Liftoff! Pfizer Sues Over Viva Viagra Missiles
36 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // October 7th, 2008 // 6:22 pm
Say what? This advertising concept may fly right over your head. But a little-known company called JetAngel is locked in a nasty trademark battle with Pfizer after placing the Viva Viagra logo on a missile that was paraded through Manhattan last month and even stopped in front of the drugmaker’s 42nd Street headquarters.
Why? JetAngel specializes in an unusual form of outdoor advertising - placing logos on military equipment that is transported around for visibility. The concept “takes the target marketing capabilities of mobile billboards and adds an experience for consumers to achieve the ultimate viewer captivation. It is a new, non-traditional outdoor medium that has no competition. We can capture the consumer’s attention and engage them one-on-one with an advertising message that has proven to provide a positive reaction.”
As far as Pfizer is concerned, the gambit was unwelcome and so the drugmaker filed a lawsuit in federal court in New York for misappropriating the Viagra trademarks. Most likely, Pfizer execs felt baited after JetAngel sent this e-mail the following day, according to the lawsuit: “Jet Angel hopes that you enjoyed yesterday’s visit to NYC including all your free PR. It is the intention to make a second trip next week, with the VIAGRA Missile, and ‘riding’ on top will be two models handing out free condoms!”
In fact, JetAngel intends to take the Viagra missile on a 12-city tour where models will distribute condoms depicting John McCain and Barack Obama. Read the letter to Pfizer here. (The above photo, by the way, comes from JetAngel, which substituted ‘Censored by a Federal Court’ over the Viagra logos). Meanwhile, according to another Pfizer filing, someone at JetAngel told a Pfizer lawyer ‘Go f___ yourself.’ Who said drugmakers are the most aggressive marketers?
Hat tip to the WSJ Law blog
Justice in MI
I love it. If this is not the work of Michael Moore or Act-Up, it is a Michael Moore or Act-Up wannabe.
I doubt it has anything to do with “aggressie marketing.” I’d guess it has to do with, well, “f___ yourselves.”
I surmise this, in part, because people who read logos just before the missile hits them do not make for reliable consumers.
Arye Sachs
Here is the letter I sent them following there extortion demands: http://www.jetangel.com/data/PitBull3.doc
This was no advertisement - This was pure fun! What else should go on a beautiful missile resembling an Erected Penis - Tropicana?
Can’t they understand a joke? Why do they need to have a 6000lb bulldozer crush a little guy who wants to have fun? A nice polite letter would have been all needed not bullying and extortion. But now it is too late.
As per court papers filed by the defendant - The name “Viagra” is going to be a free domain soon. In a short time Pfizer will no longer own the name as it has became “GENERIC”. I am taking it down the same path Kleenex, Xerox, Escalator went - They have become a name so recognizable by the public that they are no longer a trade mark - by law. Pfizer - You are going down. Stay tuned! It is a David Vs Goliath on a 1000ml Viagra.
Marilyn Mann
I am missing something. If Pfizer is not paying them to advertise Viagra, who is? I don’t understand their business model.
Just A Thought
I think their business model is a lopsided
Don’t Sue Us - Let Us Sue You.
Justice in MI
Check out the website. This is a kind of “performance art.”
harpy
I think this says it all:
“Turning American air superiority, our swords and spears, into an innovative way to advertise, while providing enjoyable experience for children of all ages as it says in Isaiah 2:4: “They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks.”
Arye Sachs
Pfizer is not a Honey-Nut Cheerios manufacturer. Pfizer is a consumer-oriented manufacturer at the highest level possible. It sells health and life-supporting products and as such should be held to the highest standards on Earth. In many ways, it should be answerable to the highest authorities. Its exposure and reputation will show that it has forfeited its rights to its trade names.
Pfizer is known to be its own worst enemy, with occasional federal investigations, mounting lawsuits, and class action claims. It has also proven (as in the Lipitor and Chantix cases) that its greed has led, and is still leading, to the loss of human life.
In the early 2000s, Pfizer was sick with an all too common illness, one which a corporation can live with for many years until it is uncovered, but which may cause severe pain nonetheless. If not treated right, it can even lead to the demise of the company.
This terrible tumor is called consumer fraud.
Pfizer has faced many litigation cases on topics including, but not limited to, defective heart valves, violations of Food and Drug Administration regulations in the United States, and a handful of consumer fraud cases in the U.S. and abroad.
No one, not even Pfizer, has a silver bullet to deal with these issues. Thus, Pfizer did what every surgeon would have done in this case: cut and removed the sick limbs so the rest of the body can live. In June of 2006, Pfizer sold its Consumer Health Division, including well-known brands such as Listerine, Nicorette, and Sudafed, to Johnson & Johnson. Following this sale, Pfizer opened one of the ten largest corporate complaint departments in America and instituted one of the most protective whistleblower policies known.
The success of this “amputation” was only temporary. Only two years later, the benign tumor spread again throughout the entire company.
The last major ruling regarding one of Pfizer’s securities class action fraud cases took place as recently as this month and in this same building. Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Pfizer’s motion for reconsideration of a July 1 order on the defendant’s dismissal bid as well as Pfizer’s request that the court certify two issues for interlocutory appeal. Although it is one that originated two years ago, it shows intent and put its character and reputation on the line. And that is only an aftershock from the past. The world is now waiting for the outcome of pending legal issues surrounding Lipitor and other drugs. These are not discomfort or injury cases, these are cases in which death resulted from Pfizer’s engagement in a massive campaign to convince both doctors and patients that Lipitor is a beneficial treatment for nearly everyone with elevated cholesterol. According to the complaint, women with healthy hearts who took Lipitor actually suffered a 10 percent increase in heart attacks compare to women treated with a placebo.
A criminal federal investigation was not conclusive, and the federal government will not prosecute at this time, but the lawsuits and class action claims continue nonetheless and are likely to cause damage in the billions. However, it becomes more obvious with each new customer left on the killing fields of greed that it is all about preserving the reputation of the Plaintiff at all costs.
“Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?” (Jeremiah 13:23). The problems keep coming back in growing numbers. This time Pfizer has gone from securities fraud issues to actual consumer life-and-death issues because of Lipitor and numerous other drugs, such as Chantix. Pfizer’s conduct in this matter is shameful. Its greed keeps growing and growing and growing, much like an Energizer Bunny on 1000mg of Viagra.
Stockholders need not worry, though. Pfizer is working to take care of the “issues” again! Instead of getting to the root of the problem (i.e., treating the diseases), it has chosen to treat the symptoms with a 600-pound gorilla. In order to conduct the orchestra of attorneys defending mounting lawsuits, as of June 23, 2008, Pfizer hired the best offense from the firm it originally hired to defend litigation involving Bextra and Celebrex (DLA Piper). All this at a cost of well over $7 million dollars a year in compensation, options, and benefits. Amy Schulman will once again deny poor Americans the right to a fair compensation in all the cases where they have been hurt by Pfizer drugs. This time, however, she will do it from Pfizer’s 42nd Street headquarters, reporting directly to Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey B. Kindler.
Did anyone say anything about “good reputation?”
Even Pfizer’s TV ads no longer show with pride who actually manufactured the drug the commercial is promoting, and when it does, it is for one or two seconds, covering less than 1 percent of the screen. This is happening at a time when every other company traded on the stock exchange uses the opportunity to boost its name on all its commercials to attract investors. Some companies, such as GE (TV commercial about their new quiet jet engine) and ADM (agriculture), have no business with consumers, yet they spend millions just for the exposure. Meanwhile, Pfizer hides. Other currently running TV advertising by other pharmaceutical companies, such as Astra Zeneka, Galxo Smith, and Lily, to name a few, are proudly displaying their name on their commercials. Why is Pfizer hiding – from their “good reputation?”
And what about LIPITOR?
Pfizer engaged in a massive campaign to convince both doctors and patients that Lipitor is a beneficial treatment for nearly everyone with elevated cholesterol, even though no studies have shown it to be effective for healthy women as well as for people over sixty-five. According to an inconclusive federal investigation and a class action complaint, women without heart disease who took Lipitor were 10 percent more likely to suffer from a heart attack than women treated with a placebo. The lawsuit alleges that Pfizer violated state consumer protection laws against deceptive advertising and seeks reimbursement for women, seniors, and others who bought Lipitor unnecessarily as a result of Pfizer’s deceptive marketing and promotional campaign.
Nicholas
I think the exact quote to the lawyer was “go pfuck yourself”
Justice in MI
As usual, I think harpy and I on same page.
What about the possiblity of putting company most helped by the recent bail-outs on bails of hay? Imagine driving by an open field and seeing a big AIG on a stack.
It seems to me the open field market is, well, an open field for marketing.
Arye Sachs
Thank you all. here some of the public information defense papers:
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS
On September 18, 2008, Judge William Pauley issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and an Order to Show Cause for Preliminary Injunction # 08 CV 8065 submitted by Pfizer Inc. (the Plaintiff) against Mr. Arye Sachs and JetAngel.com (the Defendant) for the purpose of temporarily restraining Mr. Arye Sachs and JetAngel.com from displaying the Plaintiff’s trademarks, “Viagra” and “Viva Viagra.”
The Defendant submits to the court this response together with briefs in support as well as evidence included in the appendixes
The Defendant is not an attorney and is representing himself. Therefore, he apologizes to the court in advance for any inconvenience this may cause. On the positive side, the Defendant has a fifteen-year-old daughter and thirteen-year-old triplets. Their combined weight at birth was less than the weight of the TRO papers filed by the Plaintiff on September 18, and the Defendant pledges to keep all communication to the minimum necessary, saving the environment, the trees, and the court’s time.
Several issues have been raised by the Plaintiff in regards to why a TRO should be granted. These issues, together with others, will be addressed in the following documents.
The defense presented by Mr. Sachs in this brief opposition answer is based on a simple and true claim of Fair Use together with his right under the First Amendment as the Plaintiff makes claims that will require both. The Fair Use defense is entered with the two new revisions in mind.
A. In 2005, in the wake of KP Permanent Make-Up, the Third Circuit adopted a new test to analyze trademark cases, where a defendant raises the affirmative defense of nominative Fair Use. In doing so, it departed from the Ninth Circuit’s longstanding and generally accepted approach.
B. recent change in the enactment of the Trademark Dilution Revision Act (TDRA), which substantially amended the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA)
In addition, the defense will show that even under certain commercial intent, which the Defendant did not have, he is still allowed to use the trademark the way he used it. During the ten to twelve hours the defendant drove the missile, it displayed in simple and free fonts the words, “Viva Viagra” only, not the complete Pfizer logo with the blue sun rays and the two lines with the name of the chemical that makes the drug, thus eliminating any claim to confusion.
There was no political message, no condoms or leaflets distributed, no service was provided, no sponsorship was claimed or offered, and no message of any kind was delivered prior to the TRO and therefore no confusion or any other damage was made to the plaintiff and its “reputation”..
The article in the PR WEEK magazine said nothing about Viagra and since the issue of the RTO we went out with the missile but all it said was “Viva McCain 2008” and “Obama Oh Mama”.
The whole idea to add Viagra and the candidate’s condoms was only suggested AFTER receiving the chilling bulling extorting letter from the plaintiff’s attorney.
This whole TRO and complaint in front of the court is ONLY about the defendant driving ten to twelve hours with his mobile penis having on it simple non-confusing letters (not full logo) saying “viva Viagra” on it for his own thrill as he explain to the court on September 18 and his claim to his right to keep doing so at his will.
The Defendant is not selling anything with the said trademarks, advertising with the said trademarks, or promoting anything with the said trademarks. And even if he was, no one will get confused between an erection and election; although we must admit the end results are the same…
The Plaintiff’s conduct in this case is a classic “Trademark vs. First Amendment” bullying or, as William McGeveran (Associate Professor, University of Minnesota Law School) would say, a “pre-litigation chilling effect.”
As written in the Plaintiff attorney’s communication to the Defendant: “As Judge Pauley stated in Court, ‘You should understand that you could be in considerable personal financial jeopardy as a result of this case,’ because Pfizer is going to seek damages and attorneys fees against you. Should you agree to make the Temporary Restraining Order permanent, Pfizer might be willing to resolve the lawsuit on that basis and not seek monetary recovery in this matter.”
This quote plays right to the danger against which Mr. William McGeveran, Mark Bartholomew, and many others in the field are warning. Large corporations have compromised the ability of the average citizen to defend his/her constitutional rights under the First Amendment in cases involving trademark issues.
Mr. William McGeveran writes:
“There is no shortage of law review articles and books warning that overly broad interpretations of trademark rights imperil free speech values. I share their sense of concern, yet the eventual decisions in almost all recent controversial cases protected speech, just as the Ninth Circuit did in Freecycle. When courts finally reach the merits, these cases suggest, the defendant’s free speech arguments ultimately carry the day. This does not mean that all is well. It does mean, however, that we need to focus on the true free speech problem in trademark law. That problem arises because only a tiny fraction of disputes actually reach litigation and become eligible for a happy ending like the one we saw in the Freecycle case. Moreover, their holdings tend to be tied closely to their facts and so offer limited value as precedent. Considerable anecdotal evidence suggests that the real action occurs outside the courthouse: mark holders send cease-and-desist letters and threaten legal action against those using trademarks to facilitate speech, and the recipients frequently capitulate. We need not devote too much energy to improving the courts’ ability to reach the correct substantive outcomes in the final judgment at the end of a lawsuit. They already do. Rather, the priority should be restructuring the relevant doctrines to reduce the pre-litigation chilling effect.”
At the last annual symposium of the Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal, Mr. William McGeveran also said:
“In recent years, courts have begun to reach speech-protective results quite consistently in cases that raise such issues. They have not, however, developed unified or coherent doctrine for doing so, and they do not resolve such cases quickly. The resulting confusion of standards and prolonged litigation have a chilling effect on expression using trademarks, just as surely as if judges issued injunctions to prohibit the same speech. In short, procedural structure is at least as important as eventual outcomes. Therefore, in addition to achieving an appropriate substantive balance between economic and expressive objectives of trademark law, we should integrate First Amendment requirements into doctrine, design clearer standards, and facilitate faster and less expensive adjudication. Articulating these four goals sets the stage for upcoming work using them as standards to critique current law and propose reform.”
As to the judge’s remarks to the Defendant after granting the TRO to the Plaintiff, “…but they spent millions on that,” I hereby submit a quote from a paper by Mark Bartholomew (Associate Professor of Law, State University of New York at Buffalo):
“Modern trademark doctrine assumes that by protecting advertiser rights, the
public interest will be protected as well. According to the neoclassicists, it is
acceptable to privilege advertising expenditures because advertising reduces
consumer search costs while at the same time allowing the consumer to switch to
another brand if given a compelling reason. The evidence on affective decision- making shows, however, that advertising locks in consumer preference to a higher
degree than previously expected. If the affective tags generated by advertising cause the consumer to persist in choosing a suboptimal brand, then the search cost
justification for trademark law loses some of its potency. While advertising
expenditures may be probative of consumer recognition of the plaintiff’s mark, the temptation exists for courts to quote advertising budgets as evidence of a business investment that should be protected from all comers. Given the recent research demonstrating the staying power of advertising, courts should limit their reliance on proof of a trademark holder’s advertising investment.”
Courts granted robust legal protection to trademark holders in the early twentieth century because they accepted the benign view of advertising presented to them by advertisers. As advertising became linked to cultural progress and social cohesion, courts adopted doctrinal revisions to protect advertising’s value that remain embedded in modern trademark law. Second, judges adopted a specific construction of the consumer mind in the early 1900s to reconcile the tension between legal protection for trademark goodwill and belief in free competition. They concluded that although advertising successfully generates positive thoughts in consumers’ heads, consumers will switch their trademark allegiances when presented with a better quality product from a competitor. In other words, the mark left by advertising is not permanent. Recent research in cognitive psychology suggests, however, that advertising does leave a permanent mark on its audience. Based on new insights into the involuntary functioning of the consumer mind, many studies suggest that trademark doctrine should be altered to avoid privileging marks that are already popular with consumers and are unlikely to ever lose their luster in our subconscious. The Pfizer v. Sachs case involves a unique product that during the last ten years has left a permanent mark on it’s audiences to the point that it became a generic word. A supporting factor as explained in the appendixes is that customers of this unique product do not and cannot jump from brand to brand based on price or advertisement.
Under modern trademark law, courts can determine whether a defendant has made trademark use of a plaintiff’s mark only by asking whether consumers are likely to view the defendant’s use as one that indicates the source of the defendant’s products or services. Because such an inquiry is, by its nature, highly context-sensitive, trademark use is not a concept capable of serving the limiting function advocates hope. The trademark use debate, however, reveals a fundamental problem in modern trademark law and theory. Consumer understanding, and particularly consumer understanding of source, defines virtually all of modern trademark laws’ boundaries.
The Defendant’s answer to the TRO filed by Pfizer will prove beyond any doubt that:
1. There is absolutely no consumer confusion in the case of placing the lettering (not logo) of “Viagra” on a mobile aviation art platform with a missile that creates an association with a large penis.
2. There is absolutely no permanent mark left on viewers, and if there is one, it is positive for the trademark holder and no other. The mobile aviation art platform carrying the said trademark does not sell or promote any product or service.
3. At no time did the Defendant’s mobile aviation art platform attempt to market, advertise, or promote either free fun days for children or its commercial advertisement services. The purpose of the trips amounted simply to a case of fair use and free expression.
Also, not a direct part of the above defense, however, goes to show the Plaintiff’s questionable trademark’s future:
a. Pursuant to common law reference 35 USC section 1064(5) Sec. 1064. Cancellation of registration. The Defendant will show that the Plaintiff has grossly violated its right to maintain and sustain control over its own trademark name (Pfizer) and several of its consumer products’ trademark names (Lipitor, Viagra, Zoloft, and Chantix). Under the above law, such violations are grounds for the revocation of the said trademarks, and although the statute has the overriding authority, the court has the jurisdiction and the power to do so. The Defendant, on his part, has begun the process of an independent campaign to revoke the trademarks mentioned above.
b. Pursuant to common law reference 35 USC section 1064(5) Sec. 1064. Cancellation of registration. A trademark holder loses his or her rights when the trademark becomes the generic word for the product it represents. The Defendant will show that the name “Viagra,” much like “Escalator” being the generic word for “moving stairs” (thus, losing its own claim to a trademark), is the generic word for a drug used to produce an artificially induced long-lasting erection, which is widely used recreationally by men and women, regardless of the presence of any sexual disorder or dysfunction. (More on the generic subject in the following Appendixes.)
The information in this brief’s Appendixes will show that the Plaintiff’s attorney grossly, intentionally, and criminally misled a U.S. Federal Court to believe in its client’s good reputation to the point that the judge, in his granting the Plaintiff’s TRO request, said to the defendant, “…but they spent millions on it.” Yes – they sure did spend millions but on false advertisement. Over 50 percent of all drugs made by the Plaintiff, which they “…spent millions on…,” were subject to scrutiny, investigations, lawsuits, and class action suits.
Also, on the subject of “…but they spent millions on it,” the Defense will show that the remark was part of what lead to Viagra become a generic name for a sex drug/ED drug and therefore cannot be protected under the current trademark laws.
The Plaintiff marketed drugs without the proper testing, and that has recently lead to 10 percent of our mothers, sisters, and daughters suffering from heart attacks they would have never suffered if Pfizer didn’t spend millions on false advertising, all while deceiving the public and the doctors serving them. As public information and lawsuits show, Pfizer has the habit of defrauding both the public and government agencies, and now they are submitting false and misleading information to the court in order to suppress the First Amendment rights of a citizen of the USA.
Furthermore: In regards to the Plaintiff’s attorney actions in this case, it is one thing to act as a bully and extortionist under the questionable cover of the law (the “pre-litigation chilling effect” was one of them), but it is a totally different ballgame to knowingly take advantage of the fact that the Defendant, in representing himself, has no knowledge of the law and then present to the court 22 out of 25 old precedent cases when the Plaintiff clearly knew there was a more recent change in the enactment of the Trademark Dilution Revision Act (TDRA), which substantially amended the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA). Counsel was clearly aware that these recent cases involved claims of dilution by blurring, tarnishment, and confusion, and many of these cases (some of which the Defendant is now presenting to the court) are now supporting Defendant claims. These actions have been taken by the Defendant as a personal attack and a gross misconduct by an officer of the court and will be reported to the Bar Association in the form of a formal complaint. This is not a threat as counsel likes to call all Defendant replies. Like all other communications, this is heads-up courtesy information.
This by itself is grounds for the Defendant to request a dismissal of the TRO and to hold the Plaintiff in contempt of court. A law is a law and no one is above the law, regardless of whether the Plaintiff is a small local coffee shop, a nice guy with a long missile, or a giant like Enron, WorldCom, Lehman Brothers, or Pfizer. It’s time for the justice system and the suffering public to clean up the stables.
Saying that, the defendant is hereby offering his initial defense in brief followed by supporting information and precedents in the following appendixes.
To test for trademark infringement, courts apply the non-exclusive multi-factor test developed by Judge Friendly in Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp., 287 F.2d 492, 495 (2d Cir.1961).” Dooney & Bourke, Inc., 454 F.3d at 116. Under this test, a court must consider the following which where considered most recently by District Judge KENNETH M. KARAS in AMERICAN ORT, INC., v. ORT ISRAEL 07 CV 2332:
(1) The strength of the mark: In our case plaintiff’s mark is extremely strong to the point of becoming generic.
(2) The similarity of the two marks: In our case defendant used plain letters to express the generic name “Viagra”, not full logo to avoid similarity.
(3) The proximity of the products: In our case none existed – it cannot be reasonably suggested that Plaintiff and Defendant will ever compete.
(4) Actual confusion: 24 feet missile vs. 0.5 inch pill – no confusion in product. And since there is no logo or leaflets (as normally associated with today’s new out door advertisement) or music just plain lettering – there is no confusion even as to sponsorship. Also: Confusion leads to harm done to the plaintiff and loss of business. This is clearly not the case here.
(5) The likelihood of plaintiff’s bridging the gap [i.e., entering a market related
to that in which the defendant sells its product]: Non existed unless Pfizer will start manufacturing missiles which is not a bad idea – it will harm less people than their drugs currently do.
(6) Defendant’s good faith in adopting its mark: As this document will show, the defendant have used the name in an undisputable good faith: Since “Viagra” became a generic name for ED, recreational sex and long lasting erection, it is the perfect harmless fun match for the defendant missiles which create the impression of a long erected penis. A match from heaven!
“Bad faith generally refers to an attempt by a junior user of a mark to exploit the good
Will and reputation of a senior user by adopting the mark with the intent to sow confusion between the two companies’ products.” Star Indus., 412 F.3d at 388.
This is clearly not the issue in our case as:
A. The plaintiff has virtually no good reputation as established in this document appendix and stopped from displaying his name when advertising his drugs on TV commercials.
B. Even if the plaintiff had a good reputation – this test does not apply to our case as the parties have no common product; as a matter of fact the defendant has no product at all.
(7) The quality of defendant’s products: Best of the best! – Only compliments and cheers. However in relation to the actual test question – no product ever introduced to this dispute by the defendant
(8) The sophistication of the consumers: Sure! We are talking about AMERICANS!!
Taking all of the Polaroid factors into account, the likelihood-of-confusion inquiry is clearly in favor of the defendant. Six of the factors strongly favor defendant and one partially, including the “particularly relevant” factor of actual confusion. Virgin Enters., 335 F.3d at 151. Only one factor, the strength of the mark, favors plaintiff which is the factor the defendant claims led to the said trade mark becoming generic. More importantly, given there is no similarity of the services offered even if the defendant would have offer a service which in this case he is not, as well as the fact that Defendant’s is not targeting any of the Plaintiff’s customers, the Court should finds it clear that no one will be confused by Defendant’s use of the plaintiff’s mark.
See Playtex Prods., Inc., 390 F.3d at 162 (“When balancing the factors, district courts generally should not treat any single factor as dispositive . . . . Instead, the court should focus on the ultimate question of whether consumers are likely to be confused.” (internal quotations and citations omitted).
The plaintiff’s request and complaint should be dismissed based on this test alone!
October 02, 2008
——————————-
Arye Sachs
Justice in MI
Thank you, Arye, although I confess I did not read the whole thing. I am worried about anything that lasts four hours.
But I was curious about the following: “no one will get confused between an erection and election; although we must admit the end results are the same…”
So I am trying to unpack the meaning of that, and here is what I came up with (so to speak):
1. Someone will get scr*wed.
2. You can only have one so often.
3. Men generally tire of the run-up.
Am I on track here?
Christopher
I read the entire thing in 2 minutes.
Arye Sachs
Hi Guys.
I was just having fun (in court as on the road): Election is like Erection: First you get elated about the elected than you get screwed and look for a new one but unfortunately it takes four years not four hours…
Justice in MI
Christopher - Sounds like you may have premature edification. It you can’t read more slowly, I’d get that treated.
Christopher
JiM: good advice. I’ll probably read it 3 or 4 times later too.
Meg
Pretty lame of Pfizer, those “Constant Gardener” “upright” citizens, who put ads for this stuff on TV right at a time young children will see it. Mom and Dad necking and then…… Most parents keep even their amorous necking behind closed doors, but not Pfizer. Get over it, Pfizer. One joke on you.
Arye Sachs
Pfizer Inc. marketers urged the suppression of medical studies that reached unfavorable conclusions about the effectiveness of the company’s big-selling drug Neurontin, according to internal Pfizer documents submitted in a lawsuit against the company.
In 2004, Pfizer’s Warner-Lambert unit pleaded guilty to felony charges that it promoted Neurontin for uses not approved by the Food and Drug Administration, including bipolar disorder and chronic nerve pain. The FDA originally approved the drug as an antiseizure treatment for epilepsy and in 2002 for one kind of pain related to shingles.
Pfizer paid $430 million to resolve the charges and reimburse state Medicaid
Who Cares?
Arye-you have too much time on your hands.
Go and get a REAL job and cut this childish crap out now.
Arye Sachs
You are a selfish SOB or you work for Pfizer because If your mother or sister were one of the 10% who got a heart attack after taking Lipitor as the Government and class action shows - you wouldn’t have posted this message. someone needs to clean up the Enron,WorldCom and Lehman Brothers of the Pharmaceutical industry!
Who Cares?
And driving a dud missle around NYC is just the thing to do it! Power to the people!
Christopher
Arye - I don’t see the connection between your post on Neurontin and 10% of Lipitor users having heart attacks.
Google
Christopher-It’s pretty obvious he’s finding random facts about Pfizer online and reporting them back as if it’s all a huge conspiracy…
meanwhile, back in reality, he’s defending himself in a simple trademark infringement case over a stupid stunt.
Arye Sachs
Go to: http://jetjewel.com/JET/VIA.html and scroll all the way down. This is not the end - this is the beginning of the end of the “Enron,WorldCom and Lehman Brothers of the Pharmaceutical industry!” and the connection between all these drugs Christopher, is that they all killing people due to Pfizer greed. But I am not just after Pfizer - they are simply the first one. all the rest are free game if they defraud the public. I am just another MAD citizen that is fed-up. The difference between me to million others like me - I have 30 platforms to express my opinion under the first amendment right and whoever don’t like it - is free to sue me as Pfizer did at a Federal Court while the public opinion court will have the last word.
Christopher
And there I was thinking you were just a regular guy, driving a missile through Manhattan, defending yourself in court, and advertising chocolates on jets. But now you tell me that Pfizer’s drugs kill people and they and other people in the pharma industry are greedy and they will be next on your list.
Fair enough - and you’ll find people who support those views here - but just for the record Arye, I’m not one. Thanks for clarifying my question anyway.
Arye Sachs
Anytime honey, anytime!
Arye you're a con artist
Arye-What about all those people you defrauded with your bogus diamonds? Talk about greed!
Arye Sachs
Ha?
Arye Sachs
Remember this:
When you are a drug company selling to millions of people in billions of dollars and 10% (TEN PERCENT) are getting heart attack it is OK….
A jewelry company selling only about 7000 rings and had 35 complaints it is 0.5%…. (and you where sued
Case Number: 1:2006cv02679 ) so you want to compare 10% of human life with 0.5% of somewhat unsatisfied luxury item complaints?……
Arye you're a con artist
lowest of the low
Christopher
<> Is that a missile on your trailer or are you just pleased to be here?
Arye Sachs
And it is shiny because of the Vaseline - so it will go nice and smooth up Pfizer’s bulldog attorney’s you know what.
Arye Sachs
Guys.
On a more serious note:
I appreciate you taking the time to respond and express your opinion. The issue is NOT the drug itself - I do agree with you all that Viagra, Cialis and Levitra did wander for us men. I also salute the pharmaceutical industry in general for all the life saving solutions they have brought to this world in the last century.
The issue here is the first amendment right to use the name Viagra (which became generic) in the form of art and fun. Saying that - In my defense papers I declared that all future rides will be without any signs / advertisements linking anything to me or to JetAngel.Com so there will be no commercial application - just a funny 25′ penis with the word Viagra or Levitra Or Cials on it - That is all I am asking for. As for the question - If that so than why do you bring all the dirt out about Pfizer? Simple: In order to have the above use of the name you must show the court two things:
1. There will be no financial loss to Pfizer if the above will be approved.
2. There will be no effect on Pfizer reputation - I am showing that Pfizer cause more damage to themselves in one day that a fun missile can do in 100 years.
Arye you're a con artist
NO EFFECT ON THEIR REPUTATION?
Being associated with a crackpot like Arye Sachs?
HA!
Arye Sachs
As I said - It is all about the first amendment and the right for free speech and YOU also have the right under that amendment to express your opinion. It is a free country - I do not agree nor like what you say but I am happy that we both live in a country that lets you and me express our opinions.
Arye Sachs
Arye you're a con artist
Now Arye Sachs is taking on Pfizer by taking advantage of law students desperate for work. “Compensation-we will work it out”. Ha!
http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/lgl/881510115.html
Arye Sachs
No.
Pfizer is taking down itself. Pfizer is it’s own worst enemy (Google: Pfizer fraud / Pfizer law suits / Pfizer class action Pfizer lipitor class action / lipitor government investigation) . The law students are only helping in research and surveys, Stay tune to the trial itself - it will be FUN! Why do you think Pfizer’s attorneys offered me three times (once in writing) to drop the case if I drop my demands to use the name Viagra and I said NO! - After all if I lose the case - court can charge me the $400.000 - $500.000 estimated legal fees?
It will be fun - their name is generic and there is no consumer confusion two key issues.
Pfizer is known to be its own worst enemy, with occasional federal investigations, mounting lawsuits, and class action claims. It has also proven (as in the Lipitor and Chantix cases) that its greed has led, and is still leading, to the loss of human life.
In the early 2000s, Pfizer was sick with an all too common illness, one which a corporation can live with for many years until it is uncovered, but which may cause severe pain nonetheless. If not treated right, it can even lead to the demise of the company.
This terrible tumor is called consumer fraud.
Pfizer has faced many litigation cases on topics including, but not limited to, defective heart valves, violations of Food and Drug Administration regulations in the United States, and a handful of consumer fraud cases in the U.S. and abroad.
No one, not even Pfizer, has a silver bullet to deal with these issues. Thus, Pfizer did what every surgeon would have done in this case: cut and removed the sick limbs so the rest of the body can live. In June of 2006, Pfizer sold its Consumer Health Division, including well-known brands such as Listerine, Nicorette, and Sudafed, to Johnson & Johnson. Following this sale, Pfizer opened one of the ten largest corporate complaint departments in America and instituted one of the most protective whistleblower policies known.
The success of this “amputation” was only temporary. Only two years later, the benign tumor spread again throughout the entire company.
The last major ruling regarding one of Pfizer’s securities class action fraud cases took place as recently as this month and in this same building. Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Pfizer’s motion for reconsideration of a July 1 order on the defendant’s dismissal bid as well as Pfizer’s request that the court certify two issues for interlocutory appeal. Although it is one that originated two years ago, it shows intent and put its character and reputation on the line. And that is only an aftershock from the past. The world is now waiting for the outcome of pending legal issues surrounding Lipitor and other drugs. These are not discomfort or injury cases, these are cases in which death resulted from Pfizer’s engagement in a massive campaign to convince both doctors and patients that Lipitor is a beneficial treatment for nearly everyone with elevated cholesterol. According to the complaint, women with healthy hearts who took Lipitor actually suffered a 10 percent increase in heart attacks compare to women treated with a placebo.
A criminal federal investigation was not conclusive, and the federal government will not prosecute at this time, but the lawsuits and class action claims continue nonetheless and are likely to cause damage in the billions. However, it becomes more obvious with each new customer left on the killing fields of greed that it is all about preserving the reputation of the Plaintiff at all costs.
“Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?” (Jeremiah 13:23). The problems keep coming back in growing numbers. This time Pfizer has gone from securities fraud issues to actual consumer life-and-death issues because of Lipitor and numerous other drugs, such as Chantix. Pfizer’s conduct in this matter is shameful. Its greed keeps growing and growing and growing, much like an Energizer Bunny on 1000mg of Viagra.
Stockholders need not worry, though. Pfizer is working to take care of the “issues” again! Instead of getting to the root of the problem (i.e., treating the diseases), it has chosen to treat the symptoms with a 600-pound gorilla. In order to conduct the orchestra of attorneys defending mounting lawsuits, as of June 23, 2008, Pfizer hired the best offense from the firm it originally hired to defend litigation involving Bextra and Celebrex (DLA Piper). All this at a cost of well over $7 million dollars a year in compensation, options, and benefits. Amy Schulman will once again deny poor Americans the right to a fair compensation in all the cases where they have been hurt by Pfizer drugs. This time, however, she will do it from Pfizer’s 42nd Street headquarters, reporting directly to Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey B. Kindler.
Did anyone say anything about “good reputation?”