Indeks
Shielding your eyes against the glare of a Trump tower or marveling at its creator's shameless self- promotion on his NBC-TV show, you get the impression that Donald Trump likes to see his name bandied about.
He plasters it on hotel skyscrapers and rolling green golf courses. ``One Name Says It All,'' boasts the online slogan for the immodestly dubbed Trump Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey.
So the notion that he is suing his former lawyers for ``rank commercialization of Mr. Trump's reputation'' can't help but prompt the question: How is that possible?
Hasn't Trump himself so rankly commercialized his name that he can hardly complain when others toss it about?
``Mr. Trump is a worldwide celebrity with a well-known reputation for his keen real estate and business expertise,'' his latest lawsuit asserts, demonstrating yet again that Trump misses no chance at self-promotion.
``The world-renowned Donald J. Trump,'' is how the suit refers to him at another point.
Filed last week, it seeks $10 million from his former lawyers at Morrison Cohen LLP. It claims they violated a New York law that forbids anyone from using someone else's name for advertising without written consent.
It seems to rile Trump that the firm's Web site still mentions its work for him, two years after he and they parted ways.
Morrison Cohen and one of its partners, David Scharf, ``have commercially exploited plaintiff's name repeatedly and flagrantly,'' the suit declares.
Inviting Offense
But when you unpack the offenses, it looks like Trump invited most of them as part of his Brand Trump quest.
Oddly, the animus stems from a case the firm won for Trump. He sued an earth-moving company he claimed charged too much for work at Trump National Golf Club in Briarcliff Manor, New York. The upshot was a $2 million judgment for Trump, plus $1.3 million in attorney fees, plus interest at 9 percent a year. Also, a $2 million claim the contractor had against Trump was tossed out.
Trump urged Scharf to trumpet the result to scare off anyone else who might consider shorting Trump on a contract, Scharf recalled in an interview this week.
So Scharf told the New York Post at the time, ``Just because he's a billionaire doesn't mean he's going to stand idly by when people try to take things that don't belong to them.''
Modest Blurb
If you look hard enough on the Morrison Cohen site, you find a copy of the judgment and a modest blurb reporting that victory, which is one of the items that irks Trump now.
He also blames Morrison Cohen for two 2004 news articles profiling Scharf. The stories, in Real Estate Weekly and Crain's New York Business, mention that Scharf was representing Trump, which he was at the time.
You simply can't blame Scharf for accurate reporting.
And even if you could, in this case Trump was the one who invited the coverage of his then-lawyer.
Trump wrote Crain's to recommend Scharf be included in the publication's ``40 Under 40'' feature on up and comers.
Trump's Praise
``David's decisive legal strategy saved millions of dollars in construction costs'' on the golf course, Trump wrote Crain's. And that was before he and his lawyers won the case.
``His instinct and intuition are uncanny,'' Trump gushed.
As for the Real Estate Weekly story, it followed Crain's.
Trump's latest suit strains to find examples of Morrison Cohen's flagrant and repeated violations of the law.
The firm's site contains a notice about Scharf's 2007 appearance on Fox Business Channel. The firm's press release reports Scharf talked about ``how perceived losses have been turned into triumphs by notable business luminaries and sports luminaries such as Carl Icahn, Donald Trump, Lance Armstrong and others.''
The fact that Scharf once represented Trump isn't mentioned, so the firm can't be using its link to the developer for marketing purposes, as Trump's suit claims. And Scharf says at the Fox interview the question of whether he worked for Trump didn't come up.
Peeved at Lawyer
Given how few in number the outrages, how thin of substance and how many years they have been out there allegedly offending Trump, it's easy to believe Scharf's claim that the new Trump suit aims at pressuring the firm to relent in a separate fee dispute.
A 2007 malpractice suit Trump filed accuses his ex-lawyers of overcharging for legal work in the Briarcliff Manor golf course case, which they adamantly deny. He's claiming $3 million in damages. The firm counters that Trump still owes it $470,000.
I could understand if Trump is peeved that lawyers he is suing, lawyers he alleges cheated him, still claim him as a one- time client for publicity purposes.
Legal ethics standards and state law say lawyers need the clients' permission before using their identities commercially. Like New York, most states recognize a ``right of publicity,'' which allows celebrities to decide who can and can't profit from the use of their identities. See Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets Inc., for example.
And whatever you think of him, Trump has indisputably succeeded at building his own celebrity. He draws huge sums from licensing his name for others to use.
It is his right to use his name as he sees fit.
But surely the letter to Crain's constitutes written permission to use Trump's name as a client. And referring to the public record in mentioning the golf course case is hardly a flagrant violation of Trump's publicity rights.
If a lawsuit carrying the Trump name seeks to punish people who, at his direction, helped promote his interests, Trump might find his name losing value in the long run.
He plasters it on hotel skyscrapers and rolling green golf courses. ``One Name Says It All,'' boasts the online slogan for the immodestly dubbed Trump Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey.
So the notion that he is suing his former lawyers for ``rank commercialization of Mr. Trump's reputation'' can't help but prompt the question: How is that possible?
Hasn't Trump himself so rankly commercialized his name that he can hardly complain when others toss it about?
``Mr. Trump is a worldwide celebrity with a well-known reputation for his keen real estate and business expertise,'' his latest lawsuit asserts, demonstrating yet again that Trump misses no chance at self-promotion.
``The world-renowned Donald J. Trump,'' is how the suit refers to him at another point.
Filed last week, it seeks $10 million from his former lawyers at Morrison Cohen LLP. It claims they violated a New York law that forbids anyone from using someone else's name for advertising without written consent.
It seems to rile Trump that the firm's Web site still mentions its work for him, two years after he and they parted ways.
Morrison Cohen and one of its partners, David Scharf, ``have commercially exploited plaintiff's name repeatedly and flagrantly,'' the suit declares.
Inviting Offense
But when you unpack the offenses, it looks like Trump invited most of them as part of his Brand Trump quest.
Oddly, the animus stems from a case the firm won for Trump. He sued an earth-moving company he claimed charged too much for work at Trump National Golf Club in Briarcliff Manor, New York. The upshot was a $2 million judgment for Trump, plus $1.3 million in attorney fees, plus interest at 9 percent a year. Also, a $2 million claim the contractor had against Trump was tossed out.
Trump urged Scharf to trumpet the result to scare off anyone else who might consider shorting Trump on a contract, Scharf recalled in an interview this week.
So Scharf told the New York Post at the time, ``Just because he's a billionaire doesn't mean he's going to stand idly by when people try to take things that don't belong to them.''
Modest Blurb
If you look hard enough on the Morrison Cohen site, you find a copy of the judgment and a modest blurb reporting that victory, which is one of the items that irks Trump now.
He also blames Morrison Cohen for two 2004 news articles profiling Scharf. The stories, in Real Estate Weekly and Crain's New York Business, mention that Scharf was representing Trump, which he was at the time.
You simply can't blame Scharf for accurate reporting.
And even if you could, in this case Trump was the one who invited the coverage of his then-lawyer.
Trump wrote Crain's to recommend Scharf be included in the publication's ``40 Under 40'' feature on up and comers.
Trump's Praise
``David's decisive legal strategy saved millions of dollars in construction costs'' on the golf course, Trump wrote Crain's. And that was before he and his lawyers won the case.
``His instinct and intuition are uncanny,'' Trump gushed.
As for the Real Estate Weekly story, it followed Crain's.
Trump's latest suit strains to find examples of Morrison Cohen's flagrant and repeated violations of the law.
The firm's site contains a notice about Scharf's 2007 appearance on Fox Business Channel. The firm's press release reports Scharf talked about ``how perceived losses have been turned into triumphs by notable business luminaries and sports luminaries such as Carl Icahn, Donald Trump, Lance Armstrong and others.''
The fact that Scharf once represented Trump isn't mentioned, so the firm can't be using its link to the developer for marketing purposes, as Trump's suit claims. And Scharf says at the Fox interview the question of whether he worked for Trump didn't come up.
Peeved at Lawyer
Given how few in number the outrages, how thin of substance and how many years they have been out there allegedly offending Trump, it's easy to believe Scharf's claim that the new Trump suit aims at pressuring the firm to relent in a separate fee dispute.
A 2007 malpractice suit Trump filed accuses his ex-lawyers of overcharging for legal work in the Briarcliff Manor golf course case, which they adamantly deny. He's claiming $3 million in damages. The firm counters that Trump still owes it $470,000.
I could understand if Trump is peeved that lawyers he is suing, lawyers he alleges cheated him, still claim him as a one- time client for publicity purposes.
Legal ethics standards and state law say lawyers need the clients' permission before using their identities commercially. Like New York, most states recognize a ``right of publicity,'' which allows celebrities to decide who can and can't profit from the use of their identities. See Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets Inc., for example.
And whatever you think of him, Trump has indisputably succeeded at building his own celebrity. He draws huge sums from licensing his name for others to use.
It is his right to use his name as he sees fit.
But surely the letter to Crain's constitutes written permission to use Trump's name as a client. And referring to the public record in mentioning the golf course case is hardly a flagrant violation of Trump's publicity rights.
If a lawsuit carrying the Trump name seeks to punish people who, at his direction, helped promote his interests, Trump might find his name losing value in the long run.
