme of its bird feeder had acquired trademark significance through years of commercial success. There was no doubt that the plaintiff’s feeder was popular among poultry raisers. And the defendant’s feeder (on the right) looked like a dead ringer for the plaintiff’s.

So why did the plaintiff’s trademark claim flounder and flail like a, well, the proverbial chicken with its head cut off? The problem for the plaintiff was it’s patents. Yes, product configurations and color schemes can theoretically attain trademark status through long use, large sales, and extensive advertising, especially if the advertising verbally or visually highlights the shape, features, or colors without touting their utility. But even if these measures have worked, even if consumers recognize a product’s shape, features, or colors as source indicators, i.e., trademarks, the law won’t extend trademark protection to features or shapes that are essential to the product’s function or purpose.

And here, the features and red color that the plaintiff claimed as trademarks were also covered by the plaintiff’s utility patents—strong evidence of their functionality. Indeed, the patents showed that the product shape allowed birds to feed more easily while the color red attracted them to their meals. As the court recognized, it is fundamentally unfair for a patent owner to convert the limited patent monopoly for useful features into a perpetual trademark monopoly, thereby depriving rivals of useful features needed to compete effectively.

The case is CTB Inc. v. Hog Slat Inc., case number 18-2107, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

So, how does a case about chicken feeders provide meaning and connection in these days of isolation? Well, the first case I worked on as a fledgling trademark lawyer was about a chicken feeder. Early in the litigation, my fellow associate and I drafted up a scathing letter to the other side over some perceived deficiency. We loaded the correspondence with all the invective and indignation we could muster. The recipient happened to be the boyfriend of our mentor, and he worked for the rival firm across the street. He was an excellent lawyer and a wonderful guy, and he used his reply to school us neophytes about civility and effective advocacy, characterizing our screed for its “intemperate tone.” Of course, he cc’d our mentor, his girlfriend. From that day on my colleague and I became known throughout the firm as “The Intemperate Tones.” Good band name, bad nickname for young lawyers or lawyers of any age.

Moral of this post, don’t be so impressed with your own heated rhetoric that you lose sight of the ultimate goal, resolving disputes that counsel should be able to resolve cooperatively and failing that persuading not alienating the judge. Resist the urge to strut like a Rooster, lest you end up like the birds scrambling to feast at these feeders–served up on a plate for a judicial rebuke.

Quote of the Day: “I haven’t checked, but I highly suspect that chickens evolved from an egg-laying ancestor, which would mean that there were, in fact, eggs before there were chickens. Genius.” Ta-Nehisi Coates

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized