Judge advises Barbie litigants to ‘go chill’
From yesterday’s Guardian, in case you missed it:
The dear, dead days when judges peered over their pince-nez to inquire who the Beatles were are long gone. And it should come as no surprise to anyone that the bench that has made what must rank as the coolest judicial conclusion to any trial should be based in San Francisco. The case was a civil action brought by the toy company Mattel against the Danish band Aqua over the lyrics of the latter’s 1997 pop song, Barbie Girl. The company had claimed that the use of the Barbie name and her invitation in the song to her toy-mate, Ken, to “go party” was a violation of its trademark.
But the US court of appeals in San Francisco ruled yesterday that the song was protected under the band’s rights to freedom of expression upheld by the first amendment. The court ruled that no one would have imagined that Mattel had authorised the lyrics and, as Judge Alex Kozinski added: “Nor, upon hearing Janis Joplin croon, ‘Oh Lord, won’t you buy me a Mercedes-Benz,’ would we suspect that she and the car-maker had entered into a joint venture.”
But it was the judge’s conclusion that must rate a footnote for super-coolness in judicial history: “The parties are advised to chill.” …
Mattel is not having a good time in the courts: the article ends with the note that they “have already refused to assist the toy company in an action against a Utah artist who arranged Barbie in sexual positions.”
Dan wrote [14.8.2002]: This sounds a lot like the following esteemed character, from Douglas Adams’ Life, the Universe and Everything:
“The people of Krikkit,” said His High Judgmental Supremacy, Judiciary Pag, L.I.V.R. (the Learned , Impartial and Very Relaxed), Chairman of the Board of Judges at the Krikkit War Crimes Trial, “are, well, you know, they’re just a bunch of real sweet guys, you know, who just happen to want to kill everybody. Hell, I feel the same way some mornings.” …
“So, like I said, these are a bunch of really sweet guys, but you wouldn’t want to share a Galaxy with them, not if they’re just gonna keep at it, not if they’re not gonna learn to relax a little. I mean it’s just going to be continual nervous time, isn’t it, right? Pow, pow, pow, when are they next coming at us? Peaceful coexistence is just right out, right? Get me some water somebody, thank you.”
He sat back and sipped reflectively.
“Okay,” he said, “hear me, hear me. It’s like, these guys, you know, are entitled to their own view of the Universe. And according to their view, which the Universe forced on them, right, they did right. Sounds crazy, but I think you’ll agree. They believe in…”
He consulted a piece of paper that he found in the back pocket of his judicial jeans.
“They believe in ‘peace, justice, morality, culture, sport, family life and the obliteration of all other life forms’.”
He shrugged.
“I’ve heard a lot worse,” he said.
I’m proud to have been sent such a geeky email.
Nick wrote [16.8.2002]: Another judicial “chill”:
DOG PERFUME CLEARED IN COPYRIGHT CASE
A judge in Manhattan has ruled that a perfume for dogs which parodies a famous fashion designer does not infringe on his copyright. The judge ruled that the dog perfume - Timmy Holedigger - could not possibly be confused with the Tommy Hilfiger brand of cologne. The judge advised the famous designer to “chill” and see the funny side.
cf: www.gotdog.com