Ellen Scott Slacks
Page 3 – Two essays at 30 points each.
TCOs F & G.
Laura Etheridge and Rita O’Donnell, the CEO and Creative Director of Clean Clothes (a Texas-based lesbian women’s clothing line) brainstormed together and came up with a tagline for their new slacks line: “Masculine Attitude, Feminine Fit.” They market the product on YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook showcasing their “Funky Femme” slacks collection, made from a material that resembles alpaca wool but is actually organic cotton. To further the advertising impact, the team uses an Ellen DeGeneres look-alike in the YouTube video, where the model does the “Ellen dance” – and mouths “love the pants” as she points to her legs, and then walks off leading an Alpaca by a halter. Within months, the slacks are a huge hit in the lesbian community. Clean Clothes sends a letter to their attorney asking him to trademark their tagline and moves forward without another thought about it.
Meanwhile, Men2Wimmin, a French company with a branch in New York, has established a huge following in the gay and …show more content…
cross-dressing community. It has used the tagline “Feminine Attitude, Masculine Fit” for many years to advertise its drag queen dress collection for men on billboards, the Internet, and television.
Ellen DeGeneres learns that her likeness is being used to advertise for Clean Clothes. She watches the ad and is incensed. She spends the next week on her show bashing the Clean Clothes company and states that she would never endorse the use of Alpaca wool for clothing as she feels shearing them is cruel. (She doesn’t catch that the pants are really made from cotton.) Further, she says she feels that lesbian women should not need to shop at special stores, although she admits she often shops in the men’s department at Joseph A. Bank (JOSB). Her comments cause a precipitous drop in sales at both Joseph A. Bank (JOSB) and Clean Clothes. Using the above fact pattern, analyze the following questions fully.
1. TCO F. Men2Wimmin (M2W) sends a cease and desist letter to Clean Clothes (CC) demanding CC stop using M2W’s tagline, which is registered with the Trademark Office. Clean Clothes responds, stating that (a) CC’s tagline is different enough as not to violate the trademark, (b) CC didn’t know about M2W’s tagline so they couldn’t have copied it, and (c) Men2Wimmin has no damages and therefore can’t sue Clean Clothes. Analyze the case for Men2Wimmin, including the elements of any case they have, and explaining any defenses that Clean Clothes might raise against them. What damages can they request, and do you think they will get them? Why or why not? (Points : 30)
2. TCO G. It is discovered that 2 weeks before the Ellen show, her partner had sold $2 million in JOSB stock (at a gain of about $2,200). The morning after Ellen’s show, Ellen's partner shorted the JOSB stock (which is a bet that the price will go down), and she made another $210,000 from that trade. The swing in the price was not 100% directly tied to Ellen’s comments, as JOSB had issued a recall of their white, long-sleeved shirts when they were found to have been sewed with brown thread, making them unwearable. Ellen’s partner’s previous trading activity shows that she made it a normal practice to “vigorously trade” the stock of any company with which Ellen did business. A review of her trading activity for the past year showed that she had bought and sold JOSB stock 25 different times. Further, she typically used "short" sales when companies had issues with their products. Do you think the SEC will file anything against Ellen or her partner for these sales of JOSB? Is there any cause to do so? Analyze the transactions with respect to insider trading activity (based on what you know) and whether Ellen or her partner should be concerned. Is the prior trading activity a defense? Analyze and explain fully. (Points : 30)
First, the trading of the stock occurred the morning after the issuance of bad news regarding JOSB.
Therefore, Ellen's rant was public knowledge. Thus, no inside information was available.
Second, Ellen nor Ellen's partner owed no duty to the JOSB corporation. The fact pattern states that JOSB used an Ellen look alike. There is no information that Ellen was associated with the corporation in any way. So Ellen owed no duty and, therefore, was not an insider. Since Ellen was not an insider, Ellen's partner could not be found to owe a duty through the mis -representation theory.
Third, Ellen's partner regularly and vigorously traded the JOSB stock over the past year, both call and put orders. So the activity by Ellen's partner was not out of the ordinary. This would be a defense to insider trading even if the trade occurred before the issuance of non-public information and Ellen and/or Ellen' partner were an
insider.
Finally, the material component of insider trading is satisifed since a reasonable trader would figure a negative statement from Ellen would hurt a company that was using an Ellen look alike and marketed to the gay and cross dressing community. However, since the other elements fail, there is no insider trading and no SEC filing against Ellen or her partner.
TCOs F & G.
Laura Etheridge and Rita O’Donnell, the CEO and Creative Director of Clean Clothes (a Texas-based lesbian women’s clothing line) brainstormed together and came up with a tagline for their new slacks line: “Masculine Attitude, Feminine Fit.” They market the product on YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook showcasing their “Funky Femme” slacks collection, made from a material that resembles alpaca wool but is actually organic cotton. To further the advertising impact, the team uses an Ellen DeGeneres look-alike in the YouTube video, where the model does the “Ellen dance” – and mouths “love the pants” as she points to her legs, and then walks off leading an Alpaca by a halter. Within months, the slacks are a huge hit in the lesbian community. Clean Clothes sends a letter to their attorney asking him to trademark their tagline and moves forward without another thought about it.
Meanwhile, Men2Wimmin, a French company with a branch in New York, has established a huge following in the gay and …show more content…
cross-dressing community. It has used the tagline “Feminine Attitude, Masculine Fit” for many years to advertise its drag queen dress collection for men on billboards, the Internet, and television.
Ellen DeGeneres learns that her likeness is being used to advertise for Clean Clothes. She watches the ad and is incensed. She spends the next week on her show bashing the Clean Clothes company and states that she would never endorse the use of Alpaca wool for clothing as she feels shearing them is cruel. (She doesn’t catch that the pants are really made from cotton.) Further, she says she feels that lesbian women should not need to shop at special stores, although she admits she often shops in the men’s department at Joseph A. Bank (JOSB). Her comments cause a precipitous drop in sales at both Joseph A. Bank (JOSB) and Clean Clothes. Using the above fact pattern, analyze the following questions fully.
1. TCO F. Men2Wimmin (M2W) sends a cease and desist letter to Clean Clothes (CC) demanding CC stop using M2W’s tagline, which is registered with the Trademark Office. Clean Clothes responds, stating that (a) CC’s tagline is different enough as not to violate the trademark, (b) CC didn’t know about M2W’s tagline so they couldn’t have copied it, and (c) Men2Wimmin has no damages and therefore can’t sue Clean Clothes. Analyze the case for Men2Wimmin, including the elements of any case they have, and explaining any defenses that Clean Clothes might raise against them. What damages can they request, and do you think they will get them? Why or why not? (Points : 30)
2. TCO G. It is discovered that 2 weeks before the Ellen show, her partner had sold $2 million in JOSB stock (at a gain of about $2,200). The morning after Ellen’s show, Ellen's partner shorted the JOSB stock (which is a bet that the price will go down), and she made another $210,000 from that trade. The swing in the price was not 100% directly tied to Ellen’s comments, as JOSB had issued a recall of their white, long-sleeved shirts when they were found to have been sewed with brown thread, making them unwearable. Ellen’s partner’s previous trading activity shows that she made it a normal practice to “vigorously trade” the stock of any company with which Ellen did business. A review of her trading activity for the past year showed that she had bought and sold JOSB stock 25 different times. Further, she typically used "short" sales when companies had issues with their products. Do you think the SEC will file anything against Ellen or her partner for these sales of JOSB? Is there any cause to do so? Analyze the transactions with respect to insider trading activity (based on what you know) and whether Ellen or her partner should be concerned. Is the prior trading activity a defense? Analyze and explain fully. (Points : 30)
First, the trading of the stock occurred the morning after the issuance of bad news regarding JOSB.
Therefore, Ellen's rant was public knowledge. Thus, no inside information was available.
Second, Ellen nor Ellen's partner owed no duty to the JOSB corporation. The fact pattern states that JOSB used an Ellen look alike. There is no information that Ellen was associated with the corporation in any way. So Ellen owed no duty and, therefore, was not an insider. Since Ellen was not an insider, Ellen's partner could not be found to owe a duty through the mis -representation theory.
Third, Ellen's partner regularly and vigorously traded the JOSB stock over the past year, both call and put orders. So the activity by Ellen's partner was not out of the ordinary. This would be a defense to insider trading even if the trade occurred before the issuance of non-public information and Ellen and/or Ellen' partner were an
insider.
Finally, the material component of insider trading is satisifed since a reasonable trader would figure a negative statement from Ellen would hurt a company that was using an Ellen look alike and marketed to the gay and cross dressing community. However, since the other elements fail, there is no insider trading and no SEC filing against Ellen or her partner.