Judge Throws Out Law Students' Lawsuit Over Misleading Job Stat
By: LegalNetworker on Apr 06, 2012 02:16:27 PM
Judge Throws Out Law Students' Lawsuit Over Misleading Job Statistics and Says Students Should Have Know What They Were Paying $150,000 For A few weeks ago I wrote an article titled Were Law Students Snookered By Law School Job Statistics (click here to access) and I concluded that while law schools should report accurate data, a student could not reasonably argue that they went to law school because of the one page of a law school’s website that said they would get a job right after graduation. Apparently a New York Supreme Court Judge agrees. Last week, the Judge tossed out the first of many lawsuits brought by students who claimed they were snookered by misleading job statistics. The significant part of the court decision is reposted here. The court does not view these post-graduate employment statistics to be misleading in a material way for a reasonable consumer acting reasonably. By anyone's definition, reasonable consumers -- college graduates -- seriously considering law schools are a sophisticated subset of education consumers, capable of sifting through data and weighing alternatives before making a decision regarding their post-college options, such as applying for professional school. These reasonable consumers have available to them any number of sources of information to review when making their decisions. The Judge’s argument is in essence that because potential law students are “sophisticated” and have many sources of information available at their fingertips they knew or should know that employment and salary statistics provided by the law school should not be the sole basis for their decision. Sound familiar? It should as here is what I wrote and posted a few weeks before the decision. That being said, I also think students have a responsibility to perform some research about the job market such that they are comfortable with a decision to become a lawyer. A simple internet search will (and would have) shed some light on the fact that not every lawyer is making a six digit salary and that finding a job as a lawyer (especially in this economy) is difficult. In addition, the law school application process is extensive and it strikes me that at some point during that six month to year process (LSAT, application, acceptance, summer) that a student has an affirmative responsibility to investigate the job prospects a bit more than relying on the webpage of a private law school. I for one am happy the lawsuit was thrown out and I hope that the cases in other States follow the same path. Law schools should report meaningful job statistics but suing a private institution because you were "misled" by a statistic on a webpage is not the answer in my opinion. Not everything should be a lawsuit and this entire situation is an example of the world looking in and seeing the legal profession (law schools, students, lawyers) behaving badly. To be clear, this is not the fault of students but I do not think that lawsuits are the answer here. As such, I feel the case being thrown out for EXACTLY the reasons stated in the decision is exactly what should have happened. I recognize that this opinion is not shared by everyone and would welcome feedback and commentary so that both sides are adequately represented.  

View Comments
Comment By : FRANK RAPPA Date : Jun 26, 2012 11:07:47 AM
_____________________________________________________________________________ [QUESTION] Greetings Frank, My company is designing a logo for education and training program service we provide to our customers, will our company logo be approved for trademark protection? I have an artist designing our logo to have a stylized image of the word set above our company name “GLOBAL LEADERSHIP EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT” (written in a font sharing the same style and them of the glob.) I had an expert in IP Law say it may be difficult as the service provided is included in the logo. What are your thoughts? Regards, Taylor _____________________________________________________________________________ [ANSWER] Dear Taylor, To an extent your expert’s response is somewhat correct about "difficult[ies]" under the circumstances presented here. Let me explain the law as it applies to your company logo you described. First let me set out that a 'trademark' must be a 'distinctive' word, phrase, logo, graphic symbol, or other device (and any combination of these) used to identify the source of a product or service and to distinguish a manufacturer’s or merchant’s products from anyone else’s. 'Generics' (which are not ‘distinct’) cannot be protected under trademark. Thus, 'generic terms,' which describes an entire group or class of goods or services (for example, the terms “computer,” “eyeglasses,” and “eBook” are all generic terms), and the public associates these terms with a type of goods, not a specific brand. Here the G.L.E.A.D. logo, which contains the business name, is comprised of 'generic terms' that describe the service it labels. For example "Education" being a generic term here is clear, but the other terms also describe the underling service (But also "Leadership Education," " Global Leadership," " Global Leadership Education," "Leadership Development," " Global Leadership Development," "Education and Development," "Leadership Education and Development," and " Global Leadership Education and Development"). Your prior attorney stopping here was in error. The logo, while does contain 'generic words' remains 'distinct' when contained in the image with the globe in its particular design style, colors and the type of font used. What the logo is not is 'inherently distinctive' -- memorable because it is creative or out of the ordinary. Specifically, trademarks that are 'inherently distinctive' typically consist of unique logos or symbols or words that are made up to be specifically used as a mark, such as Exxon or Kodak (“coined marks”); words that invoke imaginative images in the context of their usage, such as Double Rainbow ice cream (“fanciful marks”); words that are surprising or unexpected in the context of their usage (“arbitrary marks”), such as Time magazine or Diesel for a bookstore; and words that cleverly connote qualities about the product or service without literally describing these qualities, such as "Slenderella" diet food products (“suggestive or evocative marks”). By contrast, marks that consist of common or ordinary words are not considered to be 'inherently distinctive.' Thus, to establish your logo as 'distinctive' with respect to your service you must establish that consumers recognize the logo as marking the services of G.L.E.A.D. through its long use. Typical examples of common or ordinary words are: people’s names; geographic terms (“Northern Dairy,” “Central Insect Control”); and 'descriptive terms' that is, words that attempt to literally describe the product or its characteristics (“Rapid Computers,” “Clarity Video Monitors,” “Ice Cold Ice Cream”). This process typically takes fives years of continued business use of the weaker mark, after such time the logo will be approved as 'distinctive' as a 'matter of law' and you will obtain full trademark protection (during the five year period after the trademark application has been submitted your logo is protected from others but some rights are not granted until the five years of use have passed. In my legal opinion, with the mentioned complications, you should be successful in getting the G.I.L.E.A.D. logo trademarked. Best of Luck, Frank Rappa _____________________________________________________________________________


Leave Comment
After logging in, you can add comments
Michael Mordechai YadegariReviewsout of 83 reviews