K firstly. Judge denied the TRO. #cockygate
Judge said it was not clear that the defendant used the word cocky in a way indicating source as a series, but as description of it.
Judge also said that it seems that the readers are very well acquainted in the genre of romance. Dismissing the original docs saying on defendants end that readers are easily confused.
Oh shoot sorry!! PLAINTIFFS. Confused my notes. Hopkins + lawyer.
Also Hopkins was not present at the hearing. #cockygate I have to hop on a train soon so updates tk.
At on point the judge asked what the difference was btwn “cocky cagefighter” and “cocky roommate.” Also added that the TM was “weak” at best. Other weak things include plaintiffs evidence to prove confusion or “sophistication” of purchase.
K, back, thankfully in ac.
Judge did a good deal of descriptive explanation on the book covers that plaintiff presented, all of which were color printed on a massive poster-board. 4 exhibits: two of Hopkins' books, two of Crescent's.
"Naked down to the waist," "heavily tattooed arms," "suggestive of male prowess," "defined biceps."
Much of the hearing discussed what cocky represented: contents of the book or an adjective for the title. But even if used for the title, the word wasn't strong enough to indicate a specific series. Plaintiff argued that "cocky" in romance genre was synonymous to Hopkins' books.
To which defendant (Crescent's lawyer did most of the talking) said Crescent had books published w/ "cocky" in the title before Hopkins & that the word itself was very commonly found in the romance genre.
Where does Cocktales come in all of this? Watson's lawyer said the book was published as a parody of #cockygate, which is seen in the foreword.
There was brief talk about how the publicist could be held responsible for promoting a book (despite having no authorship of stories themselves) that had a possible trademark infringement of the word.
Also, regarding the anonymity of pseudonyms. Plaintiff wanted the authors' names to be revealed, but defendant referred to Roger vs. Grimaldi—I honestly can't recall specifics bc of the jargon. But no names were revealed at the hearing.
Date was set for a fact discovery on Sept. 14 at 10AM, but Crescent's lawyer said they would pursue a motion to dismiss the case. (end of thread)
Thank you everyone for tuning in.
Inserting this here.
So after reading through the transcript, I have come across a slight error in my notes quoting the judge. He said “stripped to the waist” not “naked down to the waist.” 🤦🏻♀️ #technicalities
