No fashion law developments this week warranted an entire post, but there are a number of interesting items to catch up on, in case you missed them the first time around:

The Good

• The humble writer behind LAW OF FASHION was interviewed by Professionelle about fashion law, entrepreneurship, and why intellectual property isn't just for lawyers anymore.  Legal industry hub Above The Law graciously took an interest in the story.
  

• Forbes and ShePosts.com each did profiles on the blogger behind criticism and commentary site WTForever21.com, Rachel Kane, who is represented by Charles Colman Law, PLLC, in her dispute with Forever 21.  Though initially taken aback by Forever 21's claims about the website's alleged trademark and copyright infringement, Rachel is now fighting the company's legally baseless threats.
  

• The Hangover 2 "copyrighted tattoo" case settles, and the DVD will be released as planned.  Wait, on second thought, intellectual property attorneys were dying to see how the courts would rule on the novel issues in this case.  Move this one to "The Bad."
  

The Bad

• John Galliano stood trial for the crime of "public insult based on origin, religious affiliation, race, or ethnicity."  His defense hinged on a "triple addiction," for which he is still receiving treatment.  Galliano denied holding anti-Semitic beliefs, despite the pro-Hitler outburst on which the trial centered, of which Galliano claims to have no memory.  No word on whether he remembers a separate October 2010 encounter with another witness that Galliano allegedly called a "f-----g ugly Jewish bitch."  The verdict has not yet been announced, but Galliano faces possible prison time (albeit rare for the crime at issue), a fine of $14,300 from the government, and damages of up to $314,200 to one of the people involved in the cafe incident, whom Galliano allegedly threatened to kill.  Galliano's final statement before the court adjourned was a "rambling paean to cultural diversity," including an assertion that he has "friends who are Shaolin monks" -- or as Jezebel called it, the "little-known Shaolin Monk Defense."
  

• The Internet media freaks out over a Nevada court's dictum that in some circumstances, duplication of an entire article may constitute fair use.
  

• A Maryland man sues his nail salon for charging men $1 more for manicures.  The plaintiff's attorney likens his client to Rosa Parks.  Cringe.
  

• The Winklevoss twins finally throw in the towel in their battle with facebook.  The Winklevoss twins are back for more!
  

The Thoroughly Unsurprising

The trademark (and trademark-ey) lawsuits just keep on a-comin':

• The Marlon Brando Estate continues its IP rampage, following up a lawsuit against Harley-Davidson for HD's "Brando" boots with a new case against Ashley Furniture for its line of "Brando" sofas and ottomans.  Time to revisit LOF's post on "tributes"?
  

• A judge denies Target's requested temporary injunction against a Canadian company that has been operating "Target Apparel" stores since 2005.  Pesky territoriality principles!
  

• Katy Perry files a preemptive lawsuit in Detroit to keep unauthorized merchandise vendors away from her concert there next week.  The vendors have been following her from venue to venue, but is this an adequate basis for filing a lawsuit seeking to prevent something that hasn't happened yet?
  

• Chicago takes hot dogs really seriously.  Vienna Beef sues a rival for either stealing its 118-year-old recipe OR lying to customers by claiming to be using it.  (FYI, this is called "pleading in the alternative," a/k/a, "I'm not sure exactly what you did, but I know it's something BAD!")
  

• Former "Biggest Loser" contestant Jennifer Eisenbarth is the big winner this time around -- or at least, the big settler.  This week, she inked a settlement with the last of a dozen companies that used her name and likeness without permission in connection with diet products sold online.  Remember that whole "right of publicity" thing LOF talked about back in December?  Me either.  God, December was a long time ago.
  

[This post is for entertainment and informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship among any individuals or entities.  Any views expressed herein are those of the writer on the particular date of this post, and should not necessarily be attributed to his law firm or its clients.]