Dilly Dilly and Other Legal Nonsense
Let's face it: The law can be a pretty dry subject. So when something out of the norm occurs, disrupting our boring little universe, we tend to stand up and take notice. And there have been some fairly odd occurrences lately in the justice system.
March 01, 2018 at 05:00 AM
4 minute read
By John G. Browning
Let's face it: The law can be a pretty dry subject. So when something out of the norm occurs, disrupting our boring little universe, we tend to stand up and take notice. And there have been some fairly odd occurrences lately in the justice system. Take, for example, the following:
Best. Cease and Desist. Ever
Bud Light has gotten a lot of marketing mileage out of its latest ad campaign—a medieval themed series of commercials touting the beer with its “dilly dilly” slogan. So when Minneapolis-based Modist Brewery released its latest craft brew, called “Dilly Dilly Mosaic Double IPA,” you just knew that the small brewery would be hearing from Anheuser-Busch's intellectual property lawyers pretty quickly. But kudos to those lawyers on the amusing way in which they chose to address the dispute. In December, Bud Light had a man dressed as a medieval town crier personally show up at Modist Brewery's office to deliver a tongue-in-cheek cease and desist letter. The “crier”, reading from a parchment scroll, informed Modist that while Anheuser Busch was “very flattered by your royal tribute,” the phrase “Dilly Dilly” was “the motto of our realm.” And while the folks at Bud Light were OK with a one-time only run of Modist's beer, further “disobedience” would be met with “additional scrolls, then a formal warning, and finally, a private tour of the Pit of Misery.” Modist's lawyer, Jeff O'Brien, appreciated the unusual cease and desist letter and promised that his client would comply. “They did it in a funny way and protected their mark,” O'Brien said. “I thought it was a really cool way of handling it.” Dilly Dilly, indeed.
You Mean My Mom Was Lying?
As a child, you probably were told by your mother that your favorite comfort food was made with love. But apparently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's lawyers frown on companies claiming that their products are made with love. According to a Sept. 22 letter that Massachusetts' Nashoba Brook Bakery received from the FDA, the company had misbranded its granola by including “love” as one of the ingredients. The agency's humorless letter admonished that “Love is not a common or unusual name of an ingredient, and is considered to be intervening material because it is not a part of the common or usual name of the ingredient.” Nashoba CEO John Gates noted that “It sounds like a lawyer wrote that language,” insisting that love is actually “a really important part of what we do.”
Don't Pop Those Corks Just Yet
The Canadian budget airline Sunwing is facing a lawsuit from a disgruntled passenger, Daniel MacDuff, over its claims of “champagne service.” According to the suit, MacDuff expected an actual champagne toast, only to receive cheaper sparkling wine served in a plastic cup. The airline called the suit “frivolous and without merit,” insisting that terms like “champagne service” referred to the level of service, not the specific type of drink. MacDuff's lawyer, Sebastien Paquette, maintains that this case is not about petty differences in wine quality, but about deceptive marketing to unsuspecting consumers. Let's hope the judge has a bubbly personality.
On the Plus Side, It Probably Livened Up Jury Duty
OK, I get it—people often try to avoid jury duty, while those resigned to doing their civic duty try to make it as palatable as possible. But hopefully no one will take it as far as 23-year-old Tyler Huckaby did in Tyler last summer. Huckaby showed up for jury duty at the Smith County Courthouse with a Coca-Cola cup, but others soon noted that he seemed sluggish and was slurring his words. Suspicious deputies smelled alcohol and asked Huckaby what was in the cup. He confirmed it was beer, and was promptly arrested for public intoxication after he stumbled in the jury room.
You heard it here first, folks: Don't drink and deliberate.
John G. Browning is a shareholder at Passman & Jones in Dallas, where he handles a variety of civil litigation in state and federal courts.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Virtue Begets Virtue': Tips for Practicing Law (and Living) Ethically
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250