Well now, we certainly didn’t see this coming—the HL Group founder who helped organize Zac Posen‘s show last weekend and endured a public bitch slap in the process is now suing the offending Franc for a cool million bucks. You’d better believe that’s a lawsuit.

Lynn Tesoro will take Jalouse editor Jennifer Eymere to court on charges of “assault, battery, emotional distress, slander and/or libel.” Sounds about right!

A bit of “well, duh” advice for anyone who’s active in the public sphere: It’s bad enough to strike someone in our litigious society, but going out of your way to say you’re not sorry for it is a really dumb idea–and it certainly won’t make you a more sympathetic defendant.

While we can’t testify as to the details of this incident, we’d like to call it a victory for PR pros everywhere.

Turns out that monster tech companies like Apple and Samsung aren’t the only ones going to court over copyright infringement. Popular athletic wear producer Lululemon filed suit against Calvin Klein last month for copying the design for its popular “Astro Pant” yoga wear.

Apparel design is especially tough to patent. Sample cases usually concern such iconic designs as Christian Louboutin’s red shoe bottoms, which a US appeals court prevented Yves Saint Laurent from copying last week in a case that strikes us as a little ridiculous because the offending shoes were red all over, but whatever. The concept makes sense: How can one patent the shape of a dress, for example?

Lululemon has taken matters into its own hands. Legal observers consider this case significant because the company all but anticipated the coming battle and armed itself accordingly by winning three separate patents for a product that looks to us like a simple set of skin-tight pants. The company’s most effective legal weapon is the overlapping fabric design on the Astro Pant’s waistline. Calvin Klein’s thievery becomes painfully obvious when looking at the respective waists in the photo above.

OK, so why are we really interested? Read more

Generally, we PR professionals expect the loss of a major lawsuit to prove damaging for a company’s reputation and, consequently, its sales. Yet Samsung‘s recent billion-dollar loss to Apple in a patent infringement trial seems to have had the opposite effect.

Since a jury found Samsung guilty of copying the technology used to create the iPhone and iPad in late August, sales of Samsung’s Galaxy S3 have taken a major leap–the model has even sold out in some locations. It would seem that smartphone and tablet users care less about the ethical questions raised by copyright infringement than the fact that Samsung makes toys that are virtually identical to Apple’s but cost significantly less!

In a telling and amusing blog post, Digithrive‘s chief technology officer Enrique Gutierrez recounts conversations he overheard in a coffee shop as customers read about the verdict in the paper. Some typical reactions:

Read more

America’s favorite Northeastern ice cream fanatics found themselves in a bit of a sticky situation when they discovered that a porn production company had been selling X-rated DVDs with titles and graphics imitating those that grace Ben & Jerry’s famous pints.

Now the creamery (or their parent company, Unilever) has decided to sue—and bring a whole lot of attention to the smut merchants behind such classics as “Boston Cream Thigh” and “Peanut Butter D-Cup.”

We have to ask: Is it really in the company’s best interests to draw this incident out? And is “Hairy Garcia” really any more offensive than “Karamel Sutra” or the infamous Baldwin-inspired “Schweddy Balls?” We do acknowledge that the graphic rip-off is a blatant case of copyright infringement, but we wonder whether the incident will actually “cause confusion in the minds of consumers”–we can’t remember the last time we went looking for “adult entertainment” in the dairy section.

Who doesn’t love the idea of being able to curl up on the couch at the end of the day and watch a favorite TV show without having to suffer through a single commercial? Fox Broadcasting doesn’t. According to AdAge, the News Corp-owned cable giant has asked a judge for a preliminary court ban against Dish Network‘s new DVR feature AutoHop, which allows customers to skip commercials. Why, oh why would Fox try to keep this technological gem out of the hands of its viewers? Might it have something to do with the fact that networks rely on advertisers to keep them in the black? Surely Fox loves their viewers too much to be so selfish.

By the way, AutoHop isn’t the only Dish feature that Fox finds threatening. In an Aug. 22 filing in Los Angeles federal court, the network also reportedly sought to stop Dish from offering its PrimeTime Anytime function, which automatically records all prime-time shows on the four major U.S. networks and saves them for up to eight days. And Fox wasn’t alone in seeking to squelch these new features: Other networks including CBS and Comcast/NBC Universal also sued Dish in May, claiming that AutoHop infringes upon their copyrights and breaches Dish’s contracts. Touchy!

Read more

What do the phrases “organic” and “all-natural” mean to you as a consumer? Does the fact that Sun Chips have that great “whole grain taste” make you more likely to eat them in the interest of your own health?

While the vast majority of consumers want to eat well, a recent survey conducted by iModerate Research Technologies confirms the fact that most don’t have enough information to make truly educated decisions regarding the food they buy—and that leaves them more vulnerable to dubious claims made by marketing teams and ad agencies.

In the eyes of the law, these questionable taglines might not mean much, and they may even qualify as “misleading.” But do they amount to bad PR practices or grounds for lawsuits? According to a recent story in The New York Times, a group of very successful litigators thinks they do—and they plan to raise a big stink about it.

Read more

In news that may lead to a PR hiring blitz, an Australian court has ruled that everything posted on a company’s Facebook page qualifies as an advertisement and may be viewed as such in the eyes of the law.

The ruling implies that Facebook PR is no longer a risk-free venture: Your company may be held legally responsible for everything posted on your page, and that includes whatever false, misleading or otherwise offensive comments your followers happen to feel like posting. In other words: yikes.

And don’t start thinking that this ruling will only apply Down Under: The Advertising Standards Board has declared that companies may be held liable for third-party content on their Facebook pages just as if it had been penned by their own agency copywriters. Libel laws are viral, and web pages are visible all over the world. Experts expect similar rulings to follow.

Read more

While there has been some good news at MSLGroup, there has been some very troublesome news from the firm as well. Namely, the gender discrimination class action lawsuit that was filed last year. Monique da Silva, a former global healthcare director with the firm, filed suit based on allegations that women were frequently overlooked for promotions, were not given the pay they were due, and other charges. The plaintiffs are seeking $100 million.

At that time, MSLGroup told PRNewser in a statement: “We generally do not comment on pending litigation, but we can say that the fact that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission dismissed Ms. da Silva charge reflects the lack of merit to her claims.” However, it looks like a judge begs to differ.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter, Jr. has ruled that current and former VPs and SVPs will now be able to join the case. Business Insider went into some of the details of the allegations from the case, some of them more than a little disturbing.

Read more

Once again, drug giants are being reminded that the government and the public sort of frown upon pharmaceutical companies doing things like bribing doctors with lavish vacations to get them to prescribe a drug to their patients. And illegally promoting a drug and/or knowingly withholding information about dangerous side effects? Yeah, that’s not okay, either. If previous lawsuits against companies like Pfizer and Eli Lilly didn’t get that point across, the recent settlement with GlaxoSmithKline to the tune of $3 billion just might.

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) is the largest of the pharmaceutical giants, and has just made the largest settlement of healthcare fraud is U.S.history. The $3 billion settlement included $1 billion for criminal fraud and $2 billion for civil liabilities, to which the company has agreed to plead guilty.

Read more

LinkedIn is being sued for $5 million by a woman who says the professional network should’ve done more to prevent the massive hacking that took place a couple of weeks ago. At the time, the tech media pointed out that LinkedIn had failed to put the proper barriers and staffers in place to prevent intrusion. And now someone’s trying to make them pay for it.

The lawsuit is seeking class action status, saying that customers were deceived by the network. LinkedIn spokesperson Erin O’Harra said the case is was prompted by “by lawyers looking to take advantage of the situation.” Moreover, O’Harra said there’s no evidence that any accounts were actually breached.

Either way, LinkedIn is going to have to make an issue about the ways it’s stepping up security.