|
|
> I just had a look at the Milka case, btw. While I still feel that she was in
> her right, I see that she asked 25000 euros because Kraft "tattooed a cow in
> mauve, thus slandering her name" and another 25000 because of the
> "commercial usage of a degrading image that she was identified with"
> (presumably the mauve cow named Milka). This was pretty stupid and I can
> understand that a judge would find her arguments frivolous.
First time I read this. If true, probably the idea of a stupid lawyer trying
to counter-attack Kraft in a last attempt, in front of incompetent judges.
BTW, I stopped buying anything named "milka", and mostly (hard, because they
anything produced by Kraft, since it happened.
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|