Mirth-Inducing Monikers

Recently there were a couple of IP stories that tickled the funny bone…

The first, which we’ve already written about (and you can find here) involved a screenwriter called J R Wicker suing the makers of John Wick. As we looked into it a bit more, we discovered that the Wicker name does feature in the script alleged to have been infringed, so maybe it’s not quite as poetically coincidental as it first appeared.

The second was a little closer to home: a couple named Robinson are suing Britvic (makers of Robinsons squash) over an unlicensed photo of their glamping cabin. On our first reading of the reports, we totally misunderstood the story. We linked Robinsons and Britvic straight away and thought, ‘Why are the property owners suing over a photo the squash people took themselves?’

We had to read that one over again! The Robinsons, who run the Magic Mushroom Cabin in Northamptonshire, are suing Britvic. Their lawyers claimed that the company used an image of their site, taken by Mrs Robinson, without permission to promote its competition to win a “unique summer hangout”.
Britvic admitted using the photo to promote its competition, but its barrister said the Robinsons are “put to proof as to their alleged ownership of the copyright in the photograph”.

(We really hope counsel puts “and also, funnily enough…” in their skeleton…)

These got us thinking though, are there more of these coincidental names in cases? Maybe a Mrs Hem v a Savile Row tailors? A Mr Haddock v Local Chip Shop, following a deep fat frying employment injury?

There are a few we found, but also a lot of cases that we thought were funny, without being specifically name-related.

They’re interesting enough to share a few with you here though.

First off we’ve gone for

Batman v. Commissioner

No, Jim Gordon and Batman haven’t fallen out, this was a 1951 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the area of partnership taxation. Bit duller than Batman suing for loss of Batarangs, or misuse of shark repellent, but our interest was piqued nonetheless.

It involved a bid by a Texas farmer by the name of Raymond L. Batman to convert his farm into a family partnership by transferring some of its assets to his son. Being a case about tax, it became Batman v. Commissioner.

Ultimately, a panel of judges unanimously upheld the decision of the Tax Court that disallowed Mr Batman’s bid.

The Tax Court judge found that the actions taken to convert the farm into a partnership did not demonstrate a genuine desire by the son to become his father’s partner, but actually a desire by Mr Batman to reduce his individual tax liability.

Hamburger v. Fry

Another one from the 1950s, this time the 1958 case decided by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma. Jerry and Arlie Hamburger, along with Rex Gilworth (but that name isn’t as humorous) v L.A. Fry.

The original judgment was for the sum of $3,419.20. The plaintiff, a wholesale gasoline and oil dealer, claimed in his petition, filed in August 1956, that this amount was due to him for gasoline and oil he had sold for resale in a “Hamburger Service”.

The case primarily dealt with procedural law regarding whether a trial court abused its judicial discretion by refusing to vacate a default judgment.

United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins

Now we move on to one of the most intriguingly named cases we’ve heard of…

In 2008 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the government couldn’t forfeit a shipment of shark fins because the seizure exploited a loophole in the Shark Finning Prohibition Act.

The Act bans fishing vessels from possessing shark fins without carcasses on international waters or landing with a ratio over 5%.

Because the transport ship wasn’t legally classified as an active fishing vessel, and had actually purchased the fins from other ships whilst at sea, the court ruled the government couldn’t forfeit the shipment, because the transport ship fell through a gap in the Shark Finning Prohibition Act .

That legal loophole found in this case was later closed by Congress when it passed the Shark Conservation Act.

More or Less…

The US versus large amounts of things is more common than you may have thought. Take the “United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls” for instance. As case names go, that’s a doozy.

This one’s a federal civil forfeiture case from 1976 where the U.S. government sued a shipment of toys to have them condemned and destroyed.

This being an in rem proceeding accounts for the unusual name, but a U.S. District Court ruled that the balls posed a “mechanical hazard” under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. They could shatter upon impact and send sharp shards into children’s faces or cause blunt-force injuries. If you’re old enough to remember clacker balls, Headmasters across the U.K. didn’t feel the need for government backing and they were banned from most school playgrounds.

What’s in a name?

We won’t go into “United States ex rel. Mayo v. Satan and His Staff” but suffice to say there’s quite the rabbit hole of quirkily named cases to lose yourself in should you have a spare hour or three.

From Batmans battling the taxman to Hamburgers taking on Fry, sometimes it’s not the legal arguments themselves that catch our attention, but the names attached to them. And while we’d never suggest choosing your legal representation based on the potential for an amusing case name, we’ll certainly be keeping an eye out for the next coincidence that gives us a reason to smile.