Netflix threatens Straight Pride Parade with legal action over logo - Business Insider
businessinsider.com/netflix-straight-pride-pa...
businessinsider.comPosted Jul 20, 2019, 3:22 PM UTC
1619
businessinsider.comOur legal department is here, it's queer, and it's telling you to steer clear
What a great quote.
10
It's gotta be great to be in house counsel sometimes.
Edit: I'm not sure what's wrong with this sentence?
0†
I don’t think there’s anything really wrong with it from a grammatical standpoint or anything. Maybe you could have said “in-house counsel” instead of “in house counsel” but I don’t know if either one is really right or wrong.
6
Nothing was wrong with it. Just brigaders and Td-sect of users upset. They have been doing that on most subreddit’s since they have been locked up
1
Probably (most likely definitely) not the subreddit for this discussion but it’s a bit interesting to me watching activist/rights organizations courting corporate sponsorships—but I can’t quite articulate why.
Would Netflix have a cause of action to get an injunction ordering their removal from list of prospective sponsors?
Really only legal question
Good question, but I am not an attorney (a mere corporate filing clerk), I just lurk here and appreciate the conversations and topics that come up.
Maybe someone else reading here will have an answer.
I was just pointing out the part that would be relevant to the sub.
Personally I doubt they would have standing, I’m not sure they could meet the “actual harm” requirement.
Even if so, I doubt they would win due to 1A
I don't think you have a 1A right to falsely claim an organization is affiliated with you. It's fraudulent for starters. They're using Netflix's mark in an attempt to solicit donations. .
I think it's relevant because it's an in-house counsel writing a fairly awesome C&D. It's not so much law as in statutes/case law/regs/etc., but it definitely pertains to the practice of law.
Also, all the lawyers I know, including myself, like sharing epic letters. Like that "some jackass stole your letterhead" with the Browns.
Oh definitely. The topic itself is certainly relevant to the subreddit. I was referring to my own musing about corporate sponsorships in general. That bit probably drifts off topic a bit heh.
My apologies, I can see how my phrasing there is a bit ambiguous.
Nah, it's trademark law, as well as consumer protection law. And charitable organization law.
If MA is anything like TX (in terms of charitable organization policing and consumer protection law, not politically), their AG might be looking into them.
In this case, as you put it, is "them" Netflix or Super Happy Fun America? Just seeking some clarification.