
South Butt's legal response to North Face complaint - timr
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24837101/South-Butt-answer-to-North-Face-complaint
======
grellas
Prior related thread: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1047500>.

This answer is pretty unorthodox by the normally staid standards of federal
court practice and seems aimed as much as anything at generating
sensationalism for the defendants' side of the case. I also note that the
background of the lead attorney defending South Butt, Albert S. Watkins, is
varied and colorful but does not include any mention of trademark expertise
(<http://www.kwmwlaw.com/albert-watkins>).

A reading of this answer suggests that the defense case may be pretty thin,
and I would therefore speculate that the main strategy is to try to force
North Face through extraneous means (i.e., by generating unending bad
publicity) into dropping or settling the suit.

~~~
jrockway
In addition to the strange style, I think it's interesting that they demand a
jury trial. That seems to support your theory that this is aimed at generating
a lot of bad publicity.

I am confused by remarks like "although the client looks 14 and acts like he's
12 at times". "Hilarious", but I would keep remarks like that on my blog
rather that in legal documents. Maybe I just have too much respect for the
legal system...

"Williams Pharmacy" is also listed as a defendant. Who is that?

~~~
tricky
He started selling his shirts at a mom-and-pop pharmacy down the street from
his house.

------
andrewcooke
There's a lot to read. The best bits are at the start and end:

Interestingly, while North Face introduces its Complaint herein by referencing
its founders, the present owner of the North Face brand, VF Corporation
(formerly known as Vanity Fair Corporation, not to be confused with the Conde
Naste publication of the same name), also is understood to own Jansport,
Eastpak, Napajiri and Kipling (among others), generally but eroneously
perceived by the marketplace as independent competitors of North Face. The
original North face founders are understood to have stopped exploring the very
brand they created.

...

Plaintiff's (NF) products are marketed as products that are to be used in
furtherance of an adventurous lifestyle full of exploring, climbing, hiking,
skiiing and other outdoor activities.

Plaintiff's (NF) products are generally perceived and actively marketed to be
expensive items for the "exploring" consumer.

Despite paragraph 3 and because of paragraph 4, Plaintiff's products are
perceived as being largely consumed by those who have little to no interest in
living an adventurous lifestyle, but, rather, are interested in acquiring
Plaintiff's products for the status and/or notoriety they receive from being
seen in Plaintiff's expensive apparel and accesories.

Defendants recognise this bizarre phenomenon.

Defendants, utilizing parody, are making a bona fide social commentary on the
_pervasive banality, frivolity, absurdity and comedic nature of the consumer
culture and those who participate therein_.

------
johnbender
I believe it's "South Butte"

