Seizing on the buzz created by the release of Romney’s tax records for 2010-2011—when he earned $42.5 million in income—Leno mocked the candidate’s wealth by showing Newt Gingrich’s and Ron Paul’s homes, saving “Romney’s” gilded temple for the final zinger.  Romney’s net worth, an estimated $190 million to $250 million, makes him one of the all-time wealthiest candidates to ever run for the presidency, not to mention several zeros and commas ahead of the other Republican primary runners.

In the complaint, Dr. Dhillon seeks general and punitive damages for libel.  He claims that the joke “clearly exposes plaintiff, other Sikhs and their religion to hatred, contempt, ridicule and obloquy because it falsely portrays the holiest place in the Sikh religion as a vacation resort owned by a non-Sikh.”  For Dr. Dhillon to be successful on his claim, he must prove the five elements of libel—publication, identification, defamation, fault, and injury.  Noticeably absent in the complaint, however, is any showing of how the clearly satirical dig at Romney has or will cause hatred, contempt, or ridicule towards Sikhs.  Dr. Dhillon will be hard-pressed argue that Leno’s portrayal of Romney defamed the Sikhs and caused anyone to actually believe that the Sikh Temple is the Mormon candidate’s summer residence.  Also, how many Tonight Show viewers would recognize the photo Leno briefly displayed as the Golden Temple of Amritsar or even connect it with the Sikh religion?  Dr. Dhillon is arguing not just a claim of personal libel, but a claim alleging injury to the Sikh religion as a whole.  Proving that Leno’s statements actually injured all Sikhs—in other words, that no one within the Sikh religion understood the true target of the joke—will be a nearly impossible hurdle.

So what do you think about sassy Judge Marilyn Milian’s decision?

Just before the holidays, on December 22, 2011, Louis Vuitton filed suit against Warner Brothers in federal court in New York alleging that the handbag shown in the movie is a fake.

In this scene from The Hangover Part II, Galifianakis is shown on the far left toting his “Louis Vuitton.”

Louis Vuitton is not claiming that the movie used counterfeit goods, but rather that Warner Brothers used a bag made by Diophy Handbags, amounting to “consumer confusion.”   As for Louis Vuitton’s suit against Warner Brothers, the causes of action are trademark dilution, false designation of origin, and unfair competition.  Louis Vuitton seeks to stop the DVD release of the scenes with the fake handbag.  Additionally, they are seeking a share of the profits from the film.

History of the Film’s Run-Ins with the Law

In addition to the most recently filed suit by Louis Vuitton, Warner Brothers has faced three other suits because of the film.  As mentioned above, Mike Tyson’s tattoo artist Victor Whitmill, settled with Warner Brothers for an undisclosed amount in the copyright case over the use of the tattoo in the movie.  Also, in October of 2011, the producers of the film were sued by screenwriter, Michael Alan Rubin.  Rubin alleged that the storyline about a main character traveling from America to Asia to marry his girlfriend was plagiarized from Rubin’s own idea for a comedy.  This suit was later dismissed.  Lastly, the production studio faced a suit from stuntman, Scott McLean, who alleged he suffered brain trauma in an attempt to complete a stunt for the movie.  Warner Brothers settled with the stuntman.

Despite these numerous suits, the movie has managed to gross over $250,000,000 in the U.S. alone.  I suppose that this gross revenue is enough to cover Warner Brothers legal expenses and any amounts that it might settle for with the various plaintiffs.  Not to mention, the Huffington Post reports that these lawsuits have done nothing to deter the making of Hangover III.

What Will Come of the Louis Vuitton Suit?

My prediction for the outcome of this current suit falls in line with Warner Brothers history of settling these suits outside of court.  With the success of The Hangover Part II and the hope for a trilogy, Warner Brothers will want to avoid any defamation to its series of films.  If this suit does go to trial, a court will look to see if Louis Vuitton’s trademark suffered when Galifianakis’ character, Alan, professed that the fake Louis Vuitton handbag was a real one?  It will have to consider that the movie producers may have purposely wanted Alan’s bag to emulate a fake Louis Vuitton’s bag.  When you think about it, the now famous phrase likely would not have been funny if it were a real Louis Vuitton bag.  It is just my opinion, but the suit likely will not even get to the point of a court deciding these things.  What are a few settlement payouts to individuals and companies when Warner Brothers has created arguably the funniest series of movies that our generation has seen?

Jolie was sued by a Croatian journalist who claims that Jolie stole from his 2007 book for the plot of her film, “In the Land of Blood and Honey,” which tells the story of an abused woman in war-torn Bosnia. But this week, the plaintiff voluntarily dropped his motion for a temporary restraining order to halt the film’s release.

Fans will be able to judge the originality of the film for themselves when they see it in theaters December 23.

It all started when attorneys for Songz sent a cease-and-desist letter to Hester that demanded the reality TV star stop uttering the phrase during the show’s auctions of seized goods. But according trademark records, Hester registered “YUUUP!” on three occasions, dating back to this past May.

Doesn’t this kind of seem like a silly case? Yuuup!

Read more about this suit here and here.

Thank you to David Quiles, Fordham’s Journal Coordinator, for the link!

Before the cameras start rolling, reality stars must sign extensive contracts. These contracts essentially release the producers from any liability if a cast member is harmed in any manner. Eric Goldman, assistant professor who teaches contracts at Santa Clara University’s law school, discussed the “reality” of reality TV star contracts with CNN Entertainment. Goldman stated that “a typical contract includes ’100 reasons why you can’t sue . . . . If you’re creative enough to come up with the 101st reason, you can’t sue . . . for that either.’” Goldman concluded that “[t]hese contracts are usually all-encompassing in their efforts to get their participants to waive rights to release claims.”

The Village Voice obtained a standard Real World Cast-Member contract demonstrating some shocking provisions such as:

• Participants may die, lose limbs, and suffer nervous breakdowns

Participants may be humiliated and explicitly portrayed “in a false light.”

If a participant contracts AIDS or other sexually transmitted diseases (“gonorrhea, herpes, syphilis, pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), Chlamydia, scabies (crabs),’hepatitis, genital warts, and other communicable and sexually transmitted diseases or Pregnancy; etc”) while filming, MTV is not responsible

Interacting with other cast members carries the risk of “non-consensual physical contact” and should a participant contract AIDS or any other sexual transmitted disease during such an interaction, MTV is not responsible.

Participants grant the Producer blanket rights to participant’s life story. The Producer can do pretty much anything they want with life story, including misrepresent it.

Participants cannot change their physical appearance during filming, without the Producer’s express permission

There is no doubt that these provisions are shocking but if Cooley seeks to have them voided, will a California court find them unconscionable? The concept of an unconscionable contract is essentially an equitable doctrine that protects people from contracts that are legal but reprehensible.  It will certainly be an uphill battle for Cooley to persuade the court that the provisions of the contract are unconscionable. Courts rarely find contracts unconscionable. Generally, to find a contract unconscionable the plaintiff must demonstrate absence of a meaningful choice and that the terms of the contract unreasonably favor the party who sets them.

Who will host the awards now is anyone’s guess, but something tells us that James Franco will probably not be volunteering…

The 84th Academy Awards is scheduled for February 26, 2012.

The full story from The Hollywood Reporter can be read here.

Thank you to staffer Andrew Eisenberg for the link!