Rumor has it that BAR/BRI entered into a consent decree. If you've signed up for one of their classes over the past few years, you get a $125 check. Woo hoo!
In other news, I upgraded the blawg to the new templates from Blogger. Any thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Whoa! I thought I wandered into the wrong place (like I've been doing with my classes... anyone else lost in Wolf these days, or is it just me?).
Looks nice, Hakim.
JF will love the consent decree topic..
What prompted the redesign....? I already miss the old...Just like Fleming.
Oh, and this covers us? One of the sites said the dates run through August 2006.... I'm one of the slackers who didn't make a deposit until October of last year.
Sucka...
As for what prompted the new design, it makes adding in other features (such as a feed of videos from the Daily Show) a heck of a lot easier.
The other nice new feature is that you can subscribe to comments through RSS.
Thanks Panther Bits!
I like this one better. It is more CU-ish...
That's MUCH better. ;-)
My general counsel had the same thought. I think it constitutes nominative fair use under Alexander's Department Stores, descriptive fair use under Lanham § 33 (b)(4), or even parody/satire under the "Dom Popignon" case.
But, then again, who's counting? ;-)
Oh, there's no copyright infringement here, my friend--it's parody and criticism!
Honestly, I doubt there’s a copyright concern—copyright does not apply to short phrases like the logo, so your primary concern would be trademark. Still, you’re probably alright on trademark because: (1) there is a “nominative” use exception, for when you’re only using someone else’s trademark to describe them; and (2) any infringement would require a trademark use “in commerce;” e.g., you would need to be profiting from the website, and the profit would have to come from the fact that consumers are tricked by your logo into believing that CU Law somehow sponsors this blawg . . . a quick perusal of the comments would immediately refute that misconception!
(Maybe the pure artwork in the logo could raise a copyright concern, but, “fair use” would probably cover it, given the clearly parodic character of your use; I suggest forging ahead in the face of any “cease and desist” . . .)
Post a Comment