Santa, of sorts, won't be making his usual Christmas deliveries to some South Carolina elementary school children, all thanks to an organization's threat to sue if the school continued its annual Christmas toy drive, Operation Christmas Child.

The American Humanist Association, allegedly dedicated to removing all religious references from government and encouraged by an upset parent, sent a letter to East Point Academy, a charter school in West Columbia, South Carolina, claiming the school's annual toy drive to be unconstitutional. More specifically, the organization stated: “This letter serves as notice to policymaking school officials of the East Point Academy’s unconstitutional conduct and as a demand that the school terminate all promotion, sponsorship, endorsement or affiliation with Operation Christmas Child immediately.”

According to the school's principal, Renee Mathews, the academy is small and has limited funds, so it had no choice but to cancel a project it hosted for two years without incident. 

The controversy centered on Operation Christmas Child’s association with the international Christian relief organization, Samaritan’s Purse. Principal Matthews noted, however, that the project was voluntary, non-religious, and not tied to any graded assignments.  Moreover, no religious materials were included in the boxes.

—Source:  bizpacreview.com

A Kansas City Royals fan who was injured when an aluminum wrapped hot dog was thrown by the Royals team mascot Slugerrr has sued the team.

The Missouri Supreme Court is reviewing a lawsuit filed by John Coomer, of Overland Park, Kansas.  Coomer, who was hit in the eye with the hot dog and suffered a detached retina, underwent two surgeries to repair the damage, at the cost of $4,800 in medical expenses.  Coomer is suing for more than $20,000.

The court will have to decide whether Coomer's lawsuit falls under the "baseball rule," which protects organizations from being sued for fan injuries at games.  More particularly, the court will first decide whether the actions of the mascot fall under the umbrella of what the "baseball rule" covers.

“If a jury finds that the activity at issue is an inherent and unavoidable risk, the Royals owe no duty to their spectators,” Robert Tormohlen, Coomer’s attorney, said. “No case has extended the no-duty rule to the activities of a mascot.”

—Source:  webpronews.com

A group of Yelp reviewers have filed a class action lawsuit in California claiming that they should be paid for their reviews like actual, professional writers.

According to the lawsuit, Yelp, the online urban city guide, has "devised a system of cult-like rewards and disciplines" to motivate writers in lieu of monetary compensation. The group of volunteer Yelpers are seeking "just compensation of wages, benefits, and reimbursement for the reviews they created," arguing that Yelp "could not exist, nor make its enormous returns, without its domination and control over non-wage writers."  The plaintiffs also claim the network of unpaid "employees" gives Yelp an unfair business advantage over its competitors.

In a published statement, Yelp claims, "the argument that voluntarily using a free service equates to an employment relationship is completely without merit."

—Source: techdirt.com

Legendary rock band Van Halen is suing member Alex Van Halen's ex-wife claiming trademark violation because of her intended use of the band's name in her construction and interior design business. Kelly's defense? It's her last name too, and has been for 30 years.

When Kelly Carter married Alex Van Halen in 1984 she changed her name to Kelly Van Halen.  After their divorce in 1996, Kelly kept the Van Halen surname.  According to news reports, she is now using the name for her own private businesses, including swimsuits, blankets and interior design services, which the band alleges dilutes its trademark. In the legal filings, the band further claims that Kelly Van Halen's proposed trademark (Kelly Van Halen) is confusing similar to the band’s (Van Halen) trademark.

In reporting on the case, the Hollywood Reporter cited the U.S. Supreme Court case of Brown Chemical Co. v. Meyer (1891), noting that, "A man's name is his own property, and he has the same right to its use and enjoyment as he has that of any other species of property. If such use be a reasonable, honest and fair exercise of such right, he is no more liable for the incidental damage he may do a rival in trade than he would be for injury to his neighbor's property by smoke issuing from his chimney, or for the fall of his neighbor's house by reason of necessary excavations upon his own land."

—Source: blog.findlaw.com