By now, I’m sure you’ve already heard that Tony La Russa recently tried to sue Twitter because one of your fellow HJE/Desipio readers had the outstanding idea to “Tweet” on Tony’s behalf. The Tweets were hilarious. For example:

Lost 2 out of 3, but we made it out of Chicago without one drunk driving incident or dead pitcher.

Tony did not find them as amusing, so he decided do what any law school graduate and self-proclaimed “genius” would do. File a completely frivolous lawsuit against Twitter.

The same creative genius responsible for the Twitter page tracked down a copy of “Anthony’s” complaint. Let’s have a look, shall we?

Anthony’s first cause of action is trademark infringement. To prove trademark infringement, Anthony^TM first needs to establish that “Tony La Russa”^TM is so associated with the brilliant manager as to render the name a unique mark. To do so, he does what anyone would do. Brags about himself.

Plaintiff LA RUSSA is a well-known manager for Major League Baseball (“MLB”). He has managed teams in the MLB for 30 years, and currently manages the St. Louis Cardinals. He ranks third all-time among MLB managers for both games managed and games won. He has been the subject of several books and has lent his name to a series of successful computer and video games entitled “Tony La Russa Baseball.”

The game was suspiciously 10% bigger than other games at the time of its release.

In addition to his athletic achievements, Plaintiff founded Tony La Russa’s Animal Rescue Foundation (“ARF”), headquartered in Walnut Creek, California, which saves abandoned and injured animals and arranges for them to be adopted and to visit hospital patients, elders, and abused children.

Good job establishing Anthony’s^TM position as the MOST FAMOUS MAN IN THE WORLD. Why not take it a step further, though? Why not add, “Moreover, Plaintiff gained internet fame by passing out at a stoplight with a mere .093 BAC, and failing to recall that the alphabet does not, in fact, have 18 K’s in it. The Cardinal lineup, on the other hand, might. HEY-O!”

Plaintiff LA RUSSA’S name and image have garnered fame, significance and distinction worldwide for both his athletic and philanthropic achievements.

Is “philanthropic” the one where he runs around and bangs a bunch of women who aren’t his wife? Because that would be a HUGE oversight on the part of his attorney.

Now, here’s where Anthony’s^TM complaint gets interesting retarded.

Defendant’s use of Plaintiff’s mark both in the Site’s domain name and on the Site itself is misleading and likely to confuse users by leading them to believe that this Site is endorsed and authored by Plaintiff LA RUSSA.

To clarify, Anthony^TM is alleging that THIS is likely to confuse readers into thinking he’s Tweeting: “Lost 2 out of 3, but we made it out of Chicago without one drunk driving incident or dead pitcher.” So is this: “drinking a cold Zima and wishing fucking Hancock was alive, I bet he could’ve gotten Jack Wilson out.” Now, I know Anthony’s^TM fan base is made up of Cardinals fans, but you have to be a special brand of dumb to be confused about whether or not that is parody, particularly if you consider this:

Off to the side on the TonyLaRussa page, where users list biographical information, the impostors posted a link to Mothers Against Drunk Driving and wrote “Bio Parodies are fun for everyone.”

Also worth consideration is the fact that no one who is a fan of Anthony^TM either owns or knows how to operate a computer, so there is little to no danger of them actually being exposed to the parody.

Anthony’s^TM next cause of action is false designation of origin. If you don’t know what false designation of origin is, that’s probably because it’s a completely ludicrous argument to make in this instance. Since his attorney took a shotgun approach and just cited the entire section of the U.S. Code pertaining to false designation of origin, I’m going to make an educated guess that he is referring to section (c), which reads as follows:

Subject to the principles of equity, the owner of a famous mark that is distinctive, inherently or through acquired distinctiveness, shall be entitled to an injunction against another person who, at any time after the owner�s mark has become famous, commences use of a mark or trade name in commerce that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the famous mark, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury.

Here’s the key phrase: IN COMMERCE. Anthony^TM needs to make a case that Twitter (who, by the way, isn’t the one actually using his likeness) is using his likeness to turn a profit. “Commerce” is usually pretty liberally applied by the courts, but unless he’s going to argue that the fake account increased traffic to the site, thus increasing ad revenue, he’s pretty dumb. Oh, and he also needs to get around this pesky sub-paragraph:

(3) Exclusions
The following shall not be actionable as dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under this subsection:
(A) Any fair use, including a nominative or descriptive fair use, or facilitation of such fair use, of a famous mark by another person other than as a designation of source for the person�s own goods or services, including use in connection with�
(ii) identifying and parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the goods or services of the famous mark owner.

Oops.

Anthony’s^TM third cause of action is trademark dilution, which we’ve already said requires that there be a serious danger of confusion and for which parody is a fair use defense (i.e., it’s a dumb argument). Then, Anthony^TM argues that Twitter is cybersquatting on the site.

Defendant’s actions as stated herein, including its registration and use of the domain name twitter.com/TonyLaRussa in an intentional attempt to divert the public away from Plaintiff’s authorized websites to Defendant’s website, constitute a bad faith intent to profit from and injure Plaintiff’s mark, is intended to increase traffic to Defendant’s site, or were done with the knowledge that injury to Plaintiff’s mark was substantially certain to occur.

Considering pretty much every iteration of TonyLaRussa.com redirects to ARF, what Anthony^TM is suggesting is that this was all part of Twitter’s diabolical plot to turn a profit by making a bunch of puppies homeless. Keep twisting those Snidely Whiplash mustaches, Twitter. Because apparently when you’re trying to get to the ARF page, and you somehow accidentally end up on Twitter, you’re so shocked that you click a bunch of ads and send them a check.

Anthony’s^TM next two causes of action are misappropriation of name and likeness. Since his attorney didn’t bother referring to any sort of actual statute upon which a cause of action might be based in those counts, I’ll just politely decline to address them.

Anthony’s^TM seventh cause of action is a good ‘un. Invasion of privacy. The man just explained that he is so insanely famous that his name is a trademark, and now he’s bitching about invasion of privacy. Terrific. It gets better, though. The statute cited has nothing to do with invasion of privacy, nor does the cause of action allege any of the necessary components of invasion of privacy. Instead, it refers to knowingly using another person’s likeness to profit. Maybe this is the misappropriation statute Anthony’s^TM attorney struggled to find up above?

Anthony’s^TM final cause of action is for “intentional misrepresentation.” What does that mean? I don’t know, since there’s no reference to an actual statute cited addressing “intentional misrepresentation.” I assume if “intentional misrepresentation” is illegal, there are a shitload of actors and actresses out there who had better WATCH THEIR BACKS.

After all of these causes of action, Anthony^TM argues that he “suffered significant emotional distress.” Personally, I would have put that as a separate cause of action entirely. Of course, I also couldn’t go in front of a judge with a straight face and argue that a grown man was emotionally crushed because someone made fun of him on Twitter. But that’s just me.

Instead of wasting their time getting dragged into court for such a frivolous lawsuit, Twitter decided to settle with Anthony^TM by taking down the page and making a donation to ARF. I hope they donated rabies. No, scratch that. I love dogs. I hope they donated a punch to Tony La Russa’s penis^TM.

As Hawk noted in the comments, Twitter is NOT backing down and settling with Anthony^TM because it’s a stupid, frivolous lawsuit. Good job, Twitter. I think your service is slightly less dumb today than I did yesterday.