Miami Attorney mimics RIAA, DirecTV tactics in "Sweet Pea" Trademark Litigation

According to sourpeas.org, a Miami attorney has taken a page out of the RIAA, DirecTV, and Acacia litigation handbooks and launched a nationwide lawsuit against 52 small businesses for using the term "sweet pea" on clothing:

Armed with the results of a simple Google search, a Miami attorney has launched a $16 million lawsuit against 52 of the tiniest businesses on the Internet. The attorney’s tools: an intimidating two-inch thick lawsuit, a short timeline to respond in a distant forum, and a threat of a multi-million dollar judgment. The attorney’s techniques: pick only the smallest defendants who can’t afford to litigate a highly questionable lawsuit. The attorney’s goal: to obtain a $5,000 contingency payoff from each defendant and collect $260,000.        
 
In January of 2006, attorney Alexander E. Barthet of Miami, Florida on behalf of his clothing company client Sweet Pea Limited, Inc. went to Federal District Court in Florida and filed a complaint claiming that 52 companies or individuals located throughout the United States were violating their    trademark. The clothing company’s lawsuit contends that using the commonly used words “Sweet Pea” in any form -- not just their stylized version -- on any article of clothing is in violation of their trademark rights and therefore they are entitled to millions of dollars in damages. Most of the defendants are creating original designs using the words “Sweet Pea” graphically on T-shirts and children’s clothing.

By setting the settlement price at $5,000, no economically rational defendant will fight, as the price of paying one's lawyers will surely exceed the cost of settlement.  By using a "divide and conquer" strategy and targeting multiple defendants, the plaintiff can consolidate his costs and use the funds of those who pay up early to fund litigation against those who resist, much like the RIAA and DirecTV use the $2,000-$5,000 settlements with accused file-sharers and satellite interceptors to fund their thousands of lawsuits without ever reaching an actual decision on the merits.

Welcome to the world of factory litigation.

Comments

[Cliff]

Does that mean I need to pay them every time I plant "Lathyrus odoratus"?

http://www.gardenguides.com/flowers/annuals/sweetpea.htm

[Lynn]

This is clearly extortion, why is the FBI or state attorneys general not all over this?

[John J]

For the record, the term under contention is "Sweet Pea" not "Sweat Pea".

[Yehuda Berlinger]

I would think that this style of litigation would be trademarked. Surely the RIAA plans to sue this guy for using their lawsuit style.

Yehuda

[Barbara Peterson]

Extortion is right. This just highlights that the US legal system needs a serious overhaul. It's not about justice...it's about money. And that's wrong.

[syberlink]

In the Directv suits where all this began we knew at this time that this was a very profitable way of making money. Actually the attorney above has a better case because he can prove the words were used. In the Directv cases and the RIAA cases, many people are being forced to pay then sign confidential agreements concealing any crimes such as subordination of perjury where a false complaint had been filed. It is the innocent people where it becomes a crime to sue because where the person is innocent, the lawsuit is all made up to the court.
I agree, where is the FBI in all of this. Where an innocent person is involved and they knew the person to be innocent and still took there money and forced the settlement, then it was a fraud on the court. It was the taking of monies they knew they were not entitled to by way of misrepresentation. A crime to say the least which will not be enforced. Victims of crimes should not have to sign confidental agreements concealing what they know. And they know of these crimes and have decided not to enforce the criminal laws.