Yabba-Dabba-Sue, says Tampa Bay Online, covering the lawsuit filed by Terry Bollea, better known as Hulk Hogan.  Watch the video below, and tell me if you’d want to be in the legal ring with this litigant.

Post’s Flintstones cereal ad used a character that not only looks like the Hulkster, but goes by the similar-sounding name “Hulk Boulder.”

The ABA journal quotes the lawsuit, which contends that  Hogan actually wrestled under that exact name early in his career, until wrestling promoter Vince McMahon Sr. suggested that he use an “Irish name.”

McDonald’s recently had a similar difficulty in using the 80’s music group DEVO’s appearance — see Are We Not Ligitants? We are Devo.  Given the choice, I’d rather tangle with the old New Wavers than with an aging wrestler, especially given the fact pattern in Hogan’s case.

According to the New York Post, actress Lindsay Lohan is suing E-Trade for $100 million for pain and suffering caused by their Super Bowl ad.

The semi-funny (and non-compelling) ad shows a milkaholic baby named Lindsay (or Lindsey) with a guilty looking baby-husband. Yes, the ad is pretty terrible; so is the legal claim. However, so much passes for online defamation lately, it is unwise to laugh this off entirely.

Lohan’s lawyer, Stephanie Ovadia, stakes out a wafer-thin claim of Personal Publicity.

“Many celebrities are known by one name only, and E-Trade is using that knowledge to profit…They used the name Lindsay as a parody of her life. Why didn’t they use the name Susan?  This is a subliminal message. Everybody’s talking about it and saying it’s Lindsay Lohan.”

If this line of complaint was allowed to stand, just imagine the case members of the Kennedy family would have against The Simpsons over Mayor Quimby. A cultural reference isn’t use of personal publicity, and a lucky judge in Nassau County will get to hold forth on this.

PETA’s Tiger Woods ad is a better case for the Right of Personal Publicity.

Ouch!

In May, St. Louis Cardinals manager Tony La Russa filed suit against Twitter in California Superior Court, essentially claiming that someone using his name was posting comments that damaged his reputation and caused emotional distress. The suit also claims damage to La Russa’s trademark rights.

Ordinarily, I would have thought little about the case, believing it would get thrown out due to the legal precedent that says those who provide such services are not liable for the content that gets posted on them.

But there are two angles worth considering here. One is called the “right to publicity,” and the other is the evolving notion of digital identity.

The right to publicity is not a federal law, but many states do have it on their books, including California. The California law states:

Continued

“It’s your right to arrange Chen Xiao’s life, and it’s my obligation to serve you…”.

Chen Xiao has had a tough year. Blizzards covered her home town in China, her area was devastated by an earthquake.  Her best friends divorced and her clothing store failed. What’s an entrepreneur to do?  Rent your life to the Internet.

“Every time I had a plan for what I wanted my life to be like, nothing would come of it. It was very disappointing. I figured if other people came up with things for me to do, I might stumble upon something new and better,” she told CNN.

So she put her life online and offered it to China’s netizens for $3/hour. She won’t do anything illegal, immoral or violent, but she will deliver humble service. And she will memorialize it in photos, so other viewers can see what she’s done.

Tasks including delivering pet food, say hello to you on a subway platform, and performing charitable works, such as delivering food to the needy. Holding up signs at netizens lovers is her most frequent request, but she’s also attended babies’ births as a photographer, and welcomed travelers home.

What Do You Make of This?
First, CNN and other US sites have failed to actually link to Chen Xiao’s site in their reporting. To be charitable, this may be because the site is in a foreign language, so even though it’s the topic of the article, the news sources don’t imagine readers would be interested.  To be uncharitable, how can you write about a website and not link to it?

Second,  the framing of a new “right” to control Chen Xiao’s life seems particularly Chinese. The idea of being directed by a mass, or announcing a new right, seems fitting in a nation like China, where rights, both personal and property, are changing so quickly.

We’ve discussed how Brand Obama has been open to being appropriated by its supporters. Now other brands are jumping into what might be called the “O-conomy.”

Here are some products drawing on Obama’s brand equity.

In a Plea for Relevancy, Pepsi Steals Obama’s Logo

Business Week’s David Kiley writes,
“This is a special time in America—difficult and historic. This ad and its language comes off as a ripoff. Not an homage, but a ripoff. And it cheapens the ad and the campaign.”

Dollgate: “Marvelous Malia” and “Sweet Sasha”
The maker of Beanie Babies recently rolled out two dolls that look a lot like the Obama daughters. Ty now says it’s a coincidence, and they just just dug these alliterative names. The First Lady isn’t buying that.

Nanotechnology Promotes Itself By Making Smallest Ever Obama Images
After watching a long Reuters ad, you’ll see microscopic Obama images. I’m not sure I think one whit better about nanotech because of this, but it got coverage, which seems to have been the goal.

Audi Corners Inauguration Advertising
Audi was the exclusive sponsor of streaming live coverage of the ceremony on ABCNews.com, CBSNews.com, MSNBC.com, and WashingtonPost.com, and has purchased an eight-page “Progress Is Beautiful” newspaper insert. Hey look, an auto manufacturer spending like it’s 1999.

“Yes We Can” Perfume
Have other presidents had their own scents? Marketing “Eau de Reagan” just wouldn’t work, I suspect.

The Classic Obama Thong
The use of the word “classic” on Cafe Press somehow asserts this is a Yankee tradition.

The Head O’ State Presidential Pleasure Toy
Insert your comment here.  Is that change in your pocket or….oh, come on, you can do better than that!

This is your invitation to attend a free webinar on the recent Tiffany v. eBay ruling and its impact on brands of all sizes, and those of us who support and promote them. (Since this event has already happened, please follow this link to listen and view the recorded event in its entirety, or hear other events.)

On Thursday, October 2nd, I’ll be in New York moderating a discussion between two of the most expert and engaging voices in online law. Since this will be live, we’ll be taking questions from attendees, so I hope you can join us.

You can look forward to hearing the perspectives of Martin Schwimmer, the host of The Trademark Blog. Last year I enjoyed hearing his presentation on Trademarks and the Internet.  My employer, Thomson CompuMark, is delighted that he’s able to join us again.

You can also look forward to the expert views of Oren J. Warshavsky, who will join us from the firm Baker Hostetler. If you enjoy this blog, you’ll likely want to read his thoughts on the expanding right of publicity.

While you may pose questions during the event, you can also email me on what you’d like to hear about, and I’ll gladly share your requests with the speakers. I hope you can attend, and will post an update closer to the webinar.

FCC Prepares to Punish Comcast
A majority of members of the Federal Communications Commission have cast votes in favor of punishing Comcast Corp. for blocking subscribers’ Internet traffic, an agency official said Friday.

ISP Ad Networking Scheme May Violate Wiretap Laws
The Center for Democracy & Technology has advanced a legal theory that the practice of ISPs sharing records of individual website visits may constitute illegal wiretapping.

Last Week Google Wanted to Be Second Life, This Week They’re Wikipedia
This creates a substantial new conflict of interest between Google and Wikipedia, which currently receives extremely high search authority in Google searches.

Permanent Injunction Against COPA Enforcement Upheld
This is the third time the Third Circuit has held that COPA violates the First Amendment, after nearly ten years of litigation over the law’s constitutionality. As with those previous decisions, the DOJ is expected to seek review by the Supreme Court.

Taco Bell Accused of Stealing Rapper 50 Cent’s Endorsement
In a public relations letter, the chain, owned by Yum! Brands, encourages the rapper to change his name to “79 Cent,” “89 Cent” or “99 Cent” to match their promotion. Instead the rapper slapped a lawsuit on the punk chain for leveraging his name to get their taco sale visibility.

There’s an Internet rumor circulating that Devo is suing McDonald’s for using their unique appearance in an American Idol co-branded Happy Meal.

Devo bass player Gerald Casale fueled the rumor by providing this compelling quote: “We don’t like McDonald’s, and we don’t like American Idol, so we’re doubly offended.”

But in fact-checking the story I was unable to find the case actually filed in any US court. Apparently Mickey D’s settled quickly with the band, who released a statement:

Please be advised that the story about a civil action by Devo against McDonald’s is a rumor and is completely false. No lawsuit has been filed and no litigation is pending. Any issue with the McDonald’s “New Wave Nigel” promotion has been amicably resolved on mutually agreeable terms.

Even though they won’t be in court, you can still see Devo perform “Whip It”. They are non-degradable by time, just like the tiny plastic happy meal men who bear their trademark image.

Back in November, I wrote about Facebook facing a huge privacy slapdown over social advertising.  Michael Arrington, founder and co-editor of TechCrunch, is obliging us by attempting just such an action — and, as in professional wrestling, for him it’s all about the timing.

In his excellent public explanation, Mr. Arrington cites a California law which protects the individual right of publicity, allowing for fines, legal fees, and a $750 statutory damage per incident. Arrington’s lawyers plan to argue that each time the ad is served, it constitutes an individual incident; through math and Comscore data, they arrive at a possible $150 million claim.

However, didn’t Mr. Arrington give consent for this kind of thing by approving Facebook’s terms of use agreement? After all, there is an option to opt out of this kind of advertising, which he didn’t take. Well, sure. “Our lawyers say that’s a pretty good defense, but that they can most likely win over a jury anyway if they focus more on emotional issues rather than the actual facts and legal precedent,” writes Arrington.

Continued