The Huffington Post reported last month that the Susan G. Komen for the Cure has filed trademark infringement lawsuits against other charities that use “for the cure” in their names. The story alleges Komen spends a $1 million a year in donor funds on such litigation.

The foundation has more than 200 registered trademarks, and I didn’t even know you could protect a phrase like “for the cure,” hon.

Even though the HuffPost story was published in December, I first heard about it Monday night from Stephen Colbert. Enjoy his take here.

Good morning! Here are some law links for your pre-Solstice perusal:

• Judge drops thousands of John Doe porn sharers from industry copyright infringement case.
• In court, come dressed to impress, but remain who you are.
• A Post editorial says the problems in Prince George’s County stem from residents’ “apathy.”
• Tweens fight for their right to show their support for breast cancer research — but school officials say their “I [heart] boobies” bracelets are vulgar.
• A pro cyclist says she was disqualified from racing for taking a supplement that contained a banned substance, but it wasn’t on the label.
• TSA officer used scanners to find and lift travelers’ valuables.
• Security sells.

Judging by the reader responses to news that the word “Hon” has been trademarked, some Baltimoreans might have a new name for Cafe Hon owner Denise Whiting: Atilla.

The great John McIntyre explains why this touches a nerve:

What leads to the raised voices is the question of ownership of language. And with that question come all the overtones of social class, local history and culture, and personal likes and dislikes that crowd in on discussions of language and ensure that such discussions will never be neutral or unemotional.

Coincidentally, The New York Times had a story yesterday about athletes trademarking their catchphrases. I did not know that Nike owns the right to the name “LeBron.”

The lesson? I better call a lawyer now about the legal rights for “pulling a Danny.”

Before today, I had never heard of Romanian sculptor Constantin Brancusi nor his fantastic facial hair. It turns out in 1923 he made a bronze scuplture, “Bird in Space,” that he shipped to the United States in 1927. Customs officials levied a $4,000 tax on it upon arrival because it was, in their view, a hunk of metal. Brancusi said it was art, which was not taxed at all. He took his case to court and won in 1928, his money refunded.

I learned all this thanks to the winner of video contest sponsored by Maryland Lawyers for the Arts in honor of the organization’s 25th birthday.

The three local filmmakers–David Sloan, Thea Canlas and Matthew Hickey–swept the $500 grand prize and $250 audience award. You can see the video below – its title, “Left-Brained People Helping Right-Brained People,” is a riff on MLA’s motto. The short also alludes to other, famous artistic legal battles, including the fair use case of Rogers v. Koons.

“We were initially a little worried that our idea would incite the wrath of two groups that tend to take themselves very seriously—artists and lawyers—but it is that very seriousness that makes the piece work as a parody,” Sloan said, according to a press release from MLA.

The kids are back to school and you’re at work. Take a minute to check out some law links to start the week.

• Copyright laws might prevent public consumption of the Savory collection — a treasure trove of jazz recordings from the 1930s and 1940s.
• Two couples with ties to the Maryland legal community made the New York Times Weddings/Celebrations page.
• Virginia’s AG says the state can further regulate abortion clinics.
• The Maryland Injury Law Blog is supporting sitting judges Laura Kiessling and Ronald Jarashow in the race for Anne Arundel County Circuit Court judge — even though they say only 11 people could make an informed decision in that race.
• Lots of students on other career tracks work for free in summer internships, but law schools in Florida are refusing to post requests seeking summer associates who will work for free because of labor laws.
• More and more are leaving big law behind.
• The Huffington Post has a Q&A with Pastor Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church.

If I had a time machine, one of my first stops would be newsrooms across the country in the mid-1990s. (My second stop? Where Hall met Oates, of course.)

“This ‘Internet thing’? Not only is it here to stay but it is the future of information sharing,” I’d tell the assembled newspaper people. “Start charging people for your online content now or you’re going to be in a heap of trouble in 20 years.”

I thought about this while reading a story in The Las Vegas Sun about its rival paper’s attempt to prevent websites and bloggers from posting entire stories instead of just links to the source. The Las Vegas Review-Journal‘s “copyright enforcement partner” has sued at least 86 websites for copyright infringement, seeking $75,000 in damages and forfeiture of the domain names.

Here’s how it works, according to the Sun: the R-J’s partner, Righthaven LLC, scours the Internet in search of a copyright infringement. It then purchases the copyright of that specific story from the R-J’s owner and sues the website owner.

Critics acknowledge the paper and Righthaven have copyright claims but accuse them of using heavy-handed tactics on “mom-and-pop” websites, like the lawsuit filed against the cat-centric blog. One journalism professor calls the lawsuits “the McDonald’s coffee cases of copyright litigation — lawful but preposterous.”

I recommend the Vegas Sun’s story, if only for the fantastic analogies involving a 1967 Corvette and a pig. The lesson here is always give credit and link to an original source in your blog posts. (Thanks for the tip, Above the Law! Thanks for the illustration, e-how!)

Because you never know when private eyes are watching you.

One of the best parts of the World Cup is the national teams’ nicknames. You’ve got the champion Furia Roja and the runner-up Oranje, not to mention El Tri, the Super Eagles and the Blue Samurai, to name a few.

(You can see a full list here. The U.S. is nicknamed the Yanks, which is, well, kinda lame.)

Outside of the Socceroos, however, the best nickname is Bafana Bafana, which belongs to South Africa. Sort of.

That’s because the phrase “Bafana Bafana” (Zulu for “boys, boys”) was actually copyrighted by a South African businessman in 1994. The South African Football Association, which uses the name, lost a lawsuit before the country’s highest court for control of the name in 2002.

Earlier this week, a South African government official suggested Bafana should be changed because of the lack of a copyright. As the AP noted in its story, “There is no indication the current owners of the brand will sue SAFA for using the term, but the country’s soccer association is unable to market it and make money from it.”

SAFA officials said this week they might seek the public’s help in choosing a new nickname. One thing’s for sure: whatever is chosen will probably be better than the Yanks.

(Hat Tip to vuvusela2010bafana.wordpress.com for the photo above.)

Maryland Lawyers for the Arts is marking its 25th anniversary with a “Conference on Creativity & Law” tomorrow afternoon at the American Visionary Art Museum. The conference is free and open to non-lawyers, but you need to RSVP here.

Marcia Semmes, MLA’s executive director (pictured left), called it a “do-it-your-self copyright event,” featuring discussions on copyright law and a screening of “Copyright Criminals,” a documentary about music sampling that will be followed by a talk from filmmaker Kembrew McLeod.

“We think all of the pieces are there for an interesting afternoon,” Semmes said.

That MLA is celebrating its 25th birthday is an interesting story in itself. The organization existed in name only by the late 1990s until it re-launched in 2006. Two years later, MLA started “Arts Brief,” a quarterly e-newsletter that now has more than 10,000 subscribers. Semmes said she received a call from an artist in Washington State this week asking if Saturday’s conference will be available online. (It won’t, she added, but future events might.)

Semmes said MLA still wants to increase its reach beyond the Baltimore region, where most of its volunteers and artists reside. It will also be planning an event this fall to formally celebrate 25 years.

“We face the same challenges as any non-profit, but, knock on wood, we’re as stable as we’ve ever been,” she said.

I am simply going to cut the cheese – I mean, cut to the chase – and say this post is about digital farting.

Specifically, the flatulence apps available for the iPhone. In one corner is iFart; the other, Pull My Finger. IFart is seeking a declaratory judgment allowing it to use the phrase “pull my finger” in its ads, which Pull My Finger’s parent company claims is trademark infringement.

The suit was filed in February, and you can read about the case here. I also highly recommend reading iFart’s lawsuit, specifically paragraphs 11 through 13, for an actual legal discussion related to passing gas.

I bring all of this up because last night, The Daily Show ran a story on the legal rumblings. I’m just glad none of this is scratch-and-sniff.

Kevin Cogill, the blogger who leaked songs from Guns N’ Roses’ new album last year, was sentenced to one year of probation last week by a federal judge in Los Angeles. Cogill will also serve two months of home confinement (which I heard a DJ joke will give Cogill plenty of time to leak more albums), allow the government to keep tabs on his computers and record a public service announcement for the Recording Industry Association of America.

Cogill, whose nom de blog is Skwerl, pleaded guilty earlier this year to one count of copyright infringment, a misdemeanor, according to the Associated Press. He faced a maximum of one year in jail and fines and restitution in the amount of $371,000.

Cogill’s site, Antiquiet, has a bit more colorful take on the case’s outcome. (Warning: “colorful” means “uses profanities.”) Cogill himself commented that he respects artists’ right to decide how their music is released.

“In that sense, I will concede to an error in judgement I do not intend to repeat,” he wrote.