Court bans 'sexy little thing'

January 12, 2006 - 12:33PM


Not just anybody can call themselves a "sexy little thing," a Manhattan court had ruled.

Sports Illustrated swimsuit model Audrey Quock was blocked from launching her own line of panties emblazoned as "sexy little things" when US District Judge Harold Baer ruled in New York yesterday that Victoria's Secret could sue her for trademark infringement.

Baer said that Victoria's Secret appeared to acquire priority in the trademark use of "Sexy Little Things" because it had used the label on lingerie since July 28, 2004.

The judge refused a request by Quock to declare that Victoria's Secret had no right to stop her from launching a line of women's underwear called "Sexy Little Things".

Quock appeared in the sports magazine's annual swimsuit issue between 1998 and 2003 and has been featured in other magazines and advertising campaigns. She and publicist Ronit Menashe said in the lawsuit that they came up with the term "Sexy Little Things, Sexy Little Things" in July or August 2004 and registered a domain name to build a website.

After sending a manufacturer diagrams for the production of "Sexy Little Things" labels and preparing publicity, the pair received a letter from Victoria's Secret telling them their line would constitute trademark infringement.

The women then stopped development of the clothing line and sought relief in court, saying no one had registered the trademark when they checked with the US Patent and Trademark Office in September 2004.

The judge ruled after hearing evidence that the Victoria's Secret marketing department settled on the name "Sexy Little Things" for its panties collection between March 2004 and June 2004.

After hearing evidence in the case last month, the judge said he concluded that the phrase "sexy little things" was suggestive, entitling it to greater legal protection than if it were merely descriptive.

"While the term describes the erotically stimulating quality of the trademarked lingerie, it also calls to mind the phrase 'sexy little thing,' popularly used to refer to attractive lithe young women," the judge wrote in a 17 page ruling.

AP

Pay the mortgage - or educate your child

By Justin Norrie Education Reporter
January 12, 2006

FOR the cost of putting a baby born in 2006 through private schooling, parents could pay off a mortgage on a two-bedroom suburban Sydney flat.

Calculations by the Australian Scholarships Group, an education investment fund, show the cost of an elite school education for a baby born this year will approach $300,000.

Even parents who send their child to government schools will have to pay almost $110,000, the projected costs reveal.

Add a three-year stint at university, totalling $140,000, and the costs blow out to $430,000 and $250,000 respectively.

A spokesman for the fund, Warwick James, said the "confronting" figures were averages taken across several states, and that costs were likely to be much higher for NSW.

Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show education fees have been rising at 2½ times the rate of inflation for the past 15 years.

Mr James said government school expense forecasts were determined using payments that fund members made for items such as uniforms, bags, books and stationery, sports clothing, excursions and computer access.

They also covered tangential "and often unforeseen expenses, such as bus and train fares for getting to school, or petrol, or out-of-school costs for music tuition - things that are considered essential to education", he said.

For a child born in 2011, the costs of private and public schooling will rise to almost $425,000 and $160,000 respectively.

Although the difference between the two was largely due to tuition fees, "there are some things such as excursions and camps that cost a lot more at private schools because they're longer and more involved", Mr James said.

The president of the Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations of NSW, Sharryn Brownlee, said that assistance schemes were in place to ensure no public school student missed out on education opportunities such as excursions or subjects not taught at their school.

She warned parents against being "duped into paying private school fees. With the difference between those and public school costs, you could pay for a university education and put a deposit on a first home or buy a car."

Duncan McInnes, the executive officer of the NSW Parents Council, said the survey was "not a definitive and absolute costing schedule".

"There are some fairly wild guesstimates in the figures that don't really make sense - if you go through it, it seems the average parent with a kid at a private school is paying nearly $14,000 a year in tuition fees and we know that's just not true.

"It's offensive to say parents are being duped because they are increasingly choosing independent schools. There has to be something that is attracting them to those schools."

Chris Bonnor, the president of the Secondary Principals Association of NSW, said that "if anything, it seems that public schools give their students the edge for success in later life. Research into the progress of students at university shows students from government schools outperforming those from private schools."

A Herald analysis of last year's HSC results showed that public selective high schools dominated the roll of honour, taking eight of the top 10 places.

Killara High School was the only public comprehensive school to make the top 50.

SCHOOLING: AN EXPENSIVE EXERCISE

For a child born in 2006

Catholic: $178,494

Independent: $288,990

For a child born in 2011

Government: $158,862

Catholic: $261,054

Independent: $422,659

Government: $108,621