The "Pancakes vs. Prayer" lawsuit has left the courthouse. In case you didn't know, International House of Pancakes had filed a trademark infringement suit in federal court against the International House of Prayer in Kansas City, MO. Both groups go by the nickname of IHOP. The parties have agreed not to discuss the matter publicly and are seeking to resolve the matter through private mediation.
Frankly, I'm glad to hear that the suit was dropped because I like both IHOPs. I've been to the Prayer IHOP on several occasions and have been greatly blessed there. It's not really a church per se as the news media has called it. It is really a prayer ministry that has conducted a continuous prayer and worship meeting for 11 years. They truly seek to honor the True and Living God there and to exalt the name of Jesus. You can visit their website and view the prayer service live here: The Prayer Room
I also like to eat at the Pancake House, and I'm glad that they decided to drop the suit because I was going to boycott them. Now I can eat there again. For fairness sake, here is a link to their website as well: The Pancake House
The funny thing is that I usually go to the pancake IHOP in Kansas City when I visit the prayer IHOP! It is a great place to get nourishment for my body after I've nourished my spirit with prayer and worship.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Case or Not? Lindsay Lohan v. E-Trade
By now you have probably seen the E-Trade commercial in which the star spokesbaby is e-chatting with his girlfriend and apologizes for not calling last night. His girlfriend then asks him if that "milkaholic" Lindsay was over. Then Lindsay appears and says "Milk-a-what?"
The commercial was first run during the Super Bowl. It can be seen on YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEXZ2hfD3bU.
Now Lindsay Lohan has sued E-Trade to the tune of $100 Million for profiting of off her persona. Lohan's lawyer, Stephanie Ovadia, says that her client has first name recognition status along with the likes of Oprah and Madonna. Apparently Lohan thinks quite highly of herself, and her lawyer does, too. Here's the Fox News article on the lawsuit: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/03/09/lindsay-lohan-wants-m-e-trade-milkaholic-ad/
That last sentence hints at my take on the case, but here's my analysis. While there is a valid cause of action for using a public personality's likeness without his or her approval for commercial gain, it must be obvious that the advertiser intended for the public to associate the public figure with their portrayal. Here I simply don't get it. I've seen that commercial air at least 10 times, and I haven't once associated it with Lindsay Lohan. I highly doubt the general public associates Lohan with the commercial either.
Sorry, Lindsay Lohan, but the likeness just isn't that obvious if it is even there at all. Furthermore, you just don't have first name status. You are more commonly known as "LiLo". I would even say Britney Spears has a better shot at first name recognition than you do, but if the baby's name was Britney, would she sue over it? I doubt it.
In my expert legal opinion, this case is a bunch of fluff. I don't think Lohan has a chance in this one. Hopefully, E-Trade's legal team will be able to have this thing dismissed quickly before having to spend time and money on it because it simply shouldn't even be filed.
The commercial was first run during the Super Bowl. It can be seen on YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEXZ2hfD3bU.
Now Lindsay Lohan has sued E-Trade to the tune of $100 Million for profiting of off her persona. Lohan's lawyer, Stephanie Ovadia, says that her client has first name recognition status along with the likes of Oprah and Madonna. Apparently Lohan thinks quite highly of herself, and her lawyer does, too. Here's the Fox News article on the lawsuit: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/03/09/lindsay-lohan-wants-m-e-trade-milkaholic-ad/
That last sentence hints at my take on the case, but here's my analysis. While there is a valid cause of action for using a public personality's likeness without his or her approval for commercial gain, it must be obvious that the advertiser intended for the public to associate the public figure with their portrayal. Here I simply don't get it. I've seen that commercial air at least 10 times, and I haven't once associated it with Lindsay Lohan. I highly doubt the general public associates Lohan with the commercial either.
Sorry, Lindsay Lohan, but the likeness just isn't that obvious if it is even there at all. Furthermore, you just don't have first name status. You are more commonly known as "LiLo". I would even say Britney Spears has a better shot at first name recognition than you do, but if the baby's name was Britney, would she sue over it? I doubt it.
In my expert legal opinion, this case is a bunch of fluff. I don't think Lohan has a chance in this one. Hopefully, E-Trade's legal team will be able to have this thing dismissed quickly before having to spend time and money on it because it simply shouldn't even be filed.
Case or Not?
I'm making a new effort to blog more often. A major part of that effort will be a series of articles called Case or Not. In this series I'll give a real life case that is making news and give my opinion as to whether or not the Plaintiff has a chance at winning. Hope you enjoy! Feel free to comment on the case.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
A Real Allegory
Here's an interesting article about a boy who was sent home from school because he dressed up like Jesus. The article is entitled "'Jesus' Ejected from School" and you can read it here: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=309978.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Federal Courts in California Strike Again!
A federal court judge in California has ruled that it is okay for the University of California (UC) to deny credit to students for high school subjects taught from Christian textbooks. Basically, this implies that the university doesn't have to admit any student who went to a Christian high school or was homeschooled using Christian texts.
You can read a Fox News story about the decision here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,402761,00.html
I find this ruling utterly ridiculous. This is yet another example of intolerance of Christian viewpoints in our society today. If this decision is upheld, it will provide a precedent for this type of religious discrimination across the country.
This case again highlights the hypocrisy of the secularists. Secular educators don't really want critical thinking. If they did, they would welcome dialog from Creationists and others with alternate explanations of origins. All the secularist really want is to push their evolutionary agenda and to close students off from other viewpoints.
Hopefully, this unscrupulous decision will be reversed, but if not, we have just taken another giant step for mankind away from the truth and away from the Creator. He can handle it, but can we?
You can read a Fox News story about the decision here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,402761,00.html
I find this ruling utterly ridiculous. This is yet another example of intolerance of Christian viewpoints in our society today. If this decision is upheld, it will provide a precedent for this type of religious discrimination across the country.
This case again highlights the hypocrisy of the secularists. Secular educators don't really want critical thinking. If they did, they would welcome dialog from Creationists and others with alternate explanations of origins. All the secularist really want is to push their evolutionary agenda and to close students off from other viewpoints.
Hopefully, this unscrupulous decision will be reversed, but if not, we have just taken another giant step for mankind away from the truth and away from the Creator. He can handle it, but can we?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)