johnny heres johnny.jpg
jack heres_johnny.jpg
homer heres johnny.jpg
I confess that I have used the expression “Whachoo talkin’ about Willis?” without ever having seen a single episode of “Diff’rent Strokes” (nor have I ever spelled ‘different’ as ‘diff’rent’) but I am aware where the phrase comes from.
Noted authority TV Land, is coming out with a special “The 100 Top TV Catchphrases.” Purists will be annoyed that they have combined lines from comercials (“I Can’t Believe I Ate The Whole Thing”), political expressions (“Read My Lips”), one time memorable lines (“I Don’t Like Spunk”) and what I would regard as true catchphrases, repeated phrases (“Aaay” or “D’oh!”).
Ironists will note that Hank Kingsley’s “Hey Now!” is on the list, as it is a parody of a catchphrase.
Moralists will note that two catchphrases on the list end in ‘Bitch!’, including Dave Chapelles’ ‘I’m Rick James, Bitch!”, which, coincidentally, is how our firm signs its demand letters.
At least one phrase is the subject of an IP case, ‘Here’s Johnny!’ Carson v. Here’s Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc., 698 F.2d 831 (6th Cir. 1983), which went off on rights of publicity. I’m sure there are more cases – please email me.
The question arises – if a catchphrase enters the lexicon, does that diminish or enhance its protectability? Does ‘Where’s The Beef?” signify Wendy’s, or Walter Mondale, or does it have it’s own significance at this point?
Note the trilogy above: does Homer’s parody refer to Johnny Carson, or to Jack Nicholson, or to both?
Here’s Johnny by Stephen Cox available here.
Here’s Johnny by Ed McMahon available here.

NY Times: “What We Talk About When We Talk About Brands“:
“Consumer brand companies have long wished they could find a way to eavesdrop (legally) on customer conversations. Marketers can easily read Internet blogs, chat rooms and social networking sites, but what people say over coffee or across their cubicle remains largely unknown.”

kfc.jpg
KFC has unveiled a new logo. It has constructed an extra large version in the Area 51 desert in Nevada. It is claimed that this is visible from space. I read once that the Great Wall of China is the only man-made feature visible from space. Well, now there’s two. If mere appearance of a mark in a jurisdiction constituted good trademark use, then this usage may give rise to protectable rights on the moon. However most jurisdictions require at least the potential to fulfill an order in that jurisdiction, if not an actual sales (this is why transmitting mere advertisements into a jurisdiction without more, is problematic for claiming rights). Therefore, someone might still be able to beat KFC to the moon.

NY Times article on the demand letter
A website named StereoGum hosted this video and attorneys for Universal sent a demand letter and posted a courtesy copy in the comments thread as well as a copy of Universal’s letter to Bank of America (See the November 13 comments here for the text of the letter).
This is a pretty interesting fact pattern. The Times article quotes the singer to the effect that this was on the approved list of songs, so what is that about (maybe BA paid licensing fees?). If you buy into the ‘parody uses the original work to comment upon the original work’ theory, is this song a parody? If you don’t buy into that theory, is this a parody? If someone filmed this without BA’s approval, and uploaded it to YouTube without BA’s approval, then does BA have exposure?
<

digg effect.png
Digg.com is a news-site that uses ‘social bookmarking.’ Readers submit third-party stories and the most popular stories are displayed on the home page. According to this article, one of the most popular posts last week was a laudatory story about a company named InventionLand, an inventor-submission firm (every patent lawyer in the audience just groaned). If you’re familiar with that genre, you are not surprised when I tell you that it is now claimed that the high placement of the article on Digg was due to a form of ‘spamming,’ in this case a concerted attempt by someone to deliberately promote the company.
People try to ‘game’ the algorithms of web services all the time. Word-stuffing, link farms, splogs and Digg-spamming are attempts to manipulate the results of various web processes.
Without referring to the specific news item mentioned above, might such attempts constitute torts? Two potential theories include (1) some species of false advertising, and (2) tortious interference with prospective advantage.
Might competitors have an unfair competition action against the ‘gamer’? When web services erroneously over-report ‘popularity’ or ‘relevancy’ of a webpage, is that a material misrepresentation of a quality of the gamer’s product?
Does the ‘gamed’ web service have a cause of action against the gamer (apart from breach of contract, if a contract existed)? Assume that a website such as Digg or Google base their reputation on the quality of their ‘popularity’ or ‘relevancy’ opinions. If the gamer, with knowledge of a web service’s algorithms, takes acts to manipulate those opinions, which manipulation may result in damage to the web service’s reputation, might this constitute some form of tortious interference with prospective advantage?
The above chart is a representation of the ‘Digg Effect,’ the onslaught of traffic caused by being ‘dugg,’ discussed here.