Comments on: “Use of our client’s trademark to identify enema equipment in erotic fiction is likely to cause confusion”

By: Bleepandbooster67

Bleepandbooster67 — Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:57:03 +0000

Thank you for a decent laugh this utterly miserable late Sunday afternoon. And ditto to the person on livejournal who pointed out the posting in the first place

By: mythago

mythago — Sun, 21 Nov 2004 07:26:20 +0000

You realize that this letter was from boilerplate that they issue for other trademark problems. You likely made the day of whatever junior attorney actually had to write the letter and refer to the stories in order to pull information out of it.

By: Bacchus

Bacchus — Sat, 20 Nov 2004 09:57:10 +0000

Wow. One of the early posts on ErosBlog (see my url) was to this lunacy. I’m amazed they are still at it.

– Bacchus

By: Matty

Matty — Sat, 20 Nov 2004 05:49:29 +0000

She’s pretty hot for a lawyer. I hate it when they lie though…

By: Branko Collin

Branko Collin — Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:48:37 +0000

“Accordingly, we request you revise the stories to refer to a balloon nozzle, enema bulb or some other generic phrase, without referring to our client’s trademark.”

Ah, medical advice. In my country, such quackery would be illegal.

Or perhaps it really is a qualified MD who wrote that sentence? In that case there is probably a review board waiting to take their license.

Just in case you were feeling, say, vindictive?

(Yes, I know that the stories are a fiction and such products should not be used for enemas. You know that. Everybody knows that except, apparently, Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maire and Neustadt, who seem to believe that there are people who would follow up on their advice.)