• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

Status
Not open for further replies.
muCephi said:
From a reddit thread on the firm that took the case:

"From the picture Alec posted with the attorneys it looks like the firm gave this case to two of their newest lawyers. It's a proving ground for them, to see how well those lawyers can argue a case."

"So its basically the lawyer version of the Kobayashi Maru."
Click to expand...

Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

Andrew S. Jick

"In 2014, Mr. Jick defended a small business against a large company in a case of attempted 'trademark bullying.' The case resulted in a highly favorable settlement allowing the small business to continue using its trademarks and recovering most of its attorneys’ fees."

You can also look up Erin R. Ranahan's bio and see she has plenty of experience. This isn't Alec's legal counsel who passed the bar in December.

Neil
 
Indysolo said:
Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

Andrew S. Jick

"In 2014, Mr. Jick defended a small business against a large company in a case of attempted 'trademark bullying.' The case resulted in a highly favorable settlement allowing the small business to continue using its trademarks and recovering most of its attorneys’ fees."

You can also look up Erin R. Ranahan's bio and see she has plenty of experience. This isn't Alec's legal counsel who passed the bar in December.

Neil
Click to expand...

No, but neither seem to have any where near the resume that Mr. Zavin has. He has consulted internationally on copyright law, and argued copyright law before SCOTUS.
 
That is a fair point, but these are hardly fresh off the bus newbies. They're experienced professionals. Alec is lucky to have them in his corner.

This is still a slam dunk for CBS/Paramount though.

Neil
 
Dennis said:
Well, they might have bothered to look up her resume. No, she's not a neophyte.
Click to expand...

Indysolo said:
Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

Andrew S. Jick

"In 2014, Mr. Jick defended a small business against a large company in a case of attempted 'trademark bullying.' The case resulted in a highly favorable settlement allowing the small business to continue using its trademarks and recovering most of its attorneys’ fees."

You can also look up Erin R. Ranahan's bio and see she has plenty of experience. This isn't Alec's legal counsel who passed the bar in December.

Neil
Click to expand...

thanks, agree re not being novices. still think it is a no win situation on the claim that Trek IP can be appropriated the way Axanar has tho. still think they will try to reframe a settlement with permanent stipulation of not doing Trek, as a win. the mind-massaging to create this thought in the supporter base will probably start soon.. "...and even if Axanar can't ultimately prevail, it will have made the point that many fans are not happy with the direction taken by the studios, which is in itself a win." or the like.
 
muCephi said:
thanks, agree re not being novices. still think it is a no win situation on the claim that Trek IP can be appropriated the way Axanar has tho. still think they will try to reframe a settlement with permanent stipulation of not doing Trek, as a win. the mind-massaging to create this thought in the supporter base will probably start soon.. "...and even if Axanar can't ultimately prevail, it will have made the point that many fans are not happy with the direction taken by the studios, which is in itself a win." or the like.
Click to expand...
If that's the case, why did this particular firm agree to take this case "Pro-bono"? I don't see any upside for them in this case then (The firm)
 
muCephi said:
thanks, agree re not being novices. still think it is a no win situation on the claim that Trek IP can be appropriated the way Axanar has tho. still think they will try to reframe a settlement with permanent stipulation of not doing Trek, as a win. the mind-massaging to create this thought in the supporter base will probably start soon.. "...and even if Axanar can't ultimately prevail, it will have made the point that many fans are not happy with the direction taken by the studios, which is in itself a win." or the like.
Click to expand...
I'd really like to be a fly on the wall when the crack legal team advises AP to accept the stipulation.
 
Do we anticipate any other fan film makers being called to testify during the trial?
 
SuperSpaceMan said:
If that's the case, why did this particular firm agree to take this case "Pro-bono"? I don't see any upside for them in this case then (The firm)
Click to expand...
Pro bono exists basically for those who need legal representation and can't afford it. But a lawyer (or firm) may also take a case pro bono if it believes the case involves an important public good. I think they may even take a case for no fee even if it doesn't technically qualify as pro bono work in their state. It could be they are really taking it on contingency, where they would get a percentage of any money awarded Peters in a settlement and nothing if he gets nothing.

Looking at the law firm's website and the cases Peters' two lawyers have been on, it seems to me this is a niche where this firm is trying to carve out a strong reputation. Winning here, or negotiating any kind of settlement that keeps the studio (let alone Axanar) intact would be a huge piece of publicity for the firm in this legal area. If they can protect him, then -- . It may also set policy in this area. They have a lot of pluses for taking this on even if they believe they have a small chance of a real win. After all, some hail Mary passes are completed. Some even beat the odds more than once (right Mr. Rogers?).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ion
HMS Ark Royal said:
They have already done so, but the "fans" continue to not believe it.

As for myself, I am finished with the StandWithCBS group after I was kicked off unfairly after mentioning opinions
Click to expand...

14652573062_5d50d99d32_o_zpsecd5194d.png


WTuhiJZ.jpg


Pro tip: Opinions are fine. Opinions that get the moderator threatened, keep those to yourself.
 
Someone said earlier that the firm may see this as an opportunity to be a part of shaping case law in IP/copyright cases. That would certainly justify the pro bono work.
 
Albinator said:
Someone said earlier that the firm may see this as an opportunity to be a part of shaping case law in IP/copyright cases. That would certainly justify the pro bono work.
Click to expand...

I am not an IP lawyer--I'm not a lawyer at all, actually--but if I were then I'd be very interested this lawsuit from the case law position provided that I had a creative defense in mind. I think it's a perfectly valid reason to take on a client pro bono.
 
Earthrise said:
I am not an IP lawyer--I'm not a lawyer at all, actually--but if I were then I'd be very interested this lawsuit from the case law position provided that I had a creative defense in mind. I think it's a perfectly valid reason to take on a client pro bono.
Click to expand...

Maybe one of them is a pissed off donor and wants to get Peters hopes up the way he got fans hopes up! :lol:
 
Indysolo said:
Don't believe everything you read on the internet.
Andrew S. Jick

"In 2014, Mr. Jick defended a small business against a large company in a case of attempted 'trademark bullying.' The case resulted in a highly favorable settlement allowing the small business to continue using its trademarks and recovering most of its attorneys’ fees."
Neil
Click to expand...
Re: Mr. Jick's Pro Bono defence a small business with trademarks against a large company in a case of attempted 'trademark bullying'.

With my highly limited abilities in research stated right up front and that I might have indeed found the wrong case:

I 'have' found a 2014 case in which Jick was a Plaintiff attorney for the small company CMG Worldwide against the large company U.S. Specialty Vehicles LLC that 'seems' to me that it could be case. It is the only 2014 Jick case 'I' can find that 'relates' in any way at all to the trademark bullying blurb.

And I am ready, and interested, to be corrected on all inaccuracies contained in this post.

As far as I can understand CMG Worldwide is a small company established in 1970 to represent celebrities and their estates.

U.S. Specialty Vehicles LLC is a large company that built vehicles to which they attached variations of General Patton's name. CMG brought suit against them in the name of the Patton estate to stop this.

With CMG being the small rightful owner of the possibly trademarked? name.... and US Specialty Vehicles being the large company who wanted it. Jick successfully litigated for the small holder of the IP or trademark, over the large company attempting to keep it for their vehicles.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top