28 November 08
Categories: Laugh it Off
Admit it. You laugh at people wearing them. Actually, you don’t even have to admit to it because you’ve joined the facebook group anyway and now anyone of your 1543 friends will know that should they wish to enjoy your company they should think again about wearing shoes that could be described as New Age [...]
continue reading
Admit it. You laugh at people wearing them.
Actually, you don’t even have to admit to it because you’ve joined the facebook group anyway and now anyone of your 1543 friends will know that should they wish to enjoy your company they should think again about wearing shoes that could be described as New Age Jesus Sandals.
28 November 08
Categories: Laugh it Off
This article was originally published on page 3 of Cape Times on November 11, 2004 Laugh It Off again faces wrath of breweries Nazma Dreyer November 11 2004 SAB Miller is once again hauling Laugh It Off (LIO) before the Cape High Court – this time to stop the small T-shirt company’s annual publication and [...]
continue reading
This article was originally published on page 3 of Cape Times on November 11, 2004
Laugh It Off again faces wrath of breweries
Nazma Dreyer
November 11 2004
SAB Miller is once again hauling Laugh It Off (LIO) before the Cape High Court – this time 
to stop the small T-shirt company’s annual publication and calendar.
This is the second time that LIO is doing battle with the second-largest brewery in the world.
In 2002 SABMiller took LIO to court over its T-shirt that sported the words “Black Labour, White Guilt. South Africa’s lively lusty exploitation since 1652. No Regard Given Worldwide.”
The words on a Black Label bottle read: “Black Label, Carling Beer. America’s Lusty Lively Beer. Brewed in South Africa.”
Earlier in 2004 the Supreme Court of Appeal rejected LIO’s appeal against a Cape High Court decision in favour of SABMiller.
Justice Roger Cleaver found the slogan was not a “harmless, clean pun” as LIO had argued, but “bordered on hate speech”.
Now SABMiller has applied for a fresh interdict against LIO to stop the printing of its annual youth publication and calendar as they include a picture of the T-shirt.
The LIO received a letter in October that said SABMiller was to apply for an interdict against the company.
The Cape High Court granted the brewery an interim interdict in November.
The matter is to be heard again next Thursday.
The annual publication is a collection of youth culture reports, stories, poems, graphics and photographs.
LIO owner Justin Nurse could not be reached for comment, but his business partner, Chris Verrijdt, said he would not comment as the matter was “delicate and there had been no developments”.
Adrian Botha, spokesperson for SABMiller London, said his company had sought an interdict to prevent Nurse from publishing material “that infringes the breweries’ trademark Carling Black Label and which would be in contravention of a high court and a Supreme Court of Appeal ruling”.
“Notwithstanding repeated requests, we have not received an acceptable undertaking from Nurse that he will refrain from publishing the infringing material.
“If we do receive an acceptable undertaking from him we will regard the matter as resolved.”
Asked whether SABMiller was not tarnishing its public image by taking the small T-shirt company to court again, Botha said: “The high court and Supreme Court of Appeal have ruled in our favour.
They pointed out that the issue had nothing to do with freedom of expression, which we strongly support.
The courts had found that Nurse’s company had abused its freedom of expression by taking a company’s trademark, distorting it and using it in products sold for its commercial gain – particularly where the effect was “to tarnish a brand without just cause”.
28 November 08
Categories: Laugh it Off
A brief summation of the SAB vs. Laugh It Off judgement: The judge found that, even though no direct evidence was submitted to show that SAB was harmed by the t-shirts that “tarnishment” (i.e. people looking unfavourably on SAB because of the t-shirts) was likely to occur. “I have come to the conclusion that such [...]
continue reading
A brief summation of the SAB vs. Laugh It Off judgement:
The judge found that, even though no direct evidence was submitted to show that SAB
was harmed by the t-shirts that “tarnishment” (i.e. people looking unfavourably on SAB because of the t-shirts) was likely to occur.
“I have come to the conclusion that such use exceeds the limits of freedom of speech and expression…” says Justice Cleaver, because:
- The Black Labour t-shirt exploits SAB unfairly, and for commercial gain.
- No-one would buy LiO’s t-shirts if they didn’t use SAB’s trademark.
- The Black Labour t-shirt is “merely a lampoon of [SAB's] trademarks” and not a broader social commentary. It doesn’t talk about South African society in general, but rather just about South African Breweries.
- An acceptable parody must be a “harmless, clean pun”. “Its lampooning or parodying of the applicant’s marks is not a “harmless, clean pun which merely parodies or pokes fun” at the respondent’s marks. It goes further than that by introducing the race factor, something which our constitution and our new democracy are at pains to avoid,” writes Justice Cleaver.
- In fact, the Black Labour t-shirt “can be said to border on hate speech”.
Laugh It Off feels that, without getting into the legal nitty-gritty, the judgement implies that any parody that has any real meaning (as opposed to just being a joke) is illegal. Also, anything which talks about South Africa’s racist past is unacceptable in our new democracy.
We have every intention of appealing against the judgement, which we feel, if allowed to stand, would be a blow to freedom of speech and of artistic expression in South Africa. Laugh It Off will continue to satirise South African culture, and challenge society in general in original, thought-provoking and unconventional ways.
In 1970, The Clash wrote “I fought the law and the law won”. We feel that we’ve fought the law, we’ve lost round one, but whether or not one man’s judgement will be Laugh It Off’s death-knell remains to be seen.
In the mean time we will keep you posted as the events unfold.
Thanks,
Laugh it Off.
28 November 08
Categories: Laugh it Off
Volume Three of the Laugh it Off Annual is 256 pages of sacriligious satire and prophetic parody. It is brimming with glorious contributions from artists around the world. The standard of writing is sublime; the superlatives needed to describe this masterpiece, seemingly ridiculous. Names such as Koos Kombuis sit alongside contributions from high school students; [...]
continue reading
Volume Three of the Laugh it Off Annual is 256 pages of sacriligious satire and prophetic parody. It is brimming with glorious contributions from artists around the world. The standard of writing is sublime; the superlatives needed to describe this masterpiece, seemingly ridiculous. Names such as Koos Kombuis sit alongside contributions from high school students; a Jewish writer lives peacefully alongside an Arab cartoonist. Everything from poetry and photography to fiction and graphic design is ensconced by Laugh it Off’ s very own religion, Humourology.
28 November 08
Categories: Laugh it Off
Here’s a lawer’s letter that is now used to line the bottom of our budgie’s cage.
continue reading
Here’s a lawer’s letter that is now used to line the bottom of our budgie’s cage.
