Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2024/05/03/lawyers-two-word-response-to-a-legal-threat-from-the-lapd-lol-no.html
…
22 Likes
Coca Cola has beef with LAPD?
7 Likes
“P.S. LOLOL, thanks for the free advertising.”
22 Likes
Aw the widdle scawed pigs got their fee fees hurt. I’ll sell them TactiCool Comfort Boo Boo Bears with Special Boo Boo Keys Jingle Toy for 10k a pop to make them feel better.
9 Likes
“The Cola Corporation,” not “Coca Cola.” “Cola” is a generic term rather than a trademarked name. Their website states:
THE COLA CORPORATION STARTED IN 2019 WITH THE SIMPLE GOAL OF TR0LLING MAGA. SINCE THEN, THE BRAND HAS GROWN, INSPIRED BY A CULT FOLLOWING OF PEOPLE WHO VIBE WITH OUR PERSPECTIVE, AND WHO AGREE WITH OUR ORIGINAL MISSION STATEMENT: KILL AMERICAN MYTHS.
They appear to have a solid enough understanding of how intellectual property works to rankle feathers without actually crossing the line into legally actionable behavior.
39 Likes
Thanks for explaining!
8 Likes
Ooooo. . . I’d buy that!
12 Likes
21 Likes
Well, it’s bound to be better than New Coke™…
13 Likes
They’re still mad that Kendal Jenner revealed their inability to fash-bash peaceful protestors after being given a can of Pepsi. Lord knows what power a Coke Zero holds.
4 Likes
I like this lawyer’s style. A lot. Sometimes, the right way to handle something like that is a formal, detailed legal response, citing appropriate statutes and precedent. Other times, a super ridiculous claim deserves a “LOL, no.” I love it.
28 Likes
Pressdram’s lawyers would have been proud:
"In the 1971 case of Arkell v Pressdram, Arkell’s lawyers wrote a letter which concluded: “His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply.”
Private Eye responded: “We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell. We note that Mr Arkell’s attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.”
The plaintiff withdrew the threatened lawsuit. The magazine has since used this exchange as a euphemism for a blunt and coarse dismissal, i.e.: “We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram”. As with “tired and emotional” this usage has spread beyond the magazine."
19 Likes
Lawyer’s perfect reply is perfect, 10/10, would subscribe to their newsletter. That is all!
8 Likes
That’s my new response to texts from demanding customers who wait til the last minute to call me.
LOL, no.
It’s not different than my usual response of no but the LOL will add a touch of class.
I see a t-shirt and hat in the making.
13 Likes
I’d buy the t-shirt 
9 Likes
Just don’t wait until the last minute.
9 Likes
