February 01, 2005

I just lost alot of respect: for Yogi Berra. A $10 million dollar suit for that...friviolous.

posted by dales15 to baseball at 06:13 PM - 17 comments

I gained a lot of respect. Anything that takes the wind out of the sails of that skankFest is ok in my book

posted by mick at 06:41 PM on February 01, 2005

Hey, dales, you can't just use a public figure like that, with no respect for the guy. If they'd aped one of his syllogisms, probably no big deal but they went beyond that. The $10 million is just a legal strategy thing.

posted by billsaysthis at 10:23 PM on February 01, 2005

I think it's time for some Yogi-isms.

posted by worldcup2002 at 01:45 AM on February 02, 2005

The use of his name alone in a way that does not indicate an endorsement of the product creates ambiguity. I agree that he has publicity rights, but I don't know how much protection is given to the use of his name alone in the way it is used in this advertisement.

posted by dales15 at 02:59 AM on February 02, 2005


posted by brides at 05:22 AM on February 02, 2005

Banned. just guessing.

posted by gspm at 07:07 AM on February 02, 2005

It's all strategy. He'll settle for much less. I heard he really wants 6,800 Carlos Arroyo lunchboxes.

posted by usfbull at 07:30 AM on February 02, 2005

Brides Banned? Jeez I hope so. I just spent a few very unproductive minutes trying to figure out why that had anything to do with Yogi. All this and blonde too. Big duh.

posted by gac at 07:50 AM on February 02, 2005

It seems to me he has no case. The term "Yogasm" (according to the article... I don't watch the show) is based on a word a character apparently made up based on her Yoga class. Yoga. Not Yogi. Yoga, yo! (or is that Yao?). I'll wager that despite photographic evidence to the contrary that Yoga has been around a lot longer than Mr. Berra. Let's just hope it doesn't turn into a class action suit.

posted by scully at 08:19 AM on February 02, 2005

i don't think the word itself is the problem, but the fact that they used his name in the ad.

posted by goddam at 09:34 AM on February 02, 2005

"It's only a problem if you want to look at it like a problem, then it becomes problematic."

posted by mayerkyl at 10:32 AM on February 02, 2005

"If you can't use my name, use another name, unless you want mine."

posted by dusted at 12:19 PM on February 02, 2005

90% of this lawsuit is half mental.

posted by chicobangs at 12:21 PM on February 02, 2005

An advertiser can not use a person's name or likeness without consent. By using Yogi's name in a manner that is intended to sell a product (the T.V. show) without his consent they have committed a misappropiation of his name or likeness. Yogi has meticulously protected his name, image and likeness so I don't believe there will be a viable defense to the tort. This is not a free speech issue. His name was used to sell a product which in the public eye does seem to be an endorsement by Yogi (which it was not). Yogi will receive "money which is just as good as cash."

posted by McLaw at 12:26 PM on February 02, 2005

Website run by Dumbass Crackwhores Should we resort to a GoogleBomb?

posted by billsaysthis at 06:34 PM on February 02, 2005

Filthy Liars? That's what I think when I see that website. Or Ugly Monkey Sex.

posted by grum@work at 11:03 PM on February 02, 2005

Yogi will win and win big in this one. This makes the Tony Twist case look silly in comparison. What I'm wondering is ... how many stupid-assed ad copywriters and execs will get shitcanned over this? My over/under is four -- and remember -- when you get to the fork in the road -- take it.

posted by wfrazerjr at 10:07 PM on February 03, 2005

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.