The "Lol, no" saga: the lawyer's savage follow-up

While the Cola Corporation's initial response to the LAPD Foundation and its image management firm was short and brutal, its letter to IMG's executives is a masterpiece.

While the "Lol, no" response to an absolute bunk takedown notice was fun, Cola Corporations lawyer Mike Dunford wrote a second, detailed letter to IMG's higher-ups slapping them around and suggesting they owe Cola for their legal fees. Dunford slams IMG's lawyers for knowingly misrepresenting their client as having a non-existent claim. Dunford just pummels IMG:

As you know, and I know, and every competent intellectual property lawyer knows, the 'C' in DMCA stands for "Copyright." Unsurprisingly, a valid DMCA takedown therefore requires a valid, good-faith claim of copyright infringement. But you obviously do not have any such claim — or anything that is in the same time zone as such a claim. Neither the LAPDF nor the Los Angeles Police Department itself owns a copyright to the acronym "LAPD." Nobody does, and nobody can. It is black letter law that individual words and short phrases are not subject to copyright protection. We both know that. Students in Intro to IP classes know that. But as a professional courtesy and on the off chance you somehow forgot, the footnote call at the end of this sentence is a relevant string cite.

The second letter that sent to LAPD reps on my behalf. Even more savage than "LOL, no." I've highlighted my fave parts. What are yours?

[image or embed]

— Cola ( May 13, 2024 at 12:30 PM

via TechDirt