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

#7 - wretchedlarva

Reply+29

(02/10/2014)[-]

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

#84 to #7 - timelordjam

Reply+1

(02/11/2014)[-]

I am starbucks brother and laws cousin. is very real

#30 to #7 - rollmeanddie

Reply+9

(02/10/2014)[-]

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

#31 to #30 - wretchedlarva

Reply0

(02/10/2014)[-]

I wish I could give you 100 thumbs up.

#33 to #31 - rollmeanddie

Reply0

(02/10/2014)[-]

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

#34 to #33 - wretchedlarva

Reply+1

(02/10/2014)[-]

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

#38 to #34 - rollmeanddie

Reply0

(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

(02/10/2014)[-]

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

#42 to #39 - rollmeanddie

Reply+1

(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

(02/10/2014)[-]

lawschool student here. it's legal.

#95 to #8 - pkrbarmovie

Reply0

(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

Reply0

(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

Reply0

(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

Reply0

(02/11/2014)[-]

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

#25 to #8 - robotekk

has deleted their comment [-]

#50 to #25 - kuchikirukia

Reply+7

(02/10/2014)[-]

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

#9 to #8 - wretchedlarva

Reply0

(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

Reply0

(02/11/2014)[-]

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

#10 to #9 - lordgeneral

Reply+2

(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

Reply0

(02/10/2014)[-]

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