|
Post by Parduz on Feb 6, 2013 6:49:56 GMT -9
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Feb 6, 2013 7:26:06 GMT -9
I'm not a lawyer, let alone one specialising in trademark law, but my career choices have led me to learn a lot about trademark, copyright and IP in general.
A trademark can be summed up as anything that directly identifies a companies product and brand in the public consciousness, and the purpose of trademark regulations is to prevent unscrupulous businesses from using those identity elements to mislead consumers by tricking them into thinking they're buying something from the trademark holder, instead of an unassociated entity.
Games Workshop may indeed have a legitimate claim on the term "Space Marine" within both the gaming and publishing spheres, because while they didn't originate the idea of marines in space, they have defined Space Marine in the public consciousness for 3 decades and when someone hears the term, GW marines are automatically going to be the first thing they think of. What's happening here, is that GW has to enforce that claim rigidly, or they will lose the right to claim it as a trademark forever, and while that does screw over the little guy who wrote a book, GW can not afford to not do it, because if they do, they'll have no legal recourse against other people who deliberately attempt to cash on the use of the term to sell their works to fans of Warhammer 40K.
With that said, GW absolutely does not own the trademark on the word marine, or the idea of power armoured marines, or even the idea of marines in space, because, as the author of that post wrote, marines in space are a long standing and widely used trope in science fiction, and are in no way are unique to Games Workshop nor are they an invention of Games Workshop. This is a result of him using the term "Space Marine". Had he not used that exact wording in the title of his book, GW would not have had a trademark claim.
If this does go to court and the author wins, the consequence will be that Space Marine will no longer be associated specifically with GW and anyone will be able to use that term when describing marines in space. If GW wins, or the author is unable to challenge them, then the words "Space Marine" will be off limits to anyone that isn't licensed to GW, but marines in space will be just fine, provided they're not actually called "Space Marines".
Short version of what artists should know: Keep making your sci-fi marines, just don't call them Space Marines, unless you're interested in joining this guy in a court battle against GW.
|
|
|
Post by Parduz on Feb 6, 2013 7:49:38 GMT -9
... they have defined Space Marine in the public consciousness for 3 decades and when someone hears the term, GW marines are automatically going to be the first thing they think of. I heartly disagree This MAY happens on WH40K fans mind. To me, Space Marines first recall sci-fi book and comics, and only then GW game pieces (Space Crusade is when i saw the Space Marines miniatures first time). Sure, being italian, and reading translated books (where often some terms are left in english 'cause a literal translation could not even exist or sound much less "cool") may cause that i've a different cultural heritage and knowledge. But this is a point AGAINST GW, 'cause it means that "Space Marines" is not really referring at they soldiers everywhere. No. To me, they're just being bully against a "small" self-publisher/writer. They're not sueing ID software, or the Starcraft copyright owners (which both have space marines -even in big armor- on they products, and are GAMES and not books).
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Feb 6, 2013 8:08:49 GMT -9
No. To me, they're just being bully against a "small" self-publisher/writer. They're not sueing ID software, or the Starcraft copyright owners (which both have space marines -even in big armor- on they products, and are GAMES and not books). The marines in Quake and in Starcraft are just called marines, never space marines. Neither ID nor Blizzard are selling their products by using the term "Space Marines". If Blizzard were to release a book about Raynor called "Space Marine with a Motor Bike" then GW would sue them in a second. There's other factors stopping them from taking action though... You can't just claim a universal trademark. A trademark will only apply to specific types of products and/or specific industries. GW definitely does own a registered trademark on the term Space Marine in the tabletop gaming industry, and likely has a common law trademark, if not registered one, in the book publishing arena. As a new comer to the computer games industry, they may not be able to register the trademark in that field. They are also completely powerless against anyone who goes and makes a movie called Space Marine unless the marines in the movie mimic the design of Warhammer 40K's marines, in which case they'd sue them for a copyright violation, and not a trademark one. That said, I don't think GW would win a court case if it got as far as court, because decades before Warhammer 40K existed, Robert Heinlein and others were using the term in published books, and it's a generic term, but they still have take action or they risk losing their claim.
|
|
|
Post by gilius on Feb 6, 2013 8:46:57 GMT -9
If Wikipedia is to be believed, "The earliest known use of the term "space marine" was by Bob Olsen in his short story "Captain Brink of the Space Marines" (Amazing Stories, Volume 7, Number 8, November 1932)."
My first contact with the term was probably through Heinlein's Starship Troopers which also has the depiction of a military force in powered armor using (very) heavy weaponry against insectoid aliens. It is a book that predates that law firm/game company joint by some fifteen years. So I would say these lawyers are just doing what they do, bullying anyone else from using what they believe is their property. Having a trademark of that term in gaming is insulting enough, trying to grab it after the fact in books -- or more specifically in e-books -- is ridiculous.
To be honest, what annoys me the most is to see that company still get support from fans and players around the world, no matter what they do. For every blog post complaining about rising prices and new editions there must be some 10 or more drooling about their miniatures or something.
|
|
|
Post by cowboyleland on Feb 6, 2013 9:15:42 GMT -9
I guess I was late to the party. I think it was the movie version of Starship Troopers where I first heard the term "Space Marine."
If I had to come up with a strategy I would suggest an alliance sci-fi authors and publishers backed with some crowd sourcing money from fans to pay for the court challenge. Oh, and maybe some freedom of expression activist groups too.
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Feb 6, 2013 9:25:46 GMT -9
So I would say these lawyers are just doing what they do, bullying anyone else from using what they believe is their property. Having a trademark of that term in gaming is insulting enough, trying to grab it after the fact in books -- or more specifically in e-books -- is ridiculous. It's very easy to demonise big corporates throwing their weight around, and it's just as tempting to support the underdog who appears to be getting unfair treatment. I'm not a massive fan of GW's litigious nature, but I totally understand why they're doing it and it's not about screwing over some poor author. The title of the book was "Spots the Space Marine" and whether it was deliberate or not, the title could believably mislead consumers into thinking it was a GW product and get it a lot of free publicity when it starts showing up in searches for Warhammer 40K books on the Amazon store. While I don't think that this was this author's intention, GW has to take action because if they don't then they can't take action later against someone who does do it intentionally. To people who don't understand trademark law, these lawsuits and legal actions seem very frivolous and can come across as bullying, but for the companies involved, it's very serious business and the consequences of failing to take action are a lot worse for them than the bad publicity ever could be.
|
|
|
Post by gilius on Feb 6, 2013 10:17:42 GMT -9
I am sorry, bravesirkevin, but in this case I really do not understand how this is fair treatment. I am no lawyer but I also have to dabble in trademark/patent/copyright laws because of my research, projects and student supervision. They have trademark of the name Space Marine for gaming. They must defend their trademark in gaming otherwise it creates a precedent by which others can abuse their trademark. They do not have the trademark in books. They are performing very questionable maneuvers to force their exclusive use of the term after the fact. Note in the comments that they have not blocked the use in the PRINTED VERSION of the book which is still on sale in Amazon: www.amazon.com/Spots-Space-Marine-Defense-Fiddler/dp/1470131056They know that they would not be able to. What they did was to state that the e-book market is a different market and then by using "common law," they are trying to state that they are the first ones to use the term Space Marine in that market. As each is a separate market, using Space Marine in books would not affect the trademark in gaming -- otherwise they would have already had lots of problems. Anyway that is probably HOW they got the trademark for gaming in the first place even though the term was already known and in use for the best part of a century. So I do not think it has anything to do with defending their gaming trademark and everything to do with pushing other people without legal means to contest out of the market.
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Feb 6, 2013 10:29:21 GMT -9
Just want to add something:
Trademark is very different from copyright or patent. GW is not saying that they're they only ones allowed to use space marines as a concept, or claiming that they invented them. Trademark is an identifying element associated with a company's brand and products that precludes their competition from using it to sell their own products.
What GW is asserting here is that it has the exclusive rights to use the term "Space Marine" to sell published materials. This is similar to the word "superman" existing before Action Comics #1 was published, but DC Comics owning the word as a trademark preventing anyone else from using it to advertise their own comics.
I'm only mentioning all of this because I constantly see rants and panics about trademarks like "OMG Wiffleball trademarked yellow! Now I can't use yellow for anything, guess I'll have to throw half my paints and crayons away now". That's not what trademark means, and that's not why the laws exist. It is just a law to protect companies by allowing them to say "you can not use that word, image or colour combination to sell your products that compete with our products, because it could confuse or mislead our customers".
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Feb 6, 2013 10:37:29 GMT -9
I am sorry, bravesirkevin, but in this case I really do not understand how this is fair treatment. I never said it was fair. I said GW has to take legal action because failing to take action would invalidate their claim. It would not hurt their trademark status in tabletop gaming, but it would hurt any future trademark claims in e-publishing. I just want to make it completely clear, I'm not siding with GW here, and I think that GW would lose very quickly if the challenge got to a court room. I'm more concerned with the fact that people tend to completely misunderstand what trademark's about and panic and overreact to the fact that some corporate has trademarked something, or that they're taking legal action over it.
|
|
|
Post by gilius on Feb 6, 2013 11:11:40 GMT -9
I am sorry, bravesirkevin, but in this case I really do not understand how this is fair treatment. I never said it was fair. I said GW has to take legal action because failing to take action would invalidate their claim. It would not hurt their trademark status in tabletop gaming, but it would hurt any future trademark claims in e-publishing. I just want to make it completely clear, I'm not siding with GW here, and I think that GW would lose very quickly if the challenge got to a court room. I'm more concerned with the fact that people tend to completely misunderstand what trademark's about and panic and overreact to the fact that some corporate has trademarked something, or that they're taking legal action over it. I am sorry. I got that impression from "...it's just as tempting to support the underdog who appears to be getting unfair treatment." My bad. Now, what claims are they entitled to in the e-publishing market? They cannot trademark Space Marine in printed books. They do not have the trademark in e-books; they are appealing to "common law" and the notion that e-book market is totally separate from printed book market -- and claiming that they have the first e-book with the use of the term Space Marine. They are "protecting" a use they have no right to start with, using a technicality to do so. You have stated that they would probably lose if the challenge got to a court room. What they are doing is taking advantage of having a legal department to contact Amazon and make the threat. I understand the limitations of trademark use and the very real threat of abuse or losing the trademark if the owner is lenient but, again, I do not see it this way in this specific case. It also annoys me that someone can make a claim on the "e-book market" as if it was a completely different space than that of printed books. However, that is a problem with anachronistic IP law and not specifically with that company. Maybe in this sense you are right and this is the symptom, not the real sickness to be treated.
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Feb 6, 2013 11:39:08 GMT -9
Now, what claims are they entitled to in the e-publishing market? They cannot trademark Space Marine in printed books. They do not have the trademark in e-books; they are appealing to "common law" and the notion that e-book market is totally separate from printed book market -- and claiming that they have the first e-book with the use of the term Space Marine. They are "protecting" a use they have no right to start with, using a technicality to do so. You have stated that they would probably lose if the challenge got to a court room. What they are doing is taking advantage of having a legal department to contact Amazon and make the threat. They definitely have an interest in protecting a trademark in that area, and wouldn't waste their time if they didn't have reason to believe that they had some valid claim. Lawyers cost GW just as much per hour as they cost the rest of us... I think they may have trademark on "Space Marine" in printed materials, but only in Europe, as the stuff I read there seemed to indicate that they were using that as part of their argument. The reason I don't believe they could win is that the term is generic, and was generic long before they started using it. Once a term has moved beyond it's ties to a specific brand of product and starts being applied to all products that resemble it regardless of brand, then it's got no trademark value at all anymore. This has happened pretty often in the past, most notably with the word aspirin, which was originally a trademark of Bayer and is now just a generic word for that particular active ingredient regardless of where it comes from. However, the way the law works is that if the trademark owner can prove that they've actively and deligently attempted to prevent the genericisation of a word, then they are generally allowed to retain their trademark. That's why the Lego company puts so much effort into correcting people who call their bricks "legos".
|
|
|
Post by stevelortz on Feb 6, 2013 13:09:14 GMT -9
It may or may not be fair, but it's the way it is, and the big companies don't need to have a win-able case if they can out spend the little guy's litigation budget. I was involved with some of these issues shortly after Star Wars came out in '77, and Kenner was squashing all the miniatures companies that were putting out Star Wars knock-offs.
Have fun! Steve
|
|
|
Post by josedominguez on Feb 9, 2013 9:39:43 GMT -9
defending GW, but many of the references to 'Space Marine's in literature and film don't seem accurate..... Aliens is repeatedly referenced and I don't recall them being referred to as anything other than 'Colonial marines'. Starship troopers: mobile infantry (although the entire concept for GW Space Marines is blatently taken from the book.... from power armour to terminators and jump packs, it's all in there). When you really get down to it 'Space Marine' hasn't been used nearly as much as we think outside of GW. I looked all over, even in 'Space above and beyond' which dealt with marine pilots in space, never reffered to anyone as 'Space Marines' I'm really surprised that it hasn't been used more. Lots of fiction is set in space and has marines, but 'Space Marine' isn't used much at all. Then again, they'd register the words Games and Workshop and sue the olympics, carpenters and Monopoly given half a chance
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Feb 10, 2013 1:23:28 GMT -9
The big irony of it all is that GW Space Marines are about as far removed from space marines as one can get. They're Space Marines in name only.
In the real world, a marines are infantry employed by the navy, which is what separates them from soldiers who is employed by the army. Marines are used frequently in foreign engagements because their job description has them stationed on and deployed from ships. Every other instance of a "space marine" in fiction keeps the allegory of a marine, because the space expeditionary forces are usually based on naval tradition. The Space Marine chapters in Warhammer 40K don't have any of that at all... They're more like biologically enhanced knightly orders in powered armour.
|
|
|
Post by josedominguez on Feb 10, 2013 8:34:48 GMT -9
Not much of their stuff is original, even the gods of chaos are pinched real religions..... 'Nergal' is an old hebrew word for a plague god.
You're right about them not being very 'Marine' .
Heavy armour, defending their 'fortress monasteries' ... all they need is horses. (or really stupid looking giant wolves).
|
|
|
Post by gilius on Feb 10, 2013 9:34:03 GMT -9
Honestly, I do not see the irony here. Trademark does not have to do with preserving the historical or lexical meaning of a term. If someone were to trademark "space marine" for a brand of soda or pencils, would there be a problem? It does have to do with associating name and product in a given market. Given the aspirin and lego examples you presented earlier, I might even say that calling them "marines" while they resemble knightly orders is clever.
From what josedominguez pointed out, however, I see irony in the fact that they so zealously protect their IP although it was created by emulating (sometimes quite closely) concepts and ideas from others.
I also see irony in your post since you are "... concerned with the fact that people tend to completely misunderstand what trademark's about and panic and overreact..." Implying a connection between their concept of "space marines" (possibly covered under copyright laws) and their trademark of the "space marine" name in gaming products, which is necessary to find any irony in this matter, is confusing, not clarifying.
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Feb 10, 2013 10:08:36 GMT -9
Honestly, I do not see the irony here. The irony I was refering to is that for them to claim a trademark, GW has to prove that the term "Space Marine" is notably tied to their product line in the public consciousness, and while they may actually be able to prove that, their "space marines" are not actually marines. As you have said, it's also very ironic that they are such zealous protectors of "their" IP when so much of it was not created by them at all. I also see irony in your post since you are "... concerned with the fact that people tend to completely misunderstand what trademark's about and panic and overreact..." Implying a connection between their concept of "space marines" (possibly covered under copyright laws) and their trademark of the "space marine" name in gaming products, which is necessary to find any irony in this matter, is confusing, not clarifying. Yes, I'm concerned that people panic and overreact with regards to trademark, because people often do. As I've stated before, trademarks are simply elements that identify a brand and holding a trademark in something simply prevents other people from using that element to sell a product that competes with yours. Their claim is "when you put the words "Space Marine" in your title, people will think it's a Warhammer 40K product even though it's not, so you can't do that" which is very different from saying "your product is not allowed to include marines in space."
|
|
|
Post by josedominguez on Feb 10, 2013 12:36:50 GMT -9
That's the essence of it..... and Games Workshop are the only company I know of that use Space Marine (both capitals). Loads of companies emulate them. Could Bungee copywrite 'Spartan' or 'Mjolnir armour'? They created the idea of the master chief, but the whole image is 'Starship Troopers' with names from history and myth. I believe Games Workshop should own the copywrite on massive chested armoured space marines with teeny little arms and legs that couldn't move though
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Feb 10, 2013 13:20:00 GMT -9
That's the essence of it..... and Games Workshop are the only company I know of that use Space Marine (both capitals). Loads of companies emulate them. Could Bungee copywrite 'Spartan' or 'Mjolnir armour'? They created the idea of the master chief, but the whole image is 'Starship Troopers' with names from history and myth. I believe Games Workshop should own the copywrite on massive chested armoured space marines with teeny little arms and legs that couldn't move though There's a world of difference between copyright and trademarks. Copyright applies to any original work, and means that the owner of the copyright has the exclusive rights to duplicate a work, derive other works from said work, to profit from the sale of copies of said work, and a few other things besides. The purpose of a copyright is to prevent people from making unauthorised copies of your works. GW has copyright, by law, on every painting, and every sculpture of a space marine that they've ever hired someone to create. They also own the copyright on the armour designs, and on every story written about them by an author they've hired. In some cases, they may share the copyright with the artist of the work in question, and in a lot of cases, they share copyright with people who they didn't hire, but who clearly derived new works from their original creations. Bungie similarly owns the copyright on all things pertaining to the Halo series, including any depiction of Master Chief, but neither company owns the copyright on the concept of supersoldiers, and no one can as copyright doesn't cover concepts or ideas... only actual works. A trademark, while also being part of intellectual property law, is something else entirely. A trademark is anything that clearly identifies a company's brand or product, and differentiates it from other brands and products in the same category. You don't need to register a trademark to benefit from its protection, but if it is registered, you will have a more solid form of protection in the jurisdictions where it is registered. The purpose of a trademark is to prevent other people from selling their own products by misleading people into believing that it's one of yours.
|
|
|
Post by Rhannon on Feb 11, 2013 5:24:13 GMT -9
Imho this is a too complex topic for my poor english language. I agree with Kevin about the copyright and trademark's meanings.
Premise: I don't like current GW and its trade policy ( but still today I'm in love with the Citadel and the first GW ) but ...
but when ( today ) I read "Space Marines" I immediately think about WH40.000 space marines, not about aliens' colonial marines, Heinlein's Mobile Infantry ... or other.
Imho, in the end a trademark's protection is just that.
|
|
|
Post by dcbradshaw on Feb 11, 2013 7:29:01 GMT -9
If GW thinks that an author self-publishing her e-book through Amazon has any chance of diluting their product association, they're deluded. Had anyone here ever heard of M. C. A. Hogarth prior to this? I wasn't aware of her or her books, but now I'm more apt to check them out. What GW could have done was approach her privately, say, "We think your book's title hits a little too close to home, and we'd our marketing team to meet with you and talk about helping you find some sort of agreement that's beneficial to both of us, and for your trouble, we'll help you publicize the book with its new title." Instead, the stake their flag and their clout on the entire thing. It's like the Army Builder fight all over again. I think GW is acting like a bunch of buttheads.
|
|
|
Post by Parduz on Feb 12, 2013 2:44:55 GMT -9
To add spice to the argument (and trying a bit to counter some points) GW did not ask to remove the printed book, 'cause they DON'T OWN any kind of right on the words "Space Marines" in the "narrative" field (my english is bad, so i may be not precise here). They asked to remove the e-book only, trying to "gain" the trademark in the electronic publishing market by jumping in a relatively empty place taking advantage of the "fog" of the laws and the blurry "separation" between the printed paper and the e-books.
They're not "claiming" that "space marines" are a GW trademark in the whole literature, but only in the part of it which is not on paper.
Imho, this is even more wrong.
|
|
|
Post by glennwilliams on Feb 12, 2013 11:39:27 GMT -9
and to muddy the waters further as well as farther: I remember from my torts class (from when I wanted to be a lawyer rather than an honest bureaucrat) that Esquire magazine successfully sued an Esquire cleaners in New York city for trademark infringement. Ain't law grand? "The law, sir, is an ass." So, going to court is a crap shoot for everybody.
OTOH, having to reassert one's trademark (assuming GW's printed version is sustainable) because of a change in the format of the printed text does seem silly. (Which is NOT to justify being a bully asserting rights which don't exist.)
Maybe we should start a site on GW proxies named "Forged World"?
|
|
|
Post by enpeze on Apr 22, 2013 6:27:35 GMT -9
GW of today is a geniused bunch of greedy idiots. Their main business now is not making great games as it was in the 90ties but holding IPs of questionable fascist ideologies. I would happily rejoice if they go finally the way of the dodo and close their business.
|
|
|
Post by glennwilliams on May 1, 2013 4:14:11 GMT -9
GW of today is a geniused bunch of greedy idiots. Their main business now is not making great games as it was in the 90ties but holding IPs of questionable fascist ideologies. I would happily rejoice if they go finally the way of the dodo and close their business. Remember my premise: Games Workshop is a law firm with a side line in miniatures.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on May 1, 2013 9:39:33 GMT -9
I think that the point in question that no one is really addressing here is that GW in there very humble and cannibalistic beginning, infringed on many trademarks and blatantly stole ideas from many places.
So they themselves are stopping people from doing what they did. This is not a new idea and has been around a long time. Walmart, Microsoft , OPEC these are some of the biggest offenders. If I can make a company out of stealing and back stabbing then so can you, so I will stop you from doing what I did.
it's like if your a really good artist and you want to do tattoos so you go to a tattoo shop and show one of the artist your work asking for him to help you become the next rising star ... of course they aren't going to help you !! that would either put them out of business or at the very least create a strong competitor that knows all their tricks, why would they do that?
Few people like GW because they are hypocrite and no one likes a hypocrite. I was around when there was the big war over Hero Quest, before that I was around when there was minor scuffle with TSR... ok it wasn't so minor. I was around when there was a throw down with Blizzard over Warcraft.
GW rabidly goes after everyone in the sci-fi/ fantasy genera at one time or another.
I believe they have even buffed up against ILM a time or two. I think the consensuses in the end was a limited partnership. It was an interesting conclusion to a strange affair to be sure.
As far as I can see the GW m.o. is they steal from people , then trade mark what they have stolen and then sue anyone else who ties to use the same idea. I can see them going after AVP next. to much like kroot and tyranids, they also stopped a star-ship troopers table top game because it was to much like IG and nids ... The fact is the words Space and Marine are not trade mark-able.
However, Space Marine is a trademark-able thing because no one did it before GW or didn't enforce it when GW stole it is more likely the case, now they have one.
GW isn't in the wrong here legally so really people have nothing to complain about, Ethically GW is a complete mess. they optimise the grabbing hands idea and that's why it's so easy to hate them. Also it's impotant to note GW does a lot of saber rattling, they think they can scare you into compliance with big legal letterhead and what not but in the end I think they only have the legal backing to enforce maybe 1/4 th of what they actually claim. When you know they are in the wrong, (which happens often ) in most cases all it takes is a letter from your attorney.
Just letting them know that you are willing to go to the mat over the issue will cause them to back down quickly. (if they are in the wrong )
Remember they don't want a lengthy court battle any more than you do , as bravesirkevin stated in most cases they stand to loose much more than they will win.
|
|
|
Post by spaceranger42 on May 7, 2013 9:00:23 GMT -9
Naw, not a leg to stand on. You can call anything you want a Space Marine. The long and the short of it is that you cannot trade mark words or a name or a title, only how it is presented. So long as your final product is not obviously derivative of a GW product eg; you don't make and try to sell something that looks like a 40k SpaceMarine AND call it a Space Marine, then you are fine. Avoid using fonts similar to GW product fonts, likewise with color schemes. GW are a bunch of crooks and goons themselves so they will try to intimidate anyone who might take piece of their pie.
|
|
|
Post by glennwilliams on May 8, 2013 4:57:34 GMT -9
Naw, not a leg to stand on. You can call anything you want a Space Marine. The long and the short of it is that you cannot trade mark words or a name or a title, only how it is presented. So long as your final product is not obviously derivative of a GW product eg; you don't make and try to sell something that looks like a 40k SpaceMarine AND call it a Space Marine, then you are fine. Avoid using fonts similar to GW product fonts, likewise with color schemes. GW are a bunch of crooks and goons themselves so they will try to intimidate anyone who might take piece of their pie. Still need to be careful, though. I remember from my torts class (before I decided to switch to more honest academic paths) a copyright infringement case wherein Esquire magazine sued an Esquire dry cleaners in NYC and won. The law's not only an ass, it's a crap shoot.
|
|