More

Seinfeld Book Victory: Judge Tosses Out Trademark Suit

LARRY NEUMEISTER   09/11/09 07:18 AM ET   AP

Jerry Seinfeld

NEW YORK — A federal judge Thursday tossed out a cookbook author's claim that comedian Jerry Seinfeld's wife was a culinary copycat when she came out with her own book explaining how to entice children to eat vegetables.

U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain threw out the lawsuit brought against the Seinfeld couple by Missy Chase Lapine.

The judge rejected Lapine's claims against Jessica Seinfeld, saying that the books, both best sellers, were not similar except for their goal of hiding healthy food inside the favorite meals of children.

She called Lapine's book "a dry, rather text-heavy work" done predominantly in black, gray and shades of brownish-orange. She said Seinfeld's book was "bright and cheerful, full of different colors and various patterns." Consumers who looked at each book were unlikely to be confused, the judge said, tossing out trademark infringement claims.

However, the judge declined to rule on Lapine's claim that Jerry Seinfeld libeled her on David Letterman's show last year when he noted her three names and joked that people with three names – including James Earl Ray and Mark David Chapman – have turned out to be assassins.

She said those claims did not belong in federal court but should instead be filed in state court, where Lapine's lawyer, Howard Miller, said he planned to bring them.

"They are still very much alive," he said of the slander claims, along with claims against News Corp.'s HarperCollins that the publisher misappropriated information from Lapine's book when it rejected her proposal in February and May 2006. Miller said the decision hasn't been made on whether to appeal Swain's rejection of all claims against Jessica Seinfeld.

Lapine's book, titled: "The Sneaky Chef: Simple Strategies for Hiding Healthy Foods in Kids' Favorite Meals," was published in April 2007 by Running Press, an imprint of Perseus Books Group. Seinfeld's cookbook, titled: "Deceptively Delicious: Simple Secrets to Get Your Kids Eating Good Food," was published in October 2007 by Collins, an imprint of HarperCollins.

Orin Snyder, a lawyer for the Seinfelds, called the ruling an "unequivocal victory" against "opportunistic and meritless claims" against Jessica Seinfeld.

"This confirms what we've been saying all along, that this is a trumped up claim," he said.

"Jessica did not copy anything from anyone and created her best-selling cookbook in her own kitchen from her own experiences," he said.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST ENTERTAINMENT

Filed by Katherine Thomson  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 125
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
04:59 PM on 09/12/2009
Larry David should have joined the suit. Jerry stole his talent because he sure proved he has none of his own. The Bee movie.
06:52 PM on 09/12/2009
I like David alot, but you are way off base about Seinfeld. He is a comedian in his right and would have been fine without Larry. Larry, on the other hand, was painful to watch as a comedian and would probably be selling insurance without Seinfeld.
photo
brooklyncitizen
Quaerite primum regnum dei
07:31 PM on 09/12/2009
actually once "Curb Your Enthusiasm" came out it was clear who was the genius behind Sienfeld.
David is brilliant; what has Jerry done since?
02:43 PM on 09/12/2009
Some need to start by looking at the filing; it's always good to be armed with information BEFORE you pontificate. Admittedly, some of this is written with a bit too much emotional charge; I would consider changing counsel. However, the facts are the facts...

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0107083seinfeld1.html
03:55 PM on 09/12/2009
thanks for that link, if this is okay, then anything goes..maybe i will put a pretty pink cover on the bible, allude to being the author, and call it the jessicajuliette version..(move over king james)
01:10 AM on 09/12/2009
“Countless authors have used the idea of sneaking healthy food into children’s meals, and no one has a monopoly over that idea — the court made that clear,”
“What made Jessica’s book a No. 1 best seller is her innovative and creative expression of that idea.”
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DixieMelody
Iso Blue in Red Idaho
01:20 AM on 09/12/2009
Jessica Seinfeld appeared on Oprah to promote her cookbook and one week later it was a national best-seller.

THAT is what made her book sell as well as it did.
02:39 AM on 09/12/2009
Certainly her celebrity helped. Without it she wouldn't get the contract.
However, she's a C level celebrity. And without an attractive product, Opra- sales- bump would be negligible.
10:20 PM on 09/12/2009
As if... RIP OFF! The courts are right, oh say.... maybe half the time at getting it right. Sell your legal indignation somewhere else. I have an idea... try selling it in Texas let's say where, how many have been exonerated in that past few years for what can only be labeled a galling miscarriage of justice in the past year. So please. Legal crap aside. Let's call a spade a spade when the FACTS clearly point to a rip off.
10:37 PM on 09/11/2009
I can only hope that the Honorable Laura Taylor Swain had more substantive comments than what was posted in this article. A written work doesn't have to have the same "look" and "feel" as another to be plagiarized. If you combed over both works, you would notice there is high school grade plagiarism at work here. No one is arguing that the puree concept was novel and unique; the issue is that the vernacular, spirit, and recipes were lifted straight from a book published by a reputable chef. This is too coincidental to pass the "it must have been in the ether" argument. They absolutely need to appeal to a higher court. Justice was NOT served, and a no-talent, unethical social climber was let off the hook. Why HarperCollins was not included in the suit? It's so disappointing when embarrassingly wealthy people have to have MORE at the expense of others. Jessica Seinfeld is the epitome of gluttony and opulence; not attractive. Case in point, gifting Oprah 12K in shoes for having her on the show to plug her plagiarized book. Someone could use some instant karma...
10:50 PM on 09/11/2009
exaclty-i can take war and peace, add new colors, put my name on it, does that make it my work, of course not..if the content is substantiley the same,or identical..it is not my work..
it that;s the case, i'll get my 5 year old grandson to start coloring and making bright covers and releasing all the classics under his name..maybe i'll start with homer's illiad....
10:56 PM on 09/11/2009
typo--should be substantively...
12:41 AM on 09/12/2009
"maybe i'll start with homer's illiad...."
LOL
Are are entitled to publish Iliad. It is in public domain. And many old English translations re in public domain also. Or you can learn Ancient Greek and translate it yourself.

But do try learning something,. anything, about copyright law before posting nonsense.
12:45 AM on 09/12/2009
re."If you combed over both works, you would notice there is high school grade plagiarism at work here."
How do YOU know?!
Since YOU haven't "combed" thorough these books. then you have no idea what you're talking about.

Busted!!!
09:17 PM on 09/11/2009
was this whole lawsuit about "nothing?"

is this cookbook about "nothing?"
09:33 PM on 09/11/2009
Not that there's anything wrong with it!!! :-)
10:27 PM on 09/11/2009
Looking at your comments, you seem biased toward the Seinfelds. How about you look at the two texts and then get back to the community on it? You thumb your nose at others who say they have seen the clear similarities, done the homework in comparing, so maybe you could share with the class as to why you think the case doesn't have merit. Or do you have a vested interest?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:10 PM on 09/11/2009
let me get this straight: the judge based her decision on the graphics and illustrations and how the books looked?

wow. that's some research there judge laura swain.
09:36 PM on 09/11/2009
YOu obviously didn't get it straight. You attempting .to judge the merits of the case based on one sentence from the judge quoted in this article. If you really want to find out what happened, why don't you research the legal opinion further, and post it here.Otherwise your opinion isn't worth last years snow.
06:40 PM on 09/11/2009
When Jessica's "book" came out, it was other people who came forward, not Missy Lapine, noting the striking similarities in the text and specific recipes. How can the judge claim there are not recognizable similarities, when numerous people other than the author, noted the similarities?

Bottom line - Seinfeld is a multimillionaire, with unlimited resources to fight Lapine in court. I certainly wouldn't put it past Jerry to put undue influence on a judge to see the matter in Jerry's favor.

Remember the movie SheDevil with Roseanne Barr? There was a scene where Roseanne's character has a judge removed from her ex-husband's hearing and replaced with someone biased against her ex. If you have clout and connections, anything is possible.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jcwtts1
Elections have consequences
07:08 PM on 09/11/2009
Crazy unfounded accusations. Give me a break. Your example is a movie. How about the judge was right and they'll try it in state court?
06:39 PM on 09/11/2009
Mr. and Mrs. No Talent.
05:56 PM on 09/11/2009
Surely they can appeal? It sounds like the author really does have a case against the publisher if they had seen her idea prior to Mrs. S. getting the deal. That is just wrong.
09:39 PM on 09/11/2009
Appeal a case that wasn't tried?
Now that little Missy will have to pay Seinfeld's court costs, she may have no money left for a ocurt parking to litigate a small claims court. LOL.
10:54 PM on 09/11/2009
she may yet have some money as UNITED HEALTH CARE bought thousands and shipped them to policy holders who requested them--part of their Wellness Program...
05:20 PM on 09/12/2009
"Appeal a case that wasn't tried?"

Umm...yes, dear. She wouldn't be appealing the case. She'd be appealing the judge's dismissal.

A plaintiff is allowed to appeal any adverse decision.
05:28 PM on 09/11/2009
Apparently the judge is a seinfeld d*ck-s*cker. Limpo!!!
03:33 PM on 09/11/2009
When did Jerry start going out with Sandra Bullock? Sorry
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DixieMelody
Iso Blue in Red Idaho
03:12 PM on 09/11/2009
This is the person who dumped her newlywed husband when Seinfeld winked at her at the gym, so the plagiarism was no surprise. . . but the judge's ruling cloaked in his starstruck biased wording was.
03:04 PM on 09/11/2009
ok now my post disappeared...

what jessica s wants, jessica s gets..she was a newly married woman, spotted jerry at gym, and poof, she was the new mrs seinfeld...

if she had such little care for her husband, i doubt she had much for an unknown nutritionist laboring over these recipes...

JESSICA SEINFELD IS REALLY KAISER SOSAY (USUAL SUSPECTS)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DixieMelody
Iso Blue in Red Idaho
03:18 PM on 09/11/2009
Like your post and the analogy, but. . .

Keyser Soze was a chameleon, and it was a surprise when the "real" person was revealed.

With Mrs. Seinfield, there is no guessing as to what motivates her.
03:34 PM on 09/11/2009
i just meant the destroy all enemies stance.remeber how the myth was he shot his own family to prove there was nothing he wouldnt do?
sort of like jessica kicking hubby number one to the curb, and destroying his hapiness(however fleeting) to get to jerry....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DixieMelody
Iso Blue in Red Idaho
03:04 PM on 09/11/2009
Remember this from an earlier HP article titled:

""The Billionaire Thank-You Note: Jessica Seinfeld Gives Oprah 21 Pairs Of Shoes"

"Jessica Seinfeld appeared on Oprah last week to promote her cookbook "Deceptively Delicious" and one week later it is a national best-seller.

With Jessica in the front row, Oprah, walnut-sized diamonds dripping from her ears, told the audience what Jessica had sent to her instead of a note thanking her for last week's appearance. Shoes.

Jessica sent Oprah 21 pairs of shoes. The majority were Christian Louboutin kicks, which retail for $800-$1200 a pair. Just a $16,000-$20,000 thank you, from one multi-millionaire couple to their billionaire friend."
03:13 PM on 09/11/2009
aha! the old shoe bribe!!!gets 'em every time....
05:33 PM on 09/11/2009
Dixie, I did see that episode. But I think they were Blahnik's. I was embarrassed for Oprah. I mean seriously all those women in the audience salivating over those shoes. Who can afford them? That was one of the few times I thought Oprah was ridiculous. As for Jessica Seinfeld, well that's just how they operate (buy people).
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:49 PM on 09/11/2009
Money trumps justice.
photo
jukesgrrl
Stop the Republican war on women's bodies.
02:08 PM on 09/11/2009
And integrity remains an unknown word in show business.
03:02 PM on 09/11/2009
This is not about integrity, this is about intellectual property law and a worthless case.