Uh oh. Google may have inadvertently placed itself within the cross-hairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its dictator, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  According to reports, Iran is threatening to sue Google over its labeling, or lack therof, of a body of water on Google Maps.  No, seriously.  Iran claims it will sue Google if the search engine giant does not re-label the gulf between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula known as the “Persian Gulf.”  It must be fun to be Google’s general counsel, Kent Walker.  “Hey, Kent . . . the Foreign Minster of Iran is on line 2.” How does law school prepare you for that telephone call?

The name of the body of water in dispute has long been a point of contention in the Middle East.   It is known by many names: the “Persian Gulf,” the “Arabian Gulf,” the “Islamic Gulf,” the “Arabo-Persian Gulf” and sometimes, simply, “The Gulf.”  In its mapping services, Google previously listed two names for the body of water: the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Gulf.  But it recently made a change. In what was meant to be a peace-keeping move in the naming dispute, Google removed both names from Google Maps earlier this month. Apparently, that didn’t do the trick and resolve the dispute.

Iran (formerly known as Persia) is a wee bit obsessed with this naming issue.  It previously threatened to ban airlines from using its airspace unless they refered to the body of water exclusively as the “Persian Gulf.”  Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast told the Associated Press that “Google had better fix things or the company will be hit with ‘serious damages’.”

A mighty strange issue, this naming dispute. But this kerfuffle is not the first time that Google has gone head to head with foreign countries. See also, China.  Then again, this stand-off is so funny that we suspect – at least somewhat – that it could be some type of publicity stunt by Sacha Baron Cohen in support of his new movie The Dictator. Hey, that could be true, right? Well, maybe.

So get this. I’m sitting at my desk the other day, minding my own business, when all of a sudden, my left leg starts twitching. Which is no big deal, really. I keep my cell phone in my front left pants pocket, and it’s almost always set to vibrate. And so, when my leg twitches, it has historically meant that I’m getting a phone call or text. I instinctively reached for my phone. And that is precisely the moment when I realized something was amiss. My phone wasn’t there. Despite the fact that my physical senses told me—without the shadow of a doubt—that my phone was in my pocket vibrating away, in reality, my phone was sitting on top of my desk, right in front of me, decidedly not in my pocket, and it was not ringing.

My first reaction was not one of scientific curiosity. I did not ponder the implications—physiological, psychological, perhaps even emotional—of this new, strange attachment that my left thigh had developed toward an inanimate object. Instead, I bowed my head in frustration and shame. My body never seems to get anything right. When I was growing up in East Tennessee, it was important to be good at sports. Unfortunately, my body interpreted the word “important” to mean “be as incompetent as possible.” The concept of hand/eye coordination eluded me the same way that the concept of an earth that revolved around sun eluded the medieval church. Not to be outdone by my eyes and arms, my knees have since decided that they will be largely ineffective in running long distances or handling downhill hikes. Now, it seems, one of my large muscle groups has developed an unnatural, metaphysical relationship with my iPhone. In my estimation, this was just another let-down in a long chain of body-related disappointments.

I’ve tried looking on the bright side. But I don’t think there is one. It would be one thing if my leg twitched only when my cell phone was actually vibrating. That would basically set my quad up to be a remote early warning detection device for a ringing phone, which I could at least pass off as a cool party trick. But, no. My leg wanted to develop a super-power so irrelevant that not even the local news would care.

And while I’m making embarrassing confessions, I’ve got a really bad habit about using the Internet to solve  unanswered questions I may have about anything. Usually, this is an awful idea, like when you’re sick and you Google your symptoms only to discover that you’ve developed typhoid, or alternatively, when you have Typhoid and you Google your disease only to find out that you can only catch typhoid if you’ve forded a river in a covered wagon and you’ve also just lost several of your oxen:

Regardless, I Googled my symptoms anyway. To my shock and chagrin, not only have other people experienced the same phenomenon, there’s a name for it: Phantom Vibration Syndrome. A fair number of people—ostensibly just as defective as I am—have reported the same circumstance where they believe they’re receiving an incoming call, feel their phone vibrating, and realize their phone is nowhere on them. And it’s a syndrome. Then I began to wonder if anyone has exploited this, say, through class action litigation, and if so, how do I get a piece of that pie??

The short answer: it looks like there’s no litigation out there. Sad. I guess it only makes sense when you think about it. There’s no physical damages. And to the extent there could be, I kinda brought it on myself. But who knows? Maybe there is a potential threat of litigation against cell phone manufacturers based on this phantom physical experience. And while I do believe such a suit would be ultimately unsuccessful, as everyone knows, there’s a lot of litigation to be done before the case would be kicked out of court.

In the mean time, I guess I’ll just continue to live with myself, biding my time til the next opportunity for my body to come up with some weirdo excuse for being lame.

As we previously mentioned, we here at Abnormal Use spent May 2012 focusing on comic book covers featuring police line-ups.  Well, today is the first day of June, but we thought we’d share one more line-up cover with you, our dear readers. Above, you’ll find the cover of Justice Traps The Guilty #56, which appears to have been published way, way back in late 1953.  Just like last week’s cover, there is no barrier between the suspects in the line-up and the witness making the identification. This, to us, seems unsafe.

Davis Francis of the David Francis Law Firm, writing at his blog (which is called, simply, The Blog), discusses the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s new pool safety tips and even gives our earlier post on the matter a shout-out!

Since we very recently discussed the issue of vinyl records, we direct you to Roy Furchgott’s recent New York Times article, entitled “The Secrets of a High-Quality Vinyl Record.” Indeed.

Speaking of music, friend of the blog Matt Wake of The Huntsville Times recently published “9 destinations across the Southeast every music lover should visit.” A good list, though we, of course, would have included Harvest Records in Asheville, North Carolina and Horizon Records in Greenville, South Carolina.

“Is Blogging Dead?” asks Susan Cartier Liebel. Our response: Fear not, dear readers. We still live.

Whoa! The Charlotte Business Journal ran a brief profile of our North Carolina office this week. See here!

For many of us, an engagement ring is one of the first major purchases of our lives.    In 2011, the average engagement ring costs $5,392.  The common norm suggests spending three months salary on a ring.  Ouch.  The price is small when compared to the benefit of sharing your life with another, we suppose.  But what happens to the ring if the marriage ends in divorce?  Or, even worse, if the wedding never takes place?  The ring-purchaser can certainly think of a few other bills to pay with three months salary.

Recently, in Campbell v. Robinson, No. 4969 (S.C. Ct. App. May 9, 2011), the South Carolina Court of Appeals offered its thoughts on the age old former-relationship property dispute.  After their engagement was cancelled, Campbell sued his ex-fiance, Robinson, seeking a declaration that he owned an engagement ring he presented to her during the proposal.  In addition, he sought restitution for the benefit Robinson received while possessing the ring.  Robinson counterclaimed for breach of the promise to marry and sought recovery of her prenuptial expenditures.  We suspect there may have been some awkward depositions during this case. The trial court charged the jury that Campbell would receive the ring if Robinson was at-fault for ending the engagement and vice versa.  The jury found for Campbell on Robinson’s breach of the promise to marry claim.  However, the jury determined that Campbell was at-fault for ending the engagement and, thus, was not entitled to recover the ring.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that fault has no bearing in determining ownership of an engagement ring.  Rather, an engagement ring is conditioned on the marriage taking place.

Guess what? I myself had the pleasure of watching the trial of this case when I was in law school.  To sum it up nicely, the trial was equal parts property law lecture and soap opera.  Because this was a case of first impression in South Carolina, the arguments regarding the law took much longer than the trial itself.  Even as a law student, I can remember questioning the imposition of “fault” into basic gift law.  For starters, what does “fault” even mean in this context? Is the at-fault party the one whose conduct led to the demise of the relationship?  Or is the at-fault party the one who actually calls off the engagement?  The jury was never given any guidance.   You can imagine the helter skelter craziness that must have transpired in the deliberation room.

Once fault became an element, the trial became suitable for television.  With countless “he said, she said” arguments, the jury becomes the arbiter for choosing sides in a break-up – not resolving a property dispute.  Decisions like these are best left for Judge Judy.

At the end of the day, the Court of Appeals got this one right.  For now, the easiest way to resolve these disputes is by treating the ring as a conditional gift and applying gift law principles.  But in the future, these disputes could be easily eliminated if we required reciprocal gifts at the time of the engagement.  Who would sue for the return of a ring if it meant giving up your new set of golf clubs?  Not me.

“All bourbon is whiskey, but not all whiskey is bourbon.”  So begins an especially amusing opinion in which the the Sixth Circuit gives Jose Cuervo a history lesson on one of the pillar’s of American society: bourbon.  It is an especially American concoction, Judge Martin of Kentucky observes, one that has been enjoyed since 1774 by everyone from Elijah Craig to Ulysses S. Grant, who apparently had a preference for Old Crow.

Plaintiff Maker’s Mark Distillery, Inc. has been sealing its bottles with red wax since the 1950’s, which it registered as trademark in 1985 (Reg. No. 1469925).  In 1997, the parent company for Jose Cuervo began using a red sealing wax on its special edition “Riserva de la Familia” tequila, shown here.  Maker’s Mark took exception to the use of the red sealing wax and, after Jose Cuervo refused to change the design, filed suit for trademark infringement in 2003.

Now, most people might be reluctant to challenge the strength and recognition of Maker’s Mark’s trade dress in a U.S. District Court in western Kentucky; but hey, too much tequila can make a man do strange things sometimes.  At least Jose Cuervo was sophisticated enough to request a bench trial, taking out of play the risk that it would end up with 12 bourbon-loving Kentucky jurors.  In a shocking turn of events, the district court found that Maker’s Mark’s registered trademark consisting of its signature trade dress element – a red dripping wax seal – was valid and infringed and enjoined Jose Cuervo from using any similar design.  The Sixth Circuit agreed and upheld the district court’s award of costs to Maker’s Mark.

Trade dress is an often unnoticed, but highly valuable form of intellectual property.  Recognized as a “symbol” or “device” under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1052), trade dress typically encompasses the actual shape or design of a product or its packaging.  Some famous examples include the Coca-Cola bottle or Tiffany’s blue box.  Unlike traditional trademarks, trade dress must have acquired distinctiveness and it cannot be “functional.”  For example, if you see a small blue box wrapped in white ribbon, you don’t have to see the Tiffany’s mark before knowing where it came from.  Showing this level of recognition at trial can require a substantial amount of evidence. In this case, the Court found that Maker’s Mark’s fifty years of advertising and substantial sales were enough to satisfy the requirement.  It also did not hurt that in 2002 Business Week declared the Maker’s Mark’s seal “one of the most recognizable in the world.”

So next time you go to buy bourbon be rest assured that if you get the bottle sealed in red wax, it’s going to be a Maker’s Mark.

Cheers!

This week, for my triumphant return to the blogosphere, I’m not going to talk about the standard fare of “stupid plaintiff” this or “dumb product” that. Instead, I’ve got a positive message about ingenuity and the virtue of inspired product engineering. I’ve got a message about Bovinova.

For those of you that don’t know, Bovinova is a massive epicurean barbecue hosted right here in Greenville, South Carolina, and it happened not too long ago on May 19. The main event of Bovinova involves a whole cow (minus the head) which is slow-roasted over an open fire for 18 hours, all while a host of goats, pigs, lambs, llama, chickens, and turkeys are being cooked. This year, more than 700 guests were served more than 1,000 pounds of meat, which makes Bovinova the leading cause of acute food coma of any event in South Carolina, including Thanksgiving.

In any event, one of the coolest things about Bovinova is the engineering and design that went into the grilling apparatuses. Instead of roasting the animals rotisserie-style, they are secured to a grilling plane. There are only a few places in the world where whole animals are cooked this way, so there’s not a whole lot of institutional knowledge out there about how to design the grilling surface, how to support the weight of a suspended cow for a long period of time, and how to rotate the cow over the fire so that both sides get heat. Obviously, these are not insubstantial questions. If the grill is designed without these aspects in mind, the cow may fall into the fire, large portions of the cow may not be cooked properly, or worst, one of Bovinova’s patrons may get physically ill from the meat.

However, thanks to some forethought and a lot of planning, the team of guys who built the grill anticipated these concerns at the outset of the design stage and engineered their way into effective solutions. What resulted is a grilling system that makes your charcoal Weber look like an easy bake oven. The entire cow can almost effortlessly be pulled off the fire, flipped 180 degrees, and returned to the fire; it can also be elevated at an angle to allow fat to render more effectively. I’m not going to go so far as to say that this is a “set and forget it” type of assembly; but it’s pretty close. As a consequence of their exceptional craftsmanship, not only are the hosts of Bovinova able to stage the biggest, most unusual cookout you’ve ever seen, more importantly, they’re able to do it in a way that minimizes the risk of injury or liability.

And that’s why Bovinova is my new favorite holiday.

On this Memorial Day, we here at Abnormal Use would like to reflect on the American men and women who sacrificed their lives in fighting for our country.  We will forever be indebted to these courageous soldiers for their service.  In their honor, we give you the cover of War Heroes # 5, published way back in 1943.  As you can see, this issue honors one of America’s most infamous war heroes, Major General George S. Patton, Jr., otherwise known as “Old Blood and Guts.”  Little did this comic know, Patton was just beginning to leave his mark on American history.  Following this publication, he was a part of several pivotal moments in World War II, including the Battle of the Bulge in 1944 and crossing the Rhine in 1945.  While Patton did not die in combat, he passed away in Germany as a result of injuries he sustained in a car accident just months after the end of the war.  Today, we salute you, General Patton, and all those who have served our country, before and after.

And, of course, you should revisit our Memorial Day posts from years past – one, featuring another comic book cover, and another, featuring a history of this national holiday.

As we previously mentioned, we here at Abnormal Use are spending May 2012 focusing on comic book covers featuring police line-ups.  Behold! Above, you’ll find the cover to Mr. District Attorney #4, published way, way back in 1948. Okay, it doesn’t look like there is anything in between the purposed “Merchants of Death” and the witness identifying the suspect.  In fact, the suspect who has been identified appears to be glaring icily at the witness from atop some type of raised platform.  This does not bode well for the witness. Alas.

For some reason, yesterday, we here at Abnormal Use were thinking about Star Wars.  It’s a bittersweet topic for us, to be certain. Did you know that two years ago, we published excerpts from several state and federal court cases referencing Star Wars characters? And, of course, our magnum opus was our Star Wars April Fool’s Day gag in 2011. Take a look, if you like.

Speaking of nostalgia, did you know that our very first edition of Friday Links was published way, way back on January 8, 2010? Take a look at that puny first entry – which didn’t even feature an image, much less a legal themed comic book cover – by clicking here!

Have you heard of Tiger Lawyer? If not, it’s clearly something you need to investigate. With a name like that, how can you not?

Don’t forget! You can follow Abnormal Use on Twitter here and on Facebook here! Drop us a line!

Alcohol retailers in Whiteclay Nebraska, a town with a population of 11 people, sold roughly of 4 million cans of beer in 2011.   How is this possible?   Whiteclay is located about 2 miles from the Pine Ridge Reservation of the Oglala Sioux Tribe in South Dakota.  Because of widespread problems with alcohol abuse among tribe members, Pine Ridge is an alcohol free reservation.  However, alcohol abuse problems persist in spite of the alcohol ban.  Tribal leaders blame the Whiteclay retailers for selling alcohol to tribe members who in turn illegally consume it on Pine Ridge or in the streets of Whiteclay.  The tribe has filed a lawsuit against the retailers in Whiteclay, as well as the breweries and distributors, requesting that the court prohibit them from selling alcohol to Native Americans.

Alcohol abuse is undoubtedly a serious problem for the Oglala Sioux Tribe.  As noted in the linked AP article, nearly a quarter of all children born on the reservation suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.  Moreover, the average life expectancy for tribe members is estimated to be less than 52 years, which is about 25 years shorter than for average Americans.  As such, the lawsuit seeks damages for health care costs and other alcohol-related problems on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.  The tribe also wants a judge to prohibit alcohol sales to Native Americans in Whiteclay.

It is certainly interesting that the Tribe has taken the position that alcohol retailers in Whiteclay should discriminate against Native Americans who seek to legally purchase their products.  One can assume that most of the alcohol sold is being illegally smuggled by the purchasers back onto the reservation for consumption.  But do the retailers, distributors, or manufacturers have a legal duty to ensure the products are consumed off of the tribe’s reservation?  And how far would such a duty extend?  If tribe members started driving to the next closest town, would that town’s retailers also be required to refuse sales to Native Americans?

The defendants in the case have moved for summary judgment.  However, if the case is allowed to proceed it has the potential for far reaching problems in the future for beer companies.  As one of the attorneys pointed out in the AP article, if the lawsuit is successful it could force the beer manufacturers to analyze the sales data of all of its distributors and retailers to ensure that none are selling a disproportionate amount if its product.   Small college towns come to mind as other places where the quantity of alcohol sold could likely far exceed the amount expected based on the number of residents who are of drinking age.

This certainly seems to be a hot button issue in Nebraska.  There’s even been a documentary about the retailers and the problems in Whiteclay.  You can watch it here.

With summer on the horizon, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has issued a warning to users of portable pools.  According to the report, an average of 35 children under the age of 5 die annually in portable pools, accounting for 11 percent of all pool drownings.  Considering these statistics, the CPSC obviously has valid reasons for concern.  However, in our usual irreverent way, we here at Abnormal Use must question the sufficiency of the CPSC’s tips for the prevention of such accidents.

There’s nothing necessarily wrong with the CPSC’s tips.  Rather, the advice is more akin to a helpful reminder that breathing is essential to sustain life.  Take this tip for example:

Teach children to swim, float and other-life saving basics.  But do NOT consider young children “drown-proof” because they have had swimming lessons.

No doubt, the ability to swim is a great way to lessen one’s chances of drowning.  We understand that not all parents are ideal, but do people really consider children taking swim lessons as “drown-proof”?  After all, they are called swimming lessons – not Olympic training.  Maybe the better tip would be:

Even children capable of swimming are susceptible to drowning.  When children are playing in pools, always assume that accidents are possible.

Our personal favorite tip is one with a great deal of merit.  It is perfectly logical.  Yet, something about it seems a bit misplaced.

If you can’t fence the pool, use smaller, easier to store portable pools.  Then, empty the water ANY time you are not supervising the pool and turn it upside down or store it away.

Again, it’s good advice.  If a small pool is capable of being drained after each use, it makes sense to do so and take away the hazard.  But is this really the solution?  Reading between the lines, we know what the CPSC really meant to say:

If you choose to purchase an unsightly above-ground pool, fence it in.  If fencing is not an option, save yourself the embarrassment of having others know you purchased an above-ground pool by seeking other options.  Small plastic pools are socially acceptable for young children.  There is no shame in having your children observed temporarily playing in such pools.  But please, empty the water and remove the pools from your yard when not in use.  Teach children to clean up their toys.

Even if fencing is an option, understanding why anyone elects to purchase a large, above-ground pool is beyond our pay-grade.  If the CPSC was forthright, they would have taken inspiration from the late Mitch Hedberg:

Do not be persuaded through television advertising to purchase an above-ground pool.  Those commercials are only 30-seconds long because that is the maximum amount of time you can depict yourself having fun in an above-ground pool.  To prevent accidents and overall boredom, please seek out safer, more entertaining alternatives.

With that said, we do applaud the CPSC’s efforts.  Pools do present a risk of drowning.  With an appropriate level of care, many of these accidents can be prevented.  If you do have a pool in your yard – of any type – we refer you to the most important rule formulated by the Commission:

NEVER leave a child unsupervised near any pool or spa.