Clean Flicks Vs. CleanFlicks
Interesting... it appears I was somewhat misinformed on that whole CleanFlicks story. According to a follow-up in today's Tribune, Daniel Thompson, the movie bowdlerizer who was arrested for having sex with underage girls and making porn in the back room of his video shop, was not the founder of the original CleanFlicks business. In addition to all his other problems, he's now being sued by the real CleanFlicks for trademark infringements. My cynical guess is that the non-Thompson CleanFlicks didn't care so much about their trademark until Thompson got busted, and now the original is frantically trying to distance itself from him before the "family values" crowd abandons what's left of its business.
It's funny how there always seem to be wheels within within wheels when these stories come out...
Comments
Well my thoughts on the "Clean Flicks" vs the "Guys Having Oral Sex with Girls Young Enough to be Their Daughters", is strictly a lawsuit to pad the bank account.
Clean Flicks' name has already been tarnished so this really doesn't do anything that hasn't already been done. It does however, give them the opportunity to seek damages and IMO, garner a small cushion for when their business does go completely belly up.
Posted by: chenopup | February 2, 2008 12:19 PM