[Siegie]

I absolutely love this. Two United States judges have decreed “G.I. Joe: Legally a Doll”, which should have been their new tag line.

https://www.leagle.com/decision/1988...pp94111462.xml

Quick summary:
Throughout the 80’s, when Hasbro imported G.I. Joe figures to the US from their overseas manufacturers, they were paying higher tariff prices by having the figures classified as Item 737.24, “other dolls”.
Hasbro challenged that G.I. Joe wasn’t some dolly doll, and should be classified as Item A737.40, "toy figures of animate objects" (a duty-free classification).

So in 1988, several expensive lawyers argued before an actual judge, in the United States Court of International Trade, that G.I. Joe was not a doll.

They lost. And they should have. Animate objects is more like animals or fantasy creatures and junk. You can’t try to dodge rightfully paying taxes by saying “well it’s not a doll, because we say so, and also war, and boys, and cooties”.

In his opinion memorandum, Judge Watson (who quoted seven G.I. Joe file cards in their entirety) stated that an object made in the likeness of a human, which was created with the intent of a child playing with it, fit the definition of “doll” for trade purposes.

He correctly pointed out that the entire creation and emphasis of the term “action figure”, was to avoid being called a doll, because people would otherwise make that logical conclusion in describing the toys.

I actually find the final section of Judge Watson’s opinion… kind of moving in a cheesy way. He wrote:

“Further, for what it is worth, the Court notes that this classification does not in any way detract from the respect which these figures deserve as representations of the human participants in the never-ending struggle between good and evil. Henceforth, each and every one of these figures must accept the fact that, for tariff purposes and by judicial decision, they must face the world as "real American dolls." Hopefully, they will meet this decision as to their tariff classification with courage and pride.”

A judge wrote and published that, as a legal opinion from a United States Court with a capital C.

[Mainframe77]

Love this, welcome and thanks for sharing.

[YouNotCookin]

Very cool! Welcome!

[Siegie]

Aw man, I can’t just “like” replies?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mainframe77

Love this, welcome and thanks for sharing.

Thank you!

Quote:

Originally Posted by YouNotCookin

Very cool! Welcome!

Thanks!

[Novacaine31]

That's amazing. And I'm shocked a judicial opinion would include a "For what it's worth" section. Great stuff, thanks for sharing.

I love the summary from the appeal, which Hasbro also lost. These judges are into this stuff

"Accordingly, although Hasbro has fought valiantly that these figures are not dolls, we are unable to agree. Even though G.I. Joe has lost this battle, hopefully he will not lose his courage for combat, despite being officially designated by the United States Customs Service as a "doll."

How big a grin did that judge have while writing that? LOL

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...79/838/438600/

[Siegie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Novacaine31

"Accordingly, although Hasbro has fought valiantly that these figures are not dolls, we are unable to agree. Even though G.I. Joe has lost this battle, hopefully he will not lose his courage for combat, despite being officially designated by the United States Customs Service as a "doll."

How big a grin did that judge have while writing that? LOL

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...79/838/438600/

It gets even better - that’s not the same case in your link! That’s when Hasbro’s appeal was denied the next year. So your quote is a SECOND judge, doing the same kind of cute aside!


Whoops! Missed the sentence where you pointed out it was the appeal.

[733]

Even GI Joe can’t evade taxes.

[Trigue]

I'll never forget when this was on the radio. I was with my parents in our old 77 Buick Regal and we had just been to Hill's Department store and I had gotten Law & Order. That came on the radio and my parents laughed, but my mom wouldn't let it go that I was playing with dolls. She aggravated me about that for years.

[CapBritain]

I remember back in '87 when I had Flint in class at primary school and my teacher Miss Bowmer confiscated him and told me off for playing with dolls. several of the girls laughed and I irately said, he's not a DOLL.

(I did get Flint back, I took him from her desk drawer when she was out of the room and put him in my bag)

[CapBritain]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siegie

A judge wrote and published that, as a legal opinion from a United States Court with a capital C.

A US judge recently wrote in a court judgement that two companies argument was "about as believable as George Lucas promising not to make more hackneyed and derivative Star Wars movies when he sold Lucasfilm to Disney". Ignoring that Lucas had nothing to do with the Sequel Trilogy, it is Legal Fact that the ST are hackneyed and derivative.