MAYHEM lawsuit is a “publicity stunt aimed at a beloved icon”

[Zombiecat 16,674]

51 minutes ago, AVeryGagaHolyDick said:

No way they said that   I love her legal team lmaooooo

 

50 minutes ago, REALITY said:

Not very kindness punk of her legal team 

 

12 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

“Not even a moron in a hurry would confuse these two brands” and the logos are identical 

they aren't saying it, it's in quotes

[Sorcerer 12,507]

"went to buy a surfboard and ended up with concert tickets :(" LMAO 

[dollardays 3,852]

I've become a beloved icon 

[Oriane 21,062]

I'd say not even a moron would think that the legal team actually said that and that it's not a quote from Lost's filing, but look at this thread.

[Ladle Ghoulash 24,622]

25 minutes ago, Oriane said:

I'd say not even a moron would think that the legal team actually said that and that it's not a quote from Lost's filing, but look at this thread.

I’d say not even a moron would think that a legal team quoting something doesn’t amount to endorsing the sentiment, but here’s your comment lmao 

[Ladle Ghoulash 24,622]

1 hour ago, Zombiecat said:

 

 

they aren't saying it, it's in quotes

Yeah and they’re quoting it to the effect that they believe that it supports their case lmao. They’re endorsing the sentiment, which is about as good as saying it. 

[Ladle Ghoulash 24,622]

1 hour ago, StarstruckIllusion said:

Clock. They look nothing alike lmao 

Me when I’ve contracted river blindness 

[Ladle Ghoulash 24,622]

Btw it’s possible for two things to be true, divas: the logos can look alike but the font/typeface might also not be unique enough for its use to amount to a legitimate breach of trademark/copyright. 

Edited July 31 by Ladle Ghoulash

[Nine Inch Heels 527]

Misquoted

[princessofmonaco 80]

3 hours ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

“Not even a moron in a hurry would confuse these two brands” and the logos are identical 

I think their point is that context matters. Nobody would confuse the two brands because they sell completely different products. There’s no way someone would buy Lady Gaga merch thinking it was surf apparel. Therefore, there was no actual harm. Yes, the logos are extremely similar, but images are just images. The meaning we assign to them is where the nuance lies, legally speaking

[HomoMonsterions 300]

Does Lost know what they got themselve into? And does this company even worth $10 million?

Cuz if you read the legal document, gaga's legal team suggests a bond of at least $10 million if the court decides to issue the injunction.

for people who still confused about the logo similarity or this lawsuit in general, go read the document. Then you will know that Lost doesn't even stand a chance.

[monketsharona 81,218]

If they win I hope they'll give backfire

[LG2008 5,218]

4 minutes ago, HomoMonsterions said:

Does Lost know what they got themselve into? And does this company even worth $10 million?

Cuz if you read the legal document, gaga's legal team suggests a bond of at least $10 million if the court decides to issue the injunction.

for people who still confused about the logo similarity or this lawsuit in general, go read the document. Then you will know that Lost doesn't even stand a chance.

Well... This is exactly the outcome I wanted since the beginning 

[ChvVolk 2,321]

1 hour ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

Btw it’s possible for two things to be true, divas: the logos can look alike but the font/typeface might also not be unique enough for its use to amount to a legitimate breach of trademark/copyright. 

The font definitely isn't unique. Look at any metal bands merch or album covers, the font is extremely similiar to these

[Ladle Ghoulash 24,622]

37 minutes ago, princessofmonaco said:

I think their point is that context matters. Nobody would confuse the two brands because they sell completely different products. There’s no way someone would buy Lady Gaga merch thinking it was surf apparel. Therefore, there was no actual harm. Yes, the logos are extremely similar, but images are just images. The meaning we assign to them is where the nuance lies, legally speaking

Yes, I understand the purpose of the quote, but I also think the point probably should’ve been made in a less crass way lol