It seems like there is a shoe battle between Christian Louboutin and YSL(Yves Saint Laurent). The battle is over Louboutin's signature red bottom soles which Louboution claims is theirs and theirs alone, thoug I have seen a plenty of knockoffs on some bargain brand shoes... A Manhattan Federal judge nixed a permanent injunction against footwear rival Yves Saint Laurent that would have prevented the French couturier from selling scarlet-soled shoes as part of its 2011 cruise collection. The judge made it clear that even though Louboutin had trademarked the red sole in 2008, he'd have trouble proving that the vivid soles were legally his and his alone to use. YSL says it has featured red soles all the way back to the 1970s. They even said the idea of red soles is "copied from King Louis XIV's red-heeled dancing shoes or Dorothy's famous ruby slippers in 'The Wizard of Oz." Back in April, Louboutin sued Yves Saint Laurent, charging the fashion house ripped off his famous red-sole trademark. Louboutin declared that he pioneered the eye-catching sole in 1992 when he first put red nail polish on the bottom of one pair, per the lawsuit filed in Manhattan Federal Court.The judge wrote, "Because in the fashion industry color serves ornamental and aesthetic functions vital to robust competition, the court finds that Louboutin i
s unlikely to be able to prove that its red outsole brand is entitled to trademark protection, even if it has gained enough public recognition in the market to have acquired secondary meaning." Louboutin sells about 240,000 pairs each year in the United States alone, with revenues of about $135 million a year. I find this somewhat funny. Whenever someone thinks of red soles you automatically think of Louboutins, unless you do not know fashion. If you look at the 2 shoes together one is bright red and the other is scarlet red. Though I understand the fight, I do not think Louboutin has anything to worry about at all. I am giving them a Digit Don for losing and for fighting a pointless fight.
The rent is too damn high! The line that brought Jimmy McMillan to our attention last year. Well it seems like Jimmy may be getting evicted from his rent controlled apartment in New York City's East Village. Jimmy McMillan, who pays $875 a month for rent, told the New York Post that his landlord wants him out because "my rent is too damn low." McMillan, now planning a run for president, says he's told his lawyer to file a counterclaim for $70,000. The case is pending in Housing Court. The owner of the building said, in court papers, that Jimmy violated his lease because the apartment is not his primary residence as required by rent controlled rules. It says he lives in Brooklyn. McMillan says that address is his office. If this is true then I would like to know how he can afford two rents in the city. Brooklyn or not, that is still two rents to pay every month. East Village is a trendy part of NYC, like Greenwich, and $875 is very low in NYC fr rent, people would kill to pay that amount, even if it is a studio, though it does not say if it is a studio or not. I am giving Jimmy McMillan a Digit Down for possibly ruining his chances at sustaining such a low rent and for complaining about high rent when his rent is LOW! 
Last week Wal-Mart had a major win when the Supreme Court said they women suing them could not do so as a class action lawsuit because the women were working different jobs and blah blah blah basically they saved possibly billions of dollars. However they did not win in the image department, as they have not been winning there for about 10 years. So for me it comes as no surprise that Wal-Mart announced it would be lowering its gas prices by 10 cents immediately. This discount will last until September 30th and it will be available at all Wal-Mart and Murphy USA locations. Will this help them save face? Probably not. But what it might do is spur more people to shop at Wal-Mart stores, because although they had fiscal 2011 sales of $419 billion at 9,000 stores in 15 countries, you can never have too much money. I am still giving them a Digit Down. I may or may not buy gas from them, I would have to drive out of my way to get it, but you know what Wal-Mart has still failed to do? Fix their carts!
Another day another controversy. Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Peru are suing Georgia to block their new HB 87 law. In short this law would allow law enforcement to check the immigration status of a suspect who cannot provide identification and empowers them to turn over anyone found to be in the country illegally to federal authorities. It also adds new penalties for those convicted of harboring illegal immigrants and presenting false documents when applying for a job. There are an estimated 425,000 illegal immigrants in Georgia alone. Mexican officials were dismayed when Georgia passed the law, which it said could impact millions of Mexican workers, tourists and students in the U.S., and millions more whose jobs depend on international trade, adding,"Mexico respectfully submits that, if HB 87 is allowed to take effect, it will have a significant and long-lasting adverse impact on U.S.-Mexico bilateral relations, and on Mexican citizens and other people of Latin American descent present in Georgia." Mexico's lawsuit against Georgia is similar to the one it filed last year against Arizona over it's similar law it tried to pass. The ACLU is one of the groups that's directly linked to the Mexican government. Another group linked to the Mexican government is a plaintiff in the case, the Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights. GLAHR is headed by Teodoro Maus, former Mexican consul general in Atlanta. Another group, the Instituto de Mexico, is also directly linked to the Mexican government. Others involved in the suit include many names familiar from past ACLU/NILC suits; they're listed at. I must say that in America's time of economical turmoil this is outrageous. When is it wrong to enforce the law? Illegal is illegal as a sin is a sin. No matter how big or small it is what it is. We have the right as a country to deport anyone who does not belong here. Middle Eastern countries arrest Americans all of the time for small things, wearing the wrong close, talking to loud, being Western, etc. Why does Mexico care so much? Do they want our money? Of course, they and the other 10 countries want our money but not our presence. Mexico should spend its money on stopping their massive 
drug wars on their side of the border. I am giving Georgia a Digit Up for not backing down, so far. This is a good law, a just law, and it is nothing more than a detailed version of a national law.
Taco Bell has won that silly little lawsuit claiming that they did not use real beef in their products. Though the lawsuit was dropped by the law firm Beasley Allen it was dropped because they had no real case. Taco Bell did spend between $3 million and $4 million in advertising to counter the accusations made in the lawsuit, but they did not change their menu or recipe at all. Basically nothing has changed and I m still a fan and customer at Taco Bell. In fact I ate some this morning for breakfast, well technically it was brunch, either way it was deliciously great. I am giving Taco Bell 2 Digits Up for being Taco Bel
l!
I am going to be completely honest; I have no idea what is going on in the NFL. I know for sure that there was no agreement reached between the owners and the players. I know that the players or the NFLPA (National Football League Player's Association) has decertified, but what does that mean? I know that there may be class action lawsuits to prevent the NFL from issuing a lockout. I know that the NFL plans on going forward with a lockout. I know all of that and some, but the legal issues are mind boggling. So much was up for discussion: an 18 game season, rookie salary caps, player minimum salary raised, retied player's benefits, etc. So since I can not wrap my mind around what is going on let us see if the experts and those in the thick of things can better help us all understand.
Did that help you at all? Probably not. Why? Because no one really knows! This is horrible. I am sure this will not be resolved anytime soon. We may all end up missing some football come this September. This is automatically getting 2 Digits Down from me and millions of fans across the nation, maybe the world but not really, unless you count American service members in other countries. The only way I will reverse this is if Brett Favre come back and has the season of his life! Topping it of with a Super Bowl championship.
Well by now I am sure you all have heard about he lawsuit against Taco Bell claiming that their beef only contains 35% real beef. Taco Bell has denied this from the start but now they are telling the public in new ads. They took out full-page ads in at least 9 major news papers and made a YouTube video featuring their president to proclaim that their beef is 88% real beef. Still not 100%, but it is better than what most people would have thought. Experts say that Taco Bell's meat is no more or less what any other company serves including McDonald's. Some say that it is not the beef at all we should worry about, it is the salt that would do more harm to us before the beef or "beef". The lawsuit cites U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines for labeling ground beef. The only problem is that they don't apply to restaurants, they apply to meat processors, the companies Taco Bell buys its meat from. So far the Alabama law firm that filed the suit has yet to release information on who tested the meat or any other specific information. I have eaten Taco Bell my entire life, true story, and 3 days in a row since hearing about he meat. I am sure that their is more than 35% beef in the meat, it taste more like beef than the burgers you can get at a drive-thru. I am sticking with Taco Bel until the end. Taco Bell is getting another Digit Up from me.
I love Taco Bell with a passion. It is, for some reason, my favorite place to eat. From womb til now I have always loved eating Taco Bell. Even when they suggested that we not eat there for safety reasons such as a recall or tainted products, I decided to eat there anyway. Well now Taco Bell is getting sued by Montgomery law firm Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles claiming that Taco Bell meat mixture contains binders and fillers. They said they they had the meat tested and it contained no more than 36% actual beef, less than the minimum required by the FDA to be considered actual ground beef. They want Taco Bell to change their advertising to reflect this, meaning no more commercials referring to their "seasoned beef''. In response to this suit Taco Bell President Greg Creed said this, "At Taco Bell, we buy our beef from the same trusted brands you find in the supermarket. We start with 100 percent USDA-inspected beef. Then we simmer it in our proprietary blend of seasonings and spices to give our seasoned beef its signature Taco Bell taste and texture." According to Taco Bell's website their beef seasonings include: salt, chili pepper, onion powder, tomato powder, oats, soy lectithin, sugar, soybean oil, garlic powder, yeast extract, citric acid and cocoa powder. An interesting but not unusual combination, you should see what is in your chicken. I am not surprised by this at all. There have been rumors about the meat at Taco Bell for years. From horse and donkey meat, to Grade D dog food meat, I have heard it all. I still do not think that even this new claim with stop people from eating there. However I would like for something to change. This lawsuit is not for money, it is for clarity, principal. Either Taco Bell will change their ads or the suit will fail, either way we, the consumer, will win. I am going to give
e Taco Bell a Digit Down. Not for "lying" to us, but for not being totally honest with us. McDonald's announced they will be raising their prices this year so if Taco Bell has to raise its prices in order to give us better or more beef, we will accept that.
I thought the day was slow, but here we go. Can you say LAWSUIT? Good. The Kardashian sisters are being sued. The Fresno Bee reports that Revenue Resource Group LLC filed suit in Fresno County Superior Court against Kim, Khloe and Kourtney Kardashian. Why? Well remember that shotty, yep that is the word I want to use, debit "kard" that featured their faces and whatnot on them? Well the sisters signed up for it and loved the idea of being paid to push a product. But when everyone read the fine lines and called them out on their "predatory" card they backed out of the project 3 weeks after it launched. The company's lawsuit claims they broke their contract and cost company at least $75 million in losses. Kris and their company, Dash Dolls LLC, are also named in the suit. We all know that Kris is the reader of the family, the reader of anything longer than a standard 5 line text message that is, and she is very money hungry, pawning her daughters off on any athlete with a huge contract and lots of endorsements. Could this be their jus
t desserts? I highly doubt the case will go to court and if it does somehow they may wiggle their way out of it. The most they may receive is a smaller amount to pay. No matter what they have money, but not enough to cover &5 million. A broke Kardashian, possible...very possible, Rob Kardashian. I am giving the Kardashians a Digit Down for not being able to read.
It seems like there is a shoe battle between Christian Louboutin and YSL(Yves Saint Laurent). The battle is over Louboutin's signature red bottom soles which Louboution claims is theirs and theirs alone, thoug I have seen a plenty of knockoffs on some bargain brand shoes... A Manhattan Federal judge nixed a permanent injunction against footwear rival Yves Saint Laurent that would have prevented the French couturier from selling scarlet-soled shoes as part of its 2011 cruise collection. The judge made it clear that even though Louboutin had trademarked the red sole in 2008, he'd have trouble proving that the vivid soles were legally his and his alone to use. YSL says it has featured red soles all the way back to the 1970s. They even said the idea of red soles is "copied from King Louis XIV's red-heeled dancing shoes or Dorothy's famous ruby slippers in 'The Wizard of Oz." Back in April, Louboutin sued Yves Saint Laurent, charging the fashion house ripped off his famous red-sole trademark. Louboutin declared that he pioneered the eye-catching sole in 1992 when he first put red nail polish on the bottom of one pair, per the lawsuit filed in Manhattan Federal Court.The judge wrote, "Because in the fashion industry color serves ornamental and aesthetic functions vital to robust competition, the court finds that Louboutin i
s unlikely to be able to prove that its red outsole brand is entitled to trademark protection, even if it has gained enough public recognition in the market to have acquired secondary meaning." Louboutin sells about 240,000 pairs each year in the United States alone, with revenues of about $135 million a year. I find this somewhat funny. Whenever someone thinks of red soles you automatically think of Louboutins, unless you do not know fashion. If you look at the 2 shoes together one is bright red and the other is scarlet red. Though I understand the fight, I do not think Louboutin has anything to worry about at all. I am giving them a Digit Don for losing and for fighting a pointless fight.
