Lenny Oscow vs. Southern Puff Smokes PT2

Posted by Sheri Harris on Monday, December 7, 2009 Under: Memorandum-09
IN THE UNITED STATES
CIVIL MATTER

Southern Puff Smokes

Plaintiff

vs.

Lenny Oscow

Defendant

Mr. Oscow's Claim

Stoned Tobacco under Tumor Brands was taken off of the market because of it's toxic and carcinogenous nature. Because of the amount of hazardous toxins, which were contained in Stoned Tobacco, as they was known for being super strong and potent; Mr. Oscow's altered rendition was to bring attention to the damage that still persists even fourty years after the brand was last sold. Stoned Tobacco was very popular and it was proven that it's use affected the health of Stoned Tobacco's customers years later.

Conclusion

Stoned Tobacco ad's were no longer copyright protected at the time of Mr. Oscow's use of the ad either in part or whole. Mr. Oscow did nothing by way of his "version" of dated product to encourage or entice people into harm by associating Stoned Tobacco with any brand currently owned under Southern Puff Smokes. Mr. Oscow also did not mention Southern Puff Smokes directly in a negative aspect. Southern puff's claim was in attempt to collect revenues from a defunct brand for which Southern Puff Smokes no longer has legal claim to. Southern Puff Smokes created attention to itself and any damage as a result by continuing to associate itself with a brand such as Stoned Tobacco known for its long term damage to it's former consumers.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, that this court has ruled in favor of Mr. Lenny Oscow with regard to his use of image available to the public which was not owned or copyrighted by Southern Puff Smokes.

Dated: December  6, 2009                         A. Sadiq                      
                                                               On Behalf of Pieces
 

In : Memorandum-09 



null

Lenny Oscow vs. Southern Puff Smokes PT2

Posted by Sheri Harris on Monday, December 7, 2009 Under: Memorandum-09
IN THE UNITED STATES
CIVIL MATTER

Southern Puff Smokes

Plaintiff

vs.

Lenny Oscow

Defendant

Mr. Oscow's Claim

Stoned Tobacco under Tumor Brands was taken off of the market because of it's toxic and carcinogenous nature. Because of the amount of hazardous toxins, which were contained in Stoned Tobacco, as they was known for being super strong and potent; Mr. Oscow's altered rendition was to bring attention to the damage that still persists even fourty years after the brand was last sold. Stoned Tobacco was very popular and it was proven that it's use affected the health of Stoned Tobacco's customers years later.

Conclusion

Stoned Tobacco ad's were no longer copyright protected at the time of Mr. Oscow's use of the ad either in part or whole. Mr. Oscow did nothing by way of his "version" of dated product to encourage or entice people into harm by associating Stoned Tobacco with any brand currently owned under Southern Puff Smokes. Mr. Oscow also did not mention Southern Puff Smokes directly in a negative aspect. Southern puff's claim was in attempt to collect revenues from a defunct brand for which Southern Puff Smokes no longer has legal claim to. Southern Puff Smokes created attention to itself and any damage as a result by continuing to associate itself with a brand such as Stoned Tobacco known for its long term damage to it's former consumers.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, that this court has ruled in favor of Mr. Lenny Oscow with regard to his use of image available to the public which was not owned or copyrighted by Southern Puff Smokes.

Dated: December  6, 2009                         A. Sadiq                      
                                                               On Behalf of Pieces
 

In : Memorandum-09 



null

Lenny Oscow vs. Southern Puff Smokes PT2

Posted by Sheri Harris on Monday, December 7, 2009 Under: Memorandum-09
IN THE UNITED STATES
CIVIL MATTER

Southern Puff Smokes

Plaintiff

vs.

Lenny Oscow

Defendant

Mr. Oscow's Claim

Stoned Tobacco under Tumor Brands was taken off of the market because of it's toxic and carcinogenous nature. Because of the amount of hazardous toxins, which were contained in Stoned Tobacco, as they was known for being super strong and potent; Mr. Oscow's altered rendition was to bring attention to the damage that still persists even fourty years after the brand was last sold. Stoned Tobacco was very popular and it was proven that it's use affected the health of Stoned Tobacco's customers years later.

Conclusion

Stoned Tobacco ad's were no longer copyright protected at the time of Mr. Oscow's use of the ad either in part or whole. Mr. Oscow did nothing by way of his "version" of dated product to encourage or entice people into harm by associating Stoned Tobacco with any brand currently owned under Southern Puff Smokes. Mr. Oscow also did not mention Southern Puff Smokes directly in a negative aspect. Southern puff's claim was in attempt to collect revenues from a defunct brand for which Southern Puff Smokes no longer has legal claim to. Southern Puff Smokes created attention to itself and any damage as a result by continuing to associate itself with a brand such as Stoned Tobacco known for its long term damage to it's former consumers.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, that this court has ruled in favor of Mr. Lenny Oscow with regard to his use of image available to the public which was not owned or copyrighted by Southern Puff Smokes.

Dated: December  6, 2009                         A. Sadiq                      
                                                               On Behalf of Pieces
 

In : Memorandum-09 



null

Lenny Oscow vs. Southern Puff Smokes PT2

Posted by Sheri Harris on Monday, December 7, 2009 Under: Memorandum-09
IN THE UNITED STATES
CIVIL MATTER

Southern Puff Smokes

Plaintiff

vs.

Lenny Oscow

Defendant

Mr. Oscow's Claim

Stoned Tobacco under Tumor Brands was taken off of the market because of it's toxic and carcinogenous nature. Because of the amount of hazardous toxins, which were contained in Stoned Tobacco, as they was known for being super strong and potent; Mr. Oscow's altered rendition was to bring attention to the damage that still persists even fourty years after the brand was last sold. Stoned Tobacco was very popular and it was proven that it's use affected the health of Stoned Tobacco's customers years later.

Conclusion

Stoned Tobacco ad's were no longer copyright protected at the time of Mr. Oscow's use of the ad either in part or whole. Mr. Oscow did nothing by way of his "version" of dated product to encourage or entice people into harm by associating Stoned Tobacco with any brand currently owned under Southern Puff Smokes. Mr. Oscow also did not mention Southern Puff Smokes directly in a negative aspect. Southern puff's claim was in attempt to collect revenues from a defunct brand for which Southern Puff Smokes no longer has legal claim to. Southern Puff Smokes created attention to itself and any damage as a result by continuing to associate itself with a brand such as Stoned Tobacco known for its long term damage to it's former consumers.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, that this court has ruled in favor of Mr. Lenny Oscow with regard to his use of image available to the public which was not owned or copyrighted by Southern Puff Smokes.

Dated: December  6, 2009                         A. Sadiq                      
                                                               On Behalf of Pieces
 

In : Memorandum-09 



null