Franklin Mint & Diana
Graham Openshaw
Could you all please go to http://tinyurl.com/gp3o and post a message
of support for Franklin Mint.
The Diana, Princess of Wales memorial fund had no right to do what
they did and should be perused to the fullest extent of the law.
Graham Openshaw
Murchadh
Perused, eh?
Do you mean pursued?
Murchadh
Robert T. Builder
"Graham Openshaw" <nos...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:37r5hvcdgtqsicsch...@4ax.com...
You are on very dangerous territory when you
say that people do not have a right to go to law
to try to enforce what they believe are their rights.
Have you always been a fascist?
Bob
>>sPoNiX<<
wrote:
>Nah, fuck'em, and their worthless pots.
But they are family heirlooms of the future! Their adverts say so!
sPoNiX
alchemist
a complaint so daft he posts it twice
Ian Johnston
<b...@builder1453.fsworld.co.uk> wrote:
: You are on very dangerous territory when you
: say that people do not have a right to go to law
: to try to enforce what they believe are their rights.
:
: Have you always been a fascist?
Well, since you started it ... do you think the BNP have a right to go
to law to enforce their belief that everyone of Asian origin should be
expelled from Burnley?
Ian "Godwin" J
--
Robert T. Builder
"Ian Johnston" <ian.u...@talk21.com> wrote in message
news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-OqLdX9xVCzxo@localhost...
What, in law, would be their case ?
Bob
Ian Johnston
<b...@builder1453.fsworld.co.uk> wrote:
:
: "Ian Johnston" <ian.u...@talk21.com> wrote in message
: news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-OqLdX9xVCzxo@localhost...
: > On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:36:58 UTC, "Robert T. Builder"
: > <b...@builder1453.fsworld.co.uk> wrote:
: >
: > : You are on very dangerous territory when you
: > : say that people do not have a right to go to law
: > : to try to enforce what they believe are their rights.
: > Well, since you started it ... do you think the BNP have a right to go
: > to law to enforce their belief that everyone of Asian origin should be
: > expelled from Burnley?
: What, in law, would be their case ?
None whatsoever. That was my point.
Ian
pork'n'stuffing
Under 'normal' circumstances I would agree with that, but on the other hand
the DPWT is *ENGLISH*, and the Franklin Mint is *MERKIN*. That unfortunately
clouds my judgement somewhat. Notwithstanding that, having won the case- in
a 'Merkin court, why am I not surprised - isnt it a bit OTT to then make a
further claim against DPWT for "attempting to damage our reputation" which
would effectively bankrupt what is at the end of the day a humanitarian
cause
Ian G Batten
pork'n'stuffing <sau...@meat.com> wrote:
> a 'Merkin court, why am I not surprised - isnt it a bit OTT to then make a
> further claim against DPWT for "attempting to damage our reputation" which
> would effectively bankrupt what is at the end of the day a humanitarian
> cause
In a US court, both sides pay their own costs. Why should Franklin Mint
be out for the defence costs of a case which they won? What on earth
was the fund's case: ``margarine tubs aren't tacky but dolls are?''
That the fund is a charity is neither here nor there: being a good cause
doesn't give you a license to do whatever you want.
ian
pork'n'stuffing
news:bf0pp3$s5c$1...@ftel.ftel.co.uk...
> In article <0tRQa.56$4E2...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>,
> pork'n'stuffing <sau...@meat.com> wrote:
> > a 'Merkin court, why am I not surprised - isnt it a bit OTT to then make
a
> > further claim against DPWT for "attempting to damage our reputation"
which
> > would effectively bankrupt what is at the end of the day a humanitarian
> > cause
>
> In a US court, both sides pay their own costs.
Their share of costs was sixteen MILLION pounds?
Its comparable to kicking a bloke while hes on the floor - they 'won' the
right to carry on producing their crap merchandise and commercialising
Dianas memory, why not leave it at that? And yes, stuff the DPWT do
*themselves* commercialise Diana, but at least they get dough out of it to
put toward her causes rather than some company directors expense account
Ian Johnston
wrote:
: but at least they get dough out of it to
: put toward her causes rather than some company directors expense account
The trust is reported to employ 500 people. So someone's doing very
nicely out of it.
Ian
--
>>sPoNiX<<
<sau...@meat.com> wrote:
>.... And yes, stuff the DPWT do
>*themselves* commercialise Diana, but at least they get dough out of it to
>put toward her causes rather than some company directors expense account
So DPWT directors are unpaid...?
sPoNiX
smicker
">>sPoNiX<<" <sponix...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3f1403dc...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
What no expense account or car.Just the lavish dinners and power of
patronage to keep the wolf from the door? If only both sides could lose and
fade away forever.
smicker
Guig
> Could you all please go to http://tinyurl.com/gp3o and post a message
> of support for Franklin Mint.
Stuff that, their stuff is shit.
--
Guig
GSF600SY Bandit - It's blue you know.
CBFA #1
Oh for the wings of any bird, other than a battery hen.
PeteM
Certainly they should. Of course, if they have no case (as seems highly
likely) then they will lose. Seems perfectly fair.
--
PeteM
Jonathan Bryce
> So DPWT directors are unpaid...?
Charity trustees are generally not allowed to be paid for their services.
e
They could use the 'tecs from the Shipman investigation.
--
e
John of Aix
"JAF" <jafni...@ntlworld.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
tug7hv46hbpj9t8fu...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:48:23 +0100, Graham Openshaw
> <nos...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >Could you all please go to http://tinyurl.com/gp3o and post a
message
> >of support for Franklin Mint.
> >
These are all Limited Editions that will be worth a lot of money in
500
years when all the other 999,999 copies have been destroyed, so don't
mock.
John of Aix
"Graham Openshaw" <nos...@blueyonder.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de
news: 37r5hvcdgtqsicsch...@4ax.com...
I've been perusing their ads for years and still can't summon up
the courage to buy any of their tat.
Richard Miller
<ian.u...@talk21.com> writes
Yes. Absolutely.
And the Court has the right to throw it out as disclosing no case. But
that is the point at which it should be stopped, not at the point of
starting a case unless the litigant is shown to be vexatious in
accordance with the pre-existing rules about vexatious litigants.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<I.G.B...@batten.eu.org> writes
But what is Franklin's case? That they own the rights to Di's image? If
so, how on earth did they get them?
--
Richard Miller
Ian Johnston
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: But what is Franklin's case? That they own the rights to Di's image?
That a bunch of self-appointed fat cats don't, I think.
Ian
--
Ian Johnston
: Whislt I can understand your motivations, surely attempting to recover
: 'costs' from
: a charity is non-sensical, cruel, unusual and unfair.
Well it would be if it was a real charity, and not a money-grubbing
commercial enterprise.
Ian
--
Paul Wolff
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>But what is Franklin's case? That they own the rights to Di's image? If
>so, how on earth did they get them?
I would like to know the legal background too.
As far as I can tell, which isn't very far ... the Fund sued Franklin in
the USA under the US law related to personality rights, and they lost.
See:
http://www.adlawbyrequest.com/inthecourts/charity070102.shtml
The determinative factor was that British, not California, law applied.
I find the judgement hard to follow, as it is full of references which I
cannot (easily) read into the flow of the narrative.
I find this interesting because US courts have often applied a 'long
arm' approach to their jurisdiction, but where a US company is accused
by a foreign concern of infringing the foreign concern's rights in the
US under US (Calif.) law, the situation is turned upside down. As we
all know in uk.legal, personality rights are not recognised in the UK.
The Franklin Mint was awarded costs of $2,308,000, affirmed in the
appeal.
For anyone seriously interested, they can read the decision of the UK
Trade Marks Registry dismissing the Franklin Mint's opposition to the
registration of two Diana Fund's trade mark applications at:
http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/legal/decisions/2002/o03702.pdf
In the absence of further elucidation, my sympathies (in the latest
suit) are with the Fund.
--
Paul
Paul Wolff
<fmn...@hotmail.com> writes
>My Comments to Franklin Mint:
>
>Whislt I can understand your motivations, surely attempting to recover
>'costs' from a charity is non-sensical, cruel, unusual and unfair.
They have already been awarded $2,308,00 costs.
--
Paul
Murchadh
<sau...@meat.com> wrote:
>"Graham Openshaw" <nos...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:37r5hvcdgtqsicsch...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Could you all please go to http://tinyurl.com/gp3o and post a message
>> of support for Franklin Mint.
>>
>> The Diana, Princess of Wales memorial fund had no right to do what
>> they did and should be perused to the fullest extent of the law.
>
>Under 'normal' circumstances I would agree with that, but on the other hand
>the DPWT is *ENGLISH*, and the Franklin Mint is *MERKIN*. That unfortunately
>clouds my judgement somewhat.
Ah, so you're a racist too!
>Notwithstanding that, having won the case- in
>a 'Merkin court, why am I not surprised - isnt it a bit OTT to then make a
>further claim against DPWT for "attempting to damage our reputation" which
>would effectively bankrupt what is at the end of the day a humanitarian
>cause
>
Well they did have to spend $4 million defending themselves. I imagine
they felt they should get their money back as damages, rather than
kissing it goodbye. And as the DPWT unfairly attempted to drop them in
the dirt, don't you think damages are a rational remedy?
I think the blame could be laid entirely at the door of the people
running the DPWT who apparently thought that exploiting the memory of
a dead woman was their legal prerogative.
I'm surprised by your childish reaction to an American court finding a
British charity in what is clearly the wrong and your equally immature
reaction to the concept of damages. It seems English "fair play" is
only operative when it favours the English. You should take a course
on basic morality.
Murchadh
pork'n'stuffing
news:nj79hv4n0ctbusafo...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:21:32 +0100, "pork'n'stuffing"
> <sau...@meat.com> wrote:
>
> >"Graham Openshaw" <nos...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:37r5hvcdgtqsicsch...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> Could you all please go to http://tinyurl.com/gp3o and post a message
> >> of support for Franklin Mint.
> >>
> >> The Diana, Princess of Wales memorial fund had no right to do what
> >> they did and should be perused to the fullest extent of the law.
> >
> >Under 'normal' circumstances I would agree with that, but on the other
hand
> >the DPWT is *ENGLISH*, and the Franklin Mint is *MERKIN*. That
unfortunately
> >clouds my judgement somewhat.
>
> Ah, so you're a racist too!
>
No, Im anti-American. Play word games how you like, but that *aint* racism
> >Notwithstanding that, having won the case- in
> >a 'Merkin court, why am I not surprised - isnt it a bit OTT to then make
a
> >further claim against DPWT for "attempting to damage our reputation"
which
> >would effectively bankrupt what is at the end of the day a humanitarian
> >cause
> >
> Well they did have to spend $4 million defending themselves. I imagine
> they felt they should get their money back as damages, rather than
> kissing it goodbye. And as the DPWT unfairly attempted to drop them in
> the dirt, don't you think damages are a rational remedy?
>
No, DPWT attempted to stop any old moron with a printing press scoring bucks
off Dianas image.
> I think the blame could be laid entirely at the door of the people
> running the DPWT who apparently thought that exploiting the memory of
> a dead woman was their legal prerogative.
>
> I'm surprised by your childish reaction to an American court finding a
> British charity in what is clearly the wrong
You do? Wanna chat about the Kangaroo courts being set up in Camp Xray?
and your equally immature
> reaction to the concept of damages.
Its immature to cry foul when a commercial company with shareholders as
masters deliberately seeks the bankruptcy of a charity set up to donate to
humanitarian causes? Wow, glad I dont play by your rules
It seems English "fair play" is
> only operative when it favours the English. You should take a course
> on basic morality.
>
It seems the only unfair fight to an American is one he loses. Like making
plans for invasion and recovery of foreign lands to 'recover' US citizens
awaiting war crimes trials. But in the same breath denying basic human
rights to British Guantanamo Bay captives. Face it, Americans suck. Theyre
the most warhungry nutters on the face of the planet
Robert T. Builder
I don't follow the logic there.
Bob
Ian Johnston
<b...@builder1453.fsworld.co.uk> wrote:
: "Ian Johnston" <ian.u...@talk21.com> wrote in message
: news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-v4jsBR9fmlFP@localhost...
: > The trust is reported to employ 500 people. So someone's doing very
: > nicely out of it.
: I don't follow the logic there.
It's not a particularly large enterprise - about forty million quid
all told, according to press reports. 500 employees at a measy 12,000
quid each is six million quid in salaries alone. Add on-costs and
better paid employees and they can't be spending far off ten million
pounds a year on staff.
Ian
Cynic
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In a US court, both sides pay their own costs. Why should Franklin Mint
>>be out for the defence costs of a case which they won? What on earth
>>was the fund's case: ``margarine tubs aren't tacky but dolls are?''
>>That the fund is a charity is neither here nor there: being a good cause
>>doesn't give you a license to do whatever you want.
>But what is Franklin's case? That they own the rights to Di's image? If
>so, how on earth did they get them?
IIUC the original case was that the DPWT claimed that *they* owned the
rights to Di's image, and sued Franklin for using her image. Franklin
successfully defended the action, but was out of pocket by a
considerable amount because US courts don't award costs.
Franklin then came up with an arguable case with which to sue DPWT for
damage to reputation or something, most probably to attempt to recover
the legal costs that the case DPWT brought against them caused.
Some quote along the lines of, "He who lives by the sword dies by the
sword" comes to mind.
--
Cynic
Paul Wolff
<cy...@none.none> writes
>
>IIUC the original case was that the DPWT claimed that *they* owned the
>rights to Di's image, and sued Franklin for using her image. Franklin
>successfully defended the action, but was out of pocket by a
>considerable amount because US courts don't award costs.
>
http://www.adlawbyrequest.com/inthecourts/charity070102.shtml
... as I posted a few days ago :(
--
Paul
Paul C. Dickie
pork'n'stuffing <sau...@meat.com> writes
>Under 'normal' circumstances I would agree with that, but on the other hand
>the DPWT is *ENGLISH*, and the Franklin Mint is *MERKIN*. That unfortunately
>clouds my judgement somewhat. Notwithstanding that, having won the case- in
>a 'Merkin court, why am I not surprised - isnt it a bit OTT to then make a
>further claim against DPWT for "attempting to damage our reputation" which
>would effectively bankrupt what is at the end of the day a humanitarian
>cause
If anyone had succeeded in (further?) damaging the reputation of the
Franklin Mint, that must surely be the person(s) who decided to sue the
DPWT. Indeed, it would surely have been better for both parties to have
settled the original action out of court, with the DPWT giving the FM a
licence to issue "official" kitsch and with the FM paying a small amount
per item sold to the DPWT.
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie
<boun...@two.wolff.co.uk> writes
>For anyone seriously interested, they can read the decision of the UK
>Trade Marks Registry dismissing the Franklin Mint's opposition to the
>registration of two Diana Fund's trade mark applications at:
>http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/legal/decisions/2002/o03702.pdf
Could that be what the FM *really* want -- to get their claws on the
ownership of those trademarks?
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie
<nos...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>
>Could you all please go and post a message
>of support for Franklin Mint.
Could you please :
a) stop posting that article
b) go somewhere and boil your head?
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie
<I.G.B...@batten.eu.org> writes
>In a US court, both sides pay their own costs.
Wrong.
>Why should Franklin Mint be out for the defence costs of a case which
>they won?
They aren't.
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> writes
>But what is Franklin's case?
The acronym S.L.A.P.P. may spring to one's mind...
>That they own the rights to Di's image? If so, how on earth did they
>get them?
They paid a photographer (or an agency) for the rights to a photograph
or series of photographs?
They're not seeking their defense (sic) costs, for they already got
those; IIRC, they're seeking punitive damages for "harm to their
reputation" which, given the harm to their reputation directly caused by
their own antics, may seem more than a little preposterous.
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie
<fmn...@hotmail.com> writes
>I will be recommending a boycott of your products to my entire contact list,
>pointing out why they should not buy Diana merchandise from you or other
>sources not authorised by the DPWT. Said contacts are of course free to make
>their own consumer choices about your other
>product ranges.
>
>Perhaps you will re-consider your actions when it begins to hurt your own
>commercial viability?
IMO, all UK newspapers and magazines should henceforth boycott any and
all advertising from or on behalf of The Franklin Mint and/or any/all of
its subsidiaries, at least until TFM discontinues their litigation and
pays all the defendants' costs.
--
< Paul >
Ian G Batten
FMNT80 <fmn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I will be recommending a boycott of your products to my entire contact list,
Call me a snob, but the sort of people who are on the contact list of
Usenet-using Demon customers and the sort of people who buy Franklin
Mint products strike me as non-overlapping demographics.
ian
Peachy
"Paul C. Dickie" <p...@bozzie.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:69xrrKaIn9F$Ew...@bozzie.demon.co.uk...
<snip>
>
> They're not seeking their defense (sic) costs, for they already got
> those; IIRC, they're seeking punitive damages for "harm to their
> reputation" which, given the harm to their reputation directly caused by
> their own antics, may seem more than a little preposterous.
>
charity and take a lot of money away from those who need it, not to mention
staff being made redundant. Henceforth, they will be always remembered as
the company who bankrupted DPWC ....wonder how much yearly revenue they'll
lose over that?
A agree with the suggestion that they should have asked in the first place
about producing the dolls and other stuff and then donated a small
percentage to the charity. FM products are just expensive tat anyway IMHO:-)
--
Peachy
email is valid, just remove "nospam"
Murchadh
>On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:51:45 +0100, Richard Miller
><ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>In a US court, both sides pay their own costs. Why should Franklin Mint
>>>be out for the defence costs of a case which they won? What on earth
>>>was the fund's case: ``margarine tubs aren't tacky but dolls are?''
>>>That the fund is a charity is neither here nor there: being a good cause
>>>doesn't give you a license to do whatever you want.
>
>>But what is Franklin's case? That they own the rights to Di's image? If
>>so, how on earth did they get them?
>
>IIUC the original case was that the DPWT claimed that *they* owned the
>rights to Di's image, and sued Franklin for using her image. Franklin
>successfully defended the action, but was out of pocket by a
>considerable amount because US courts don't award costs.
I always say it takes an expert to know those little but vital
details! How long have you been teaching law?
Murchadh
Murchadh
Gosh, so much managerial talent just going to waste! You guys should
send your CVs to FM - they'd be stunned at the quality of the advice
purveyed on this group!
Murchadh
Murchadh
wrote:
>
>"pork'n'stuffing" <sau...@meat.com> wrote in message
>news:0tRQa.56$4E2...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
>> "Graham Openshaw" <nos...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:37r5hvcdgtqsicsch...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> > Could you all please go to http://tinyurl.com/gp3o and post a message
>> > of support for Franklin Mint.
>> >
>> > The Diana, Princess of Wales memorial fund had no right to do what
>> > they did and should be perused to the fullest extent of the law.
>>
>> Under 'normal' circumstances I would agree with that, but on the other
>hand
>> the DPWT is *ENGLISH*, and the Franklin Mint is *MERKIN*. That
>unfortunately
>> clouds my judgement somewhat. Notwithstanding that, having won the case-
>in
>> a 'Merkin court, why am I not surprised - isnt it a bit OTT to then make a
>> further claim against DPWT for "attempting to damage our reputation" which
>> would effectively bankrupt what is at the end of the day a humanitarian
>> cause
>>
>>
>
>My Comments to Franklin Mint:
>
>Whislt I can understand your motivations, surely attempting to recover
>'costs' from
>a charity is non-sensical, cruel, unusual and unfair.
>
>Besides, to call actions the DPWT believed to be in the interests of
>protecting Diana's legacy 'malicous' is IMO misguided.
>
>I will be recommending a boycott of your products to my entire contact list,
>pointing out why they should not buy Diana merchandise from you or other
>sources not authorised by the DPWT. Said contacts are of course free to make
>their own consumer choices about your other
>product ranges.
>
>Perhaps you will re-consider your actions when it begins to hurt your own
>commercial viability?
>
>FMNT80
Wow! When the gloves are off with you, they're off! I'll bet that will
really get them shaking in their shoes at the FM! IF you get a letter
of apology from them please let us know.
I thought that was a damned decent gesture on your part to allow your
contacts to make their own consumer choices about FM's other
product ranges.
You English guys don't screw around when you're putting the boot in.
No wonder you elected Tony Blair as your Headman or whatever he's
called in your political system.
Murchadh
Murchadh
wrote:
Oh gosh, that could ruin fmn80s' whole plan of attack!
I do hope you've made a mistake - I'd hate to see such a brilliaint
riposte against the FM miss its mark!
I shall say a special prayer to St. Jude or whoever the patron saint
of Franklin Mint reprimanders is.
Murchadh
Melin
(Reposting this because it didn't go to all groups the first time -- my bad.)
I've finally had the chance to read the opinion in its entirety. Here's the
story with reference to the attorneys' fees issue.
As I have posted earlier, there are *some* situations in an American court
where a statute (written law passed by the law-making body) provides for the
winning party to be paid its attorneys' fees by the losing party. Under the
statute which governed a portion of the case between the Fund and FM,
attorneys' fees were recoverable. However, fees were not recoverable for the
entire case, which contained causes of action other than the pure statutory
one. Therefore, the trial court in this case apportioned the total amount of
attorneys' fees that were spent by the FM into those which were fairly
attributable to the defense of the statutory cause of action, and those which
were not. The court then awarded as "costs" a sum which included that
apportionment, giving rise to the $2.3 million dollar figure cited here. (The
Fund argued that ten percent of the total fees should be apportioned to the
statutory cause of action; it looks like the court decided to apportion
twenty-five percent to it. That means that seventy-five percent of the
attorneys' fees incurred by FM in the defense of this action were paid by it,
not by the Fund.)
FM is still out, then a significant amount of money which it was forced to
spend to defend itself against the Fund's claims. It has therefore brought a
malicious prosecution action against the Fund, claiming that the Fund did not
have reasonable cause to bring the initial lawsuit. If it can prove that, then
it will be entitled to have the Fund pay the remaining sum of money which FM
spent in defense costs -- a sum which the Fund would have had to pay without
the time and expense of an additional lawsuit if it had brought the case in
England instead of California. There is no "harm to the reputation" involved
in a malicious prosecution action.
Incidentally, in the action against FM, the Fund was seeking more than thirty
million American dollars in lost profits, plus an additional, unspecified
amount for loss of goodwill and lost business opportunities. And -- to those
who are upset or confused about FM's saying that it would seek punitive damages
-- please note that the Fund was seeking $100-$300 million American dollars in
punitive damages from FM. The trial court found that many, if not most, of the
claims brought by the Fund were groundless and unreasonable, without legal
basis, based on the "absurd," and were "just short of frivolous." (These are
words straight out of the Appeals Court's opinion.)
If you're gonna run with the big dogs . . . .
-Melin
Peachy
No thanks, I'm already managing several businesses and really wouldn't want
to work for a company like FM anyway.
Cynic
>>IIUC the original case was that the DPWT claimed that *they* owned the
>>rights to Di's image, and sued Franklin for using her image. Franklin
>>successfully defended the action, but was out of pocket by a
>>considerable amount because US courts don't award costs.
>
>I always say it takes an expert to know those little but vital
>details! How long have you been teaching law?
I don't. Look up the meaning of the acronym "IIUC" and also see
Melin's post, which if correct shows my understanding was somewhere
near the mark.
--
Cynic
Paul Wolff
<jafni...@ntlworld.com> writes
>On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 20:30:11 +0100, Paul Wolff
><boun...@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>They were awarded $2,308,00 costs, as I read the judgement at
>>http://www.adlawbyrequest.com/inthecourts/charity070102.shtml
>>
>>... as I posted a few days ago :(
>
>
Whoops. Look on the bright side - copy'n'paste is working just fine :)
--
Paul
Paul C. Dickie
<murc...@shaw.ca> writes
>On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 13:17:57 +0100, "Peachy"
><sb1...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Paul C. Dickie" <p...@bozzie.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:69xrrKaIn9F$Ew...@bozzie.demon.co.uk...
>>> those; IIRC, they're seeking punitive damages for "harm to their
>>> reputation" which, given the harm to their reputation directly caused by
>>> their own antics, may seem more than a little preposterous.
>>>
>>It sure does because if they win their damages claim, it could bankrupt the
>>charity and take a lot of money away from those who need it, not to mention
>>staff being made redundant. Henceforth, they will be always remembered as
>>the company who bankrupted DPWC ....wonder how much yearly revenue they'll
>>lose over that?
>
>send your CVs to FM - they'd be stunned at the quality of the advice
>purveyed on this group!
I for one would not work for such a bunch of chisellers. Nor would
anyone else with the least vestige of conscience, for much of their
overpriced bric-a-brac is hardly likely to appreciate in value this side
of the year 3000.
Now factor in how much the lawsuit might have harmed rather than
enhanced their reputation in the UK and amongst anglo-philes the world
over, and you *might* just begin to understand that Franklin Mint
haven't just shot themselves in the foot. They've used a machine-gun.
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie
<murc...@shaw.ca> writes
Which, on the statutory case, they're not.
>Doesn't it amaze you how little these English people know outside
>their own tiny little country?
It certainly amazes me that British lives were lost saving those silly
Canadians from the French but then, if the UK hadn't done that, where
else might they have deposited the flotsam and jetsam from the C19th
experiments in human eugenics?
>Thank God my kids didn't go to school there!
Indeed, for I should not wish your spawn infesting the UK.
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie
<I.G.B...@batten.eu.org> writes
You may be correct, as I'd expect Demon customers to have more sense
than to *buy* such tawdry bric-a-brac.
They might accept such as a gift, though -- but only to put on a charity
side-show stall entitled "Break a pot with a pound". o-)
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie
<yerawsittin@home.?> writes
>Graham Openshaw wrote:
>> Could you all please go to http://tinyurl.com/gp3o and post a message
>> of support for Franklin Mint.
>
It is nothing of the sort; shit can be used as a fertiliser, whereas
their gaudy and tawdry bric-a-brac can't.
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie
<murc...@shaw.ca> writes
>Well they did have to spend $4 million defending themselves.
When one compares that to their advertising budget, one might wonder why
they're so worried about petty cash. Full page adverts in the glossies
and Sunday supplements aren't exactly cheap...
>I imagine they felt they should get their money back as damages, rather
>than kissing it goodbye.
Perhaps, but their attempted punitive action will probably have cost
them rather more in lost sales than they might have hoped to have won.
And then there's their assertion that any damages they won would be
donated to the charities supported by Diana. Was that just more
American flim-flam or does that mean that the FM doesn't want the money
after all?
Or was it an attempt to repair the damage to their reputation caused by
their punitive action?
And what of the abortive attempt by The Franklin Mint to oppose the
registration of the trademarks of the DPWMF, detailed in full at
http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/legal/decisions/2002/o03702.pdf ? Franklin
Mint lost those cases, yet the DPWMF was awarded a paltry Ł2000 towards
their costs. In the interests of "fair play", shouldn't FM pay *all*
the Fund's costs?
>I think the blame could be laid entirely at the door of the people
>running the DPWT who apparently thought that exploiting the memory of
>a dead woman was their legal prerogative.
Really? What about those Americans who seek to profit from the lasting
(and irrational) devotion to a bloated, burger-guzzling, hip-swinging
popular beat music singer who died of a heart attack whilst having a
crap? They certainly seem to have the idea that their brand image is
their own fiefdom.
>I'm surprised by your childish reaction to an American court finding a
>British charity in what is clearly the wrong and your equally immature
>reaction to the concept of damages.
Phooey -- the decision is simply irrational when one considers the
likely fate of anyone, anywhere, who is daft enough to sell Elvises.
>It seems English "fair play" is
>only operative when it favours the English.
Vide http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/legal/decisions/2002/o03702.pdf and
learn; better still, get someone to read it to you and, where necessary,
explain any long words.
>You should take a course on basic morality.
You should take a course in basic manners, but it would probably be
wasted on you.
--
< Paul >
Murchadh
<p...@bozzie.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <r4vfhv0duk24ja426...@4ax.com>, Murchadh
><murc...@shaw.ca> writes
>>On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 12:22:43 +0100, "Paul C. Dickie"
>><p...@bozzie.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In article <bf0pp3$s5c$1...@ftel.ftel.co.uk>, Ian G Batten
>>><I.G.B...@batten.eu.org> writes
>>>>In a US court, both sides pay their own costs.
>>>Wrong.
>>>>Why should Franklin Mint be out for the defence costs of a case which
>>>>they won?
>>>They aren't.
>
>Which, on the statutory case, they're not.
>
>>Doesn't it amaze you how little these English people know outside
>>their own tiny little country?
>
>It certainly amazes me that British lives were lost saving those silly
>Canadians from the French but then, if the UK hadn't done that, where
>else might they have deposited the flotsam and jetsam from the C19th
>experiments in human eugenics?
>
>>Thank God my kids didn't go to school there!
>
>Indeed, for I should not wish your spawn infesting the UK.
Well that's your bad luck, because they do - I didn't emigrate to
Canada until I was an adult, so most of my family still lives in
Scotland.
Murchadh
Paul C. Dickie
<murc...@shaw.ca> writes
>I didn't emigrate to Canada until I was an adult,
And thereby raising the average IQ of the populations of both the UK
*and* Canada...
--
< Paul >
Murchadh
Whoa! There's a witty one! It was even wittier when it was said during
a comedy show in 1942 by Red Skelton, but what the hell, if you can't
think up your own lines, why not steal a few golden oldies and pray
God no one's left alive who still remembers them.
Murchadh
Cynic
>>>I always say it takes an expert to know those little but vital
>>>details! How long have you been teaching law?
>>I don't. Look up the meaning of the acronym "IIUC" and also see
>>Melin's post, which if correct shows my understanding was somewhere
>>near the mark.
>I won't bother, because you're full of shit and I really won't waste
>my precious free time on people who know nothing.
You won't bother because it shows I was closer to the mark than you
thought.
--
Cynic
Murchadh
Sorry - you weren't even close.
Murchadh
tim
"Paul C. Dickie" <p...@bozzie.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:y9$pLZZwb9F$Ew...@bozzie.demon.co.uk...
> In article <0tRQa.56$4E2...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>,
> pork'n'stuffing <sau...@meat.com> writes
> >Under 'normal' circumstances I would agree with that, but on the other hand
> >the DPWT is *ENGLISH*, and the Franklin Mint is *MERKIN*. That unfortunately
> >clouds my judgement somewhat. Notwithstanding that, having won the case- in
> >a 'Merkin court, why am I not surprised - isnt it a bit OTT to then make a
> >further claim against DPWT for "attempting to damage our reputation" which
> >would effectively bankrupt what is at the end of the day a humanitarian
> >cause
>
> Franklin Mint, that must surely be the person(s) who decided to sue the
> DPWT. Indeed, it would surely have been better for both parties to have
> settled the original action out of court, with the DPWT giving the FM a
> licence to issue "official" kitsch and with the FM paying a small amount
> per item sold to the DPWT.
Apparently FM made this offer to DPWT who rejected it
Tim
>
> --
> < Paul >
tim
"Murchadh" <murc...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:r4vfhv0duk24ja426...@4ax.com...
> their own tiny little country?
We know a damned sight more than the average American knows.
> I know English knowhow has always been
> a joke, but it's breathtaking to actually see such sheer ignorance
> paraded as knowledgeable fact.
If you see a problem with what is posted, please correct it.
Sniping helps no-one
> Thank God my kids didn't go to school there!
??????
Tim
>
> Murchadh
John of Aix
"Murchadh" <murc...@shaw.ca> a écrit dans le message de news:
4egmhvk4arpsuoalf...@4ax.com...
Except you it seems. You must be old. Did you get your Maundy Money
again this year?
John of Aix
> You English guys don't screw around when you're putting the boot in.
> No wonder you elected Tony Blair as your Headman or whatever he's
> called in your political system.
Well it used to be Prime Minister now it's either Poodle or Wanker.
Murchadh
Naw. Ah'm no *nglish. Ah dinna want yer bawbees, bastard face.
Murchadh