Welcome to the July 2022 issue of our digest, which covers legal and regulatory developments over the past few weeks for advertising, marketing, and branding businesses. As usual, we provide a brief summary for each point with a link to the full text of the respective official source or our own report. An increasing number of tattoo studios today offer body branding in addition to their usual services. But burning a mark in someone else`s body – even with their consent – could be criminal assault. And as branding becomes more popular, we could see lawsuits against people who brand customers, even if they`ve been asked to do so. In R v. Wilson [1996] Crim LR 573, the court found that a husband who had consensually marked his wife`s buttocks with a hot knife fell into the category of “lawful infliction of actual bodily harm” because it was a conjugal relationship. In this situation, the husband was not a licensed body modification specialist, and it is unlikely that the knife used was sterilized to meet the health and safety requirements of a licensed store or salon. This may illustrate the confusion the Court is showing in trying to distinguish between tolerable and intolerable consensual bodily harm. The bizarre exception of allowing this type of act between a married couple without regard for the health and safety of the person being marked or the person`s ability to perform it seems inexplicably contradictory. Human marking or stigmatization is the process by which a mark, usually a symbol or ornamental pattern, is burned into the skin of a living person with the intention that the resulting scar will make it permanent. This is done with a hot or very cold branding iron.
It therefore uses the physical techniques of tagging livestock on a human, either with his consent as a form of body modification; or under duress, as punishment, or to identify a subjugated, oppressed or otherwise controlled person. It can also be practiced as a “rite of passage,” such as within a tribe, or to signal membership or admission to an organization. They have obviously succumbed to the idiotic legal system of the United States for commercial reasons. Until 1832, various France offences carried the added shame of being marked with a fleur-de-lys, and galley slaves could be marked as LAG or, once the galleys were replaced by convicts on land, TF (forced labor) or TFP (forced labor for life). [ref. needed] In most German-speaking countries, however, marking people was illegal. Thieves, like fugitive slaves, were marked by the Romans with the letter F (fur); And mine workers and convicts who were sentenced to perform in gladiatorial shows were marked on the forehead for identification. Under Constantine I, the face could not be disfigured to this extent, the mark was on the hand, arm or calf.
>IanAl wrote in>news:a6ljc01b3qgekdc9u…@4ax.com:>>> Le Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:00:11 +0100, “Scott”>> wrote:>>[snip]>>>> (This is actually an example of >>>how the legal system works exactly as it should). The spilled coffee caused third>>>degree burns, $10,000 in medical expenses, excruciating skin grafts >>> during an eightday hospital stay, and permanent scarring. Victim >>> offered to settle the case for $20,000 before trial, but >>>McDonald`s refused to settle the issue>>>> I have no doubt that the injuries were as you say, but the >> responsibility rested solely with the customers, as any reasonable person knows (and >>should expect) that the coffee is hot.>>But COMPANYX[1] coffee was *much* hotter than other coffees. > Most businesses serve coffee at or near drinkable temperatures. COMPANYX[1]>serves coffee near the boiling point (nearly 190 degrees). A > U.S. incineration center advised companies not to serve coffee above 135 degrees > flour. In the Brown case, the House of Lords convicted a group of men for their participation in consensual sadomasochistic sexual acts over a ten-year period. While these men fully consented to activities such as genital violence (including the use of hot wax and sandpaper), ritual beatings, and branding, it was concluded that consent did not waive criminal liability if bodily harm or more serious injury was intentional or caused.
>In uk.legal.moded on Sat, 12 Jun 2004 00:20:07 +0100, bigbrian While there are other intellectual property rights that may provide some protection to fictional characters and fictional worlds, for example through trademarks and misleading marketing, this decision could significantly strengthen the hands of the creators of those characters and worlds in the future.