8
'Times' Lawyers Send Catty Trademark Slap to 'WSJ'
With the rise of the Wall Street Journal's New York section has come the realization that the WSJ and the New York Times are two silly, squabbling children. This schtick was fun and profitable when the Post and the Daily News did it-but that scheme isn't going to work in this case. The endless back and forth has already become sad: now their legal departments are bitching each other out over trademarked language in their competing promotions. Also, you know what's uncalled for, from a lawyer? "After an exhausting search of our records, we find no indication that you ever received permission to make use of our unique and proprietary Slogan." Really? Exhausting?
Yeah it's exhausting, if the top of this lawyer's desk looks anything like mine.
Nah. We don't have any such thing. Sorry. We have no present recollection of having any such thing.
Also, they charge by the nap.
"After a quick and easy but still extremely lucrative search…"
Also, doesn't the Times hold the rights to the phrase "New York?"
I Times'd a bro and he pinkslipped me.
Lawyer-person probably meant "exhaustive," but was too exhausted to use the right word?
meow meow meowsuit
"While we are flattered by your admiration of our marketing efforts, please note that The Times owns the trademark rights in the Slogan and your brazen appropriation of our intellectual property rights constitutes a willful infringement and dilution of The Times's rights under the Lanham Act."
I want to be Richard Samson when I grow up, exhaustion or no.
"Slogan" (hereafter, the "Affectation").