Playbirds Magazine Pdf !LINK!

Playbirds Magazine Pdf !LINK!

Click Here ->>> https://bltlly.com/2tpfgK

Dave was a pornographic consultant for issue 3 of A Void magazine. To get a physical copy of this rare artifact become a Patreon subscriber****

PLAYBIRDS MAGAZINE 1/2 SCARCE MARY MILLINGTON FRONT COVER COLLECTABLE BACK ISSUE PUBLICATION FOR SALE PURE NOSTALGIA ARCHIVESThis is the Volume 1 Number 2 issue of PLAYBIRDS magazine. Magazines are complete and show varying degrees of use/wear - covers marked/worn/creased, I class this item as being in reasonably good and collectable condition.Tilleys Vintage Magazines CHESTERFIELDAnyone living within visiting-distance of the shop is very welcome to call and inspect any item, at any reasonable time - please telephone first. For those unable to visit, you are welcome to email with queries.PAYMENTUKPersonal CHEQUE, CASH, POSTAL ORDER, NOCHEX or GOOGLE CHECKOUT.OUTSIDE UKWe will accept NOCHEX, GOOGLE CHECKOUTAll prices quoted are in UK Pounds Sterling.www.tilleysvintagemagazines.com.

Whitehouse magazine, also known as Whitehouse International, was a British pornographic magazine originally published by David Sullivan, and later sold to Gold Star Publications. It was first published in 1974.[1] Billed as \"The International Quality Glamour Magazine\", it was substantially more explicit than its predecessors, showing uncensored images of genitalia.

Although reputed to have been named after anti-pornography campaigner Mary Whitehouse,[2][3] the magazine contained a disclaimer saying that its name had nothing to do with her.[4] The model Mary Millington made numerous appearances in the magazine.[5]

With his business partner, David Gold, Sullivan's first venture was selling softcore pornographic photos. They expanded into sex shops, adult magazines and several low-budget blue movies, making Sullivan a millionaire by the age of 25.[4] By the late 1970s, he was in control of half of the UK adult magazine market, including major titles such as Playbirds and Whitehouse,[5] 80% of the adult mail order market, and 150 shops.

This is an action for alleged trademark infringement and unfair competition arising out of defendants' proposed publication and distribution in the United States of a magazine entitled \"PLAYMEN\". The plaintiff, Playboy Enterprises, Inc. (\"PEI\") publishes the well-known male entertainment magazine, \"PLAYBOY\". The PLAYBOY mark is registered with the United States Patent Office for a variety of uses, including use for a monthly magazine.[1]

Defendants announced their intention in July 1979 to publish in the United States a male entertainment magazine under the trademark PLAYMEN. Defendant Tattilo Editrice SPA, an Italian company, currently publishes an Italian language men's entertainment magazine under that name. Defendant Chuckleberry Publishing, Inc., is a New York corporation, which has been granted the exclusive worldwide rights to publish PLAYMEN magazine in the English language. Publishers Distributing Corporation and Arcata Publications Group, Inc. have been retained by Chuckleberry to distribute and print PLAYMEN.

Plaintiff has obtained through discovery and introduced a mock-up of the first issue of the PLAYMEN magazine defendants propose to print and sell. Plaintiff contends that defendants' threatened distribution of this PLAYMEN magazine will infringe plaintiff's property rights in the PLAYBOY mark, and therefore seeks a preliminary injunction pending the outcome of this litigation. Discovery commenced soon after the complaint was filed, on July 6, 1979, and the motion for preliminary injunction was filed on July 23. On August 23, 24 and 25, a hearing was held on the motion, at which several witnesses testified for plaintiff, but none for defendants. Extensive papers were filed by both sides, before and after the hearing. On September 11, 1979, at the request of the parties, and to avoid economic hardship due to uncertainty, the court advised the parties of a *419 firm inclination to grant the injunction, but left the parties free to proceed without judicial restraint.[2] At this time, on the basis of the findings and conclusions that follow, the motion for a preliminary injunction is granted.

Whether plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits depends on \"the likelihood that the plaintiff's mark is valid, is worthy of protection, and is being [or would be] infringed by the defendant.\" W. E. Bassett Co. v. Revlon, Inc., 354 F.2d 868, 871 (2d Cir. 1966). The PLAYBOY mark has been registered for magazine use for well over five years in compliance with Sections 8 and 15 of the Lanham Act. 15 U.S.C. 1058 & 1065. Its registration constitutes conclusive evidence of trademark validity since defendants have not challenged it on any permissible ground. See 15 U.S.C. 1115(b); Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-Ready, Inc., 531 F.2d 366 (7th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 830, 97 S. Ct. 91, 50 L. Ed. 2d 94 (1976).

Whether, and the extent to which, the PLAYBOY mark is \"worthy of protection,\" and would be infringed by PLAYMEN, depends ultimately on plaintiff's ability to show that defendants' planned use of PLAYMEN would be likely to cause public confusion within the meaning of Sections 32(1) and 43(a) of the Lanham Act. Confusion would occur if consumers were led to mistake PLAYMEN for PLAYBOY, or were led to believe that plaintiff actually produced PLAYMEN or otherwise sponsored or approved the proposed magazine. See Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, Inc. v. Pussycat Cinema, supra, 604 F.2d at 204-05. Confusion may also take the more subtle but no less significant form of an association of the alleged infringer's mark with plaintiff's, through which the new product gains unfair economic advantage. The latter form of confusion is particularly important in this case.

PLAYBOY is surely not a generic name, see id. at 11-12; nor is it \"descriptive\" when used to designate a magazine.[3] The proper designation of the mark would appear to be \"suggestive,\" in that the word \"playboy\", evoking the aspirations, if not the life-style, of certain men, suggests to the imagination the nature of the magazine's content. This type of mark is sufficiently strong that it would be \"entitled to registration without proof of secondary meaning, as are fully arbitrary or fanciful terms.\" McGregor-Doniger, Inc. v. Drizzle, Inc., supra, 599 F.2d at 1131.

The PLAYBOY mark has acquired great distinctiveness among consumers, and is therefore entitled to a high degree of protection. McGregor-Doniger, Inc. v. Drizzle, Inc., supra, 599 F.2d at 1131-32. PLAYBOY magazine is one of the top eleven magazines in terms of circulation in the United States (about 5.5 million copies per month), enjoying $60,000,000 in annual advertising revenues. During the past fiscal year, plaintiff spent approximately $18,000,000 in promoting PLAYBOY. Gross magazine revenues in the United States and Canada now stand at about $189.3 million per year. In addition, numerous editions of PLAYBOY appear throughout the world, many in the languages of the nations in which they are sold. (PX 17)[4]

Plaintiff's witnesses testified without contravention that PLAYBOY magazine is the crucial component of plaintiff's business empire. The high degree of world-wide public recognition achieved by PLAYBOY has enabled plaintiff to sell numerous other products under the PLAYBOY mark, including books and the Playmate calendar. Sales of these items generate annual revenues in excess of $100 million (PX 34). In addition, manufacturers and retailers of still other products have paid plaintiff for the right to use the PLAYBOY mark; annual retail sales of products sold under the *421 mark now exceed $82 million, and appear to be increasing. Defendants made no effort to controvert plaintiff's assertion that the mark itself is worth over $200 million.

Defendants argue that, however strong the PLAYBOY mark may be, the mark PLAYMEN is sufficiently different to negate a finding of likelihood of confusion. They contend, in effect, that plaintiff has no monopoly over the use of the common word \"play\", and note that several other magazines use that word in their titles, including PLAYGIRL, PLAYBIRDS, PLAYGUY, and PLAYERS.[5] The presence of such magazines, they urge, precludes plaintiff from obtaining protection beyond the actual mark it has adopted.

Defendants, correctly contend that where common words of the English language are used as trademarks a slight difference may sometimes be sufficient to avoid confusion. See Affiliated Hospital Products, Inc. v. Merdel Game Manufacturers Co., 513 F.2d 1183 (2d Cir. 1975) (use of trademarks \"KICK'ER\" and \"KIK-IT\" allowed, albeit reluctantly, for similar table-top soccer games); Beech-Nut, Inc. v. Warner-Lambert, Inc., 346 F. Supp. 547 (S.D.N. Y.1972), aff'd, 480 F.2d 801 (2d Cir. 1973) (\"BREATH PLEASERS\" and \"BREATH SAVERS\" allowed for similar breath mints). These marks were weak however, not because common words were involved but because they were either descriptive of the product or borrowed from the product's generic name.[6] Neither the word \"play\" nor \"boy,\" nor the combination of those words, describes in its common meaning a magazine. Rather, \"playboy\" appeals to the imaginationindeed, perhaps the fantasiesof a certain type of reader.

The existence of other sex-oriented magazines utilizing the word \"play\" raises more substantial questions. The presence of such magazines arguably tends to create an environment in which marks utilizing the word common to all of them are weakened. Consumers could (defendants contend consumers have) become accustomed to distinguishing among magazines with similar titles and therefore would be relatively less likely to become confused. But where a demonstrably strong mark such as PLAYBOY is involved, one must not hastily assume such consumer discrimination. The extent to which the PLAYBOY mark has been affected by the presence of other magazines depends upon their similarity in form and content to PLAYBOY, their circulation and market, and all factors relevant in evaluati