Set in Style

Most judicial opinions are pretty boring. But there are interesting exceptions.

Consider this recent opinion, written by Judge Terence Evans of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in Central Manufacturing, Inc. v. Brett, a case of trademark infringement concerning a “Stealth Bat” marketed by George Brett.

Here’s the intro:

The Pine Tar Incident

It’s undisputed: George Brett was a great baseball player. The statistics from his 21 years in The Show, all with the Kansas City Royals, seal the deal: 3,154 hits, 317 home runs, and a career batting average of .305. Only three other players —- Stan Musial, Hank Aaron, and Willie Mays —- ended their careers with more than 3,000 hits and 300 home runs, while still maintaining a lifetime batting average over .300. Brett’s selection to the Hall of Fame, on the first ballot in 1999, was richly deserved. Yet for all his accomplishments, many who love baseball will always think of the “Pine Tar Incident” as the capstone of his career. It is a joy to recall.

Much more engaging than the typical intro to an opinion, is it not?

Once again, even the best writers need editors. To make the point, here’s another excerpt from the opinion, including my edits. Inserts are underlined:

Leo Stoller is no stranger to trademark litigation. Indeed, one might say it is the essential part of his business strategy. In fact, were there a Hall of Fame for hyperactive trademark litigators, Stoller would be in it. And, like George Brett, he would have gotten in on the first ballot. Acting as a sort of intellectual property entrepreneur, Stoller has federally registered scores of trademarks with the U.S. PTO USPTO (Central lists upwards of 50 that are actual or pending for just the “Stealth” mark), many containing everyday words that regularly pop up in commercial enterprise.
¶
When other companies or individuals inevitably make use of these words, Stoller issues cease-and-desist letters in the hopes that the user will blanche balk at the prospect of litigation and either agree to pay him a “licensing fee” or yield to his claims of ownership and stop using the alleged mark altogether. “Essentially, if an entity markets a product with some version of the name ‘Stealth’ or otherwise with a ’stealth’-like description, Plaintiff has elected to sue that entity.” S Industries, Inc. v. JL Audio, Inc., 29 F. Supp. 2d 878, 881 (N.D. Ill. 1998).

This entry was posted 14 July 2007 at 8:34 and is filed under Copy. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.