Another law student: actually, this specific case probably isn't. this - #111586655 added by anonymous at dumb starbucks

#7 - wretchedlarva

Reply +29 123456789123345869

(02/10/2014) [-]

This can't be legal. Someone please prove me wrong.

#84 to #7 - timelordjam

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(02/11/2014) [-]

I am starbucks brother and laws cousin. is very real

#30 to #7 - rollmeanddie

Reply +9 123456789123345869

(02/10/2014) [-]

I am Manuela's fourth leg and I can confirm this is legal.

#31 to #30 - wretchedlarva

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(02/10/2014) [-]

I wish I could give you 100 thumbs up.

#33 to #31 - rollmeanddie

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(02/10/2014) [-]

I wish we could be together, but alas, I am but a lowly manwhore.

#34 to #33 - wretchedlarva

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(02/10/2014) [-]

please add my on skype i want to love you. message me <3

#38 to #34 - rollmeanddie

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(02/10/2014) [-]

I fear I am in the middle of moving and have only my phone, but I shall return for thee!

#39 to #38 - wretchedlarva

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(02/10/2014) [-]

please do, i love you 5ever lets get married pls

#42 to #39 - rollmeanddie

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(02/10/2014) [-]

I must finish my quest, my sweet, but I swear that once I have slain the dragon of Bonecap Mountain, we'll be wed that day's morrow, and the beast's head will hang above our mantle!

#8 to #7 - lordgeneral

Reply +242 123456789123345869

(02/10/2014) [-]

lawschool student here. it's legal.

#95 to #8 - pkrbarmovie

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(02/11/2014) [-]

How could someone discredit that argument? I wonder how come a "lawschool" student can not know what "prove" means...

#82 to #8 - anon id: b5e0cba6

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(02/11/2014) [-]

NO IT ISN'T THAT IS ******** NO COURT WOULD CONCLUDE THAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY USING THE LOGO AS A PARODY AND EVEN IF THEY WERE YOU CAN'T USE PARODIES LIKE THAT. YOU CAN'T JUST SAY IT'S A PARODY AND HAVE A JUDGE OR JURY BELIEVE YOU. THIS IS ******** STOP THUMBING IT UP YOU IDIOTS.

#71 to #8 - iamundecided

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(02/11/2014) [-]

How can you be in law school AND be on fj at the same time?
Lawyered
-Aspiring law student.

#64 to #8 - anon id: b5e0cba6

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(02/11/2014) [-]

Another law student: actually, this specific case probably isn't. this document is pretty damning. It clearly shows that their actual intent isn't a parody. while parody use in general is legal, you have to meet certain standards of proof and this clearly cuts against it. if anyone is actually interested there's a case about vanna white and a parody robot likeness of her. You need to login to view this link

#25 to #8 - robotekk

0 123456789123345869

has deleted their comment [-]

#50 to #25 - kuchikirukia

Reply +7 123456789123345869

(02/10/2014) [-]

As someone who comes from anywhere on the internet, I can confirm I'm a moron.

#9 to #8 - wretchedlarva

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(02/10/2014) [-]

What about when Apple sued all those people for "copying"? What about Flappy Bird and Nintendo? How is this different? I know it's "parody" but it sounds like an excuse.

#112 to #9 - dangaddy

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(02/11/2014) [-]

flappy bird thing is wrong, you ******* retard

#10 to #9 - lordgeneral

Reply +2 123456789123345869

(02/10/2014) [-]

the apple suit wasn't presented as parody, and flappy bird is owned by nintendo. any further questions?

#12 to #10 - wretchedlarva

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(02/10/2014) [-]

Pretty sure Flappy Bird was sued because of the Mario pipes.