'Nuckin Futs' set to go on sale after lawyer argues F-word won't offend

Pod Legal Solicitor Director Jamie White argued that the 'Nuckin Futs' trade mark is not offensive. Picture: Supplied Source: news.com.au

A SNACK called Nuckin Futs will go on sale after a lawyer's successful argument that the word "f..." is a normal part of Australian speech and so cannot be deemed offensive under trademark rules.

The trademark application for "Nuckin Futs" was at first rejected by the register as being scandalous and offensive due to its similarity to the phrase "f...ing nuts".

The Trade Marks Examiner ruled that "Nuckin Futs" was an "obvious spoonerism" and deemed it ineligible for registration under section 42 of the Trade Marks Act.

Under the law such terms must be rejected if likely to be regarded as shameful, offensive or shocking to the ordinary person.

But solicitor Jamie White, Director of law firm Pod Legal, who submitted the application on behalf of his Gold Coast client, argued that "Nuckin Futs" was not offensive because it was commonplace in everyday Australian language.

In a five-page legal document, seen by news.com.au, which catalogues the history of controversial product names, Mr White argued the words "f..." or "f...ing" were "now part of the universal discourse of the ordinary Australian".

"We submit that whilst there may be a mere sentimental objection or mere distaste to NUCKIN FUTS, this is not a sufficient ground for rejection of the Trade Mark, particularly since a substantial number of people would not find the words shocking," the submission to the Examiner says.

Mr White told news.com.au: “Over the passage of time, certain words which may have caused major offence in earlier times would now be acceptable as trade marks in certain markets, namely, the Australian market.”

Almost a year after the initial application was rejected, the trademark examiner has agreed to accept the "Nuckin Futs" trademark - on the condition that the owner would not market it to kids.

Mr White assured the Examiner that the product, mostly comprising of edible nuts, would not be marketed to children as his client only intended to sell it in pubs, nightclubs and other entertainment venues.

The trade mark is due for registration in April 2012.

via news.com.au

http://jantervonen.com/nuckin-futs-set-to-go-on-sale-after-lawyer-ar

Is Wikileaks paying the legal fees for Julian Assange's futile extradition fight?

With great curiosity I’ve been following the extradition battle of Mr. Julian Assange, including everything directly/indirectly related to it. Mr. Assange’s attempt to affect the general opinion about the extradition proceeding he is made subject to is not bordering on surreal anymore. This is because it is surreal.

It appears that Mr. Assange has orchestrated a massive campaign, which is split into two overlapping paths - both lacking any merit. The first one concentrates on the alleged flaws in the extradition proceeding that being the mechanism of the European Arrest Warrant (“EAW”). The second one brings up the alleged “conspiracy” behind the request to get him to face rape allegations in Sweden.


1^st PATH

Mr. Assanges publicity attack against EAW appears to be mainly based on the fact that he is not “charged of anything” per se. Mr. Assange’s error of judgment is probably in that he is interpreting “charged” under the laws of UK. This is a moot point due to the differences in legal systems within Europe. Mr. Assange must be very well aware of this and so must, at least, all the lawyers supporting him.

Mr. Assange also seem to claim that there is something “wrong” in an extradition mechanism in which the courts of the requested country cannot review the merits of the case presented by the requesting country. Again, Mr. Assange’s argument is empty and is not supported by single authority. Extradition is not about innocence or guilt. The merits of the case are for the requesting country and its courts to determine. Very recently, the Court of Appeals (2^nd circuit) in the USA stated among others, “It is not the business of our courts to assume the responsibility for supervising the integrity of the judicial system of another sovereign nation. Such an assumption would directly conflict with the principle of comity upon which extradition is based.” (citing Jhirad, 536 F.2d at 484–85) and “… U.S. courts are strongly discouraged from reviewing whether the demanding country has complied with its own law and, indeed, it is error to do so except to the limited extent necessary to ensure compliance with the applicable extradition treaty ...” Even though the case cited is not directly a binding authority for Mr. Assange’s process, some analogy (which goes against him) can be drawn from it to his position.


2^nd Path

Secondly and unsurprisingly, there is zero evidence of the alleged “conspiracy”. For some unexplained reason it has always been part of Mr. Assange’s defense that the allegations of rape are the first step in a mysterious “conspiracy” steered by some 3-letter American organization which first wants to get him to Sweden. Mr. Assange’s imaginary theory continues that it would then somehow be very easy to get him to America, where in turn he would then be charged, tried and even face the death penalty. This “conspiracy” is a fantasy not born in a rationally thinking brain. While it might be quicker to get someone extradited from Sweden than from UK (due to the differences in the legal systems), it cannot be said that the difference is that great that it would (rationally thinking) make any sense to create the alleged very complex conspiracy with fake allegations of rape and fake EAW’s issued by the Swedish prosecutor.

What the public would like to know is: who is paying for the legal teams fighting for Mr. Assange? Could it be Wikileaks? If yes, why?

http://jantervonen.com/is-wikileaks-paying-the-legal-fees-for-julian