The Groucho Letters
BY GREG WALTERS
Like most of you, yesterday's AFC Championship Football Game between the Chiefs and Bengals held most of my attention over the weekend. Which means I did not have time to write up an editorial for this week's Raytown Report. In its place I am reprinting a story we did back in 2008. It was entitled the Groucho Brothers. Please read on. I am certain you will enjoy it.
Many years ago a seatmate of mine on the Raytown City Council, Garth Bare, and I were having a spirited discussion and the use of trademarks. I claimed that privately held corporations, such as The Kansas City Star or the Kansas City Chiefs may trademark the
name Chiefs but not the Kansas City portion of the name. Garth held a Law Degree. Which meant he had me at a disadvantage in our debate.
So to blunt his arguments (there were many) I did some research and found a book I once read named "The Groucho Letters".
Our “argument” had reminded me of a series of
letters written by Groucho Marx to the Legal Department of Warner Brothers over
what Warner Brothers claimed was an infringement of their property rights by using the name "Casablanca" in a film the Marx Brothers were working on named "A Night in Casablanca".
The letter is a classic. It shows Groucho
Marx, his wit and imagination, at its best.
ABSTRACT: While preparing to film a movie
entitled A Night in Casablanca, the Marx Brothers received a letter from Warner
Bros. threatening legal action if they did not change the film’s title. Warner
Bros. deemed the film’s title too similar to their own Casablanca, released
almost five years earlier in 1942, with Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman.
In response Groucho Marx dispatched the
following letter to the studio’s legal department:
Dear Warner Brothers,
GROUCHO MARX
Apparently there is more than one way of
conquering a city and holding it as your own. For example, up to the time that
we contemplated making this picture, I had no idea that the city of Casablanca
belonged exclusively to Warner Brothers. However, it was only a few days after
our announcement appeared that we received your long, ominous legal document
warning us not to use the name Casablanca.
It seems that in
1471, Ferdinand Balboa Warner, your great-great-grandfather, while looking for
a shortcut to the city of Burbank, had stumbled on the shores of Africa and,
raising his alpenstock (which he later turned in for a hundred shares of
common), named it Casablanca.
I just don’t
understand your attitude. Even if you plan on releasing your picture, I am sure
that the average movie fan could learn in time to distinguish between Ingrid
Bergman and Harpo.
I don’t know whether
I could, but I certainly would like to try. You claim that you own Casablanca
and that no one else can use that name without permission.
What about “Warner
Brothers”? Do you own that too? You probably have the right to use the name
Warner, but what about the name Brothers?
Professionally, we
were brothers long before you were.
We were touring the
sticks as the Marx Brothers when Vitaphone was still a gleam in the inventor’s
eye, and even before there had been other brothers—the Smith Brothers; the
Brothers Karamazov; Dan Brothers, an outfielder with Detroit; and “Brother, Can
You Spare a Dime?” (This was originally “Brothers, Can You Spare a Dime?” but
this was spreading a dime pretty thin, so they threw out one brother, gave all
the money to the other one, and whittled it down to “Brother, Can You Spare a
Dime?”)
Now Jack, how about
you? Do you maintain that yours is an original name? Well it’s not.
It was used long
before you were born. Offhand, I can think of two Jacks—Jack of “Jack and the
Beanstalk,” and Jack the Ripper, who cut quite a figure in his day.
As for you, Harry,
you probably sign your checks sure in the belief that you are the first Harry
of all time and that all other Harrys are impostors. I can think of two Harrys
that preceded you.
There was Lighthouse
Harry of Revolutionary fame and a Harry Appelbaum who lived on the corner of
93rd Street and Lexington Avenue. Unfortunately, Appelbaum wasn’t too
well-known. The last I heard of him, he was selling neckties at Weber and
Heilbroner.
Now about the Burbank
studio. I believe this is what you brothers call your place.
Old man Burbank is
gone. Perhaps you remember him. He was a great man in a garden. His wife often
said Luther had ten green thumbs.
What a witty woman
she must have been!
Burbank was the
wizard who crossed all those fruits and vegetables until he had the poor plants
in such confused and jittery condition that they could never decide whether to
enter the dining room on the meat platter or the dessert dish.
This is pure
conjecture, of course, but who knows—perhaps Burbank’s survivors aren’t too
happy with the fact that a plant that grinds out pictures on a quota settled in
their town, appropriated Burbank’s name and uses it as a front for their films.
It is even possible
that the Burbank family is prouder of the potato produced by the old man than
they are of the fact that your studio emerged “Casablanca” or even “Gold
Diggers of 1931.”
This all seems to add
up to a pretty bitter tirade, but I assure you it’s not meant to. I love
Warners. Some of my best friends are Warner Brothers. It is even possible that
I am doing you an injustice and that you, yourselves, know nothing about this
dog-in-the-Wanger attitude.
It wouldn’t surprise
me at all to discover that the heads of your legal department are unaware of
this absurd dispute, for I am acquainted with many of them and they are fine
fellows with curly black hair, double-breasted suits and a love of their fellow
man that out-Saroyans Saroyan.
I have a hunch that this
attempt to prevent us from using the title is the brainchild of some
ferret-faced shyster, serving a brief apprenticeship in your legal department.
I know the type well—hot out of law school, hungry for success, and too
ambitious to follow the natural laws of promotion.
This bar sinister
probably needled your attorneys, most of whom are fine fellows with curly black
hair, double-breasted suits, etc., into attempting to enjoin us.
Well, he won’t get
away with it! We’ll fight him to the highest court!
No pasty-faced legal
adventurer is going to cause bad blood between the Warners and the Marxes. We
are all brothers under the skin, and we’ll remain friends till the last reel of
“A Night in Casablanca” goes tumbling over the spool.
Sincerely, Groucho
Marx
Final
Note: A number of other letters followed this one. Warner
Brothers eventually withdrew their objection.
USE THIS LINK TO Comment OR VIEW COMMENT PAGE
|
| BY GREG WALTERS |
In its place I am reprinting a story we did back in 2008. It was entitled the Groucho Brothers. Please read on. I am certain you will enjoy it.
Many years ago a seatmate of mine on the Raytown City Council, Garth Bare, and I were having a spirited discussion and the use of trademarks. I claimed that privately held corporations, such as The Kansas City Star or the Kansas City Chiefs may trademark the name Chiefs but not the Kansas City portion of the name. Garth held a Law Degree. Which meant he had me at a disadvantage in our debate.
So to blunt his arguments (there were many) I did some research and found a book I once read named "The Groucho Letters".
Our “argument” had reminded me of a series of letters written by Groucho Marx to the Legal Department of Warner Brothers over what Warner Brothers claimed was an infringement of their property rights by using the name "Casablanca" in a film the Marx Brothers were working on named "A Night in Casablanca".
The letter is a classic. It shows Groucho
Marx, his wit and imagination, at its best.
ABSTRACT: While preparing to film a movie
entitled A Night in Casablanca, the Marx Brothers received a letter from Warner
Bros. threatening legal action if they did not change the film’s title. Warner
Bros. deemed the film’s title too similar to their own Casablanca, released
almost five years earlier in 1942, with Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman.
In response Groucho Marx dispatched the
following letter to the studio’s legal department:
Dear Warner Brothers,
|
| GROUCHO MARX |
It seems that in
1471, Ferdinand Balboa Warner, your great-great-grandfather, while looking for
a shortcut to the city of Burbank, had stumbled on the shores of Africa and,
raising his alpenstock (which he later turned in for a hundred shares of
common), named it Casablanca.
I just don’t
understand your attitude. Even if you plan on releasing your picture, I am sure
that the average movie fan could learn in time to distinguish between Ingrid
Bergman and Harpo.
I don’t know whether
I could, but I certainly would like to try. You claim that you own Casablanca
and that no one else can use that name without permission.
What about “Warner
Brothers”? Do you own that too? You probably have the right to use the name
Warner, but what about the name Brothers?
Professionally, we
were brothers long before you were.
We were touring the
sticks as the Marx Brothers when Vitaphone was still a gleam in the inventor’s
eye, and even before there had been other brothers—the Smith Brothers; the
Brothers Karamazov; Dan Brothers, an outfielder with Detroit; and “Brother, Can
You Spare a Dime?” (This was originally “Brothers, Can You Spare a Dime?” but
this was spreading a dime pretty thin, so they threw out one brother, gave all
the money to the other one, and whittled it down to “Brother, Can You Spare a
Dime?”)
Now Jack, how about
you? Do you maintain that yours is an original name? Well it’s not.
It was used long
before you were born. Offhand, I can think of two Jacks—Jack of “Jack and the
Beanstalk,” and Jack the Ripper, who cut quite a figure in his day.
As for you, Harry,
you probably sign your checks sure in the belief that you are the first Harry
of all time and that all other Harrys are impostors. I can think of two Harrys
that preceded you.
There was Lighthouse
Harry of Revolutionary fame and a Harry Appelbaum who lived on the corner of
93rd Street and Lexington Avenue. Unfortunately, Appelbaum wasn’t too
well-known. The last I heard of him, he was selling neckties at Weber and
Heilbroner.
Now about the Burbank
studio. I believe this is what you brothers call your place.
Old man Burbank is
gone. Perhaps you remember him. He was a great man in a garden. His wife often
said Luther had ten green thumbs.
What a witty woman
she must have been!
Burbank was the
wizard who crossed all those fruits and vegetables until he had the poor plants
in such confused and jittery condition that they could never decide whether to
enter the dining room on the meat platter or the dessert dish.
This is pure
conjecture, of course, but who knows—perhaps Burbank’s survivors aren’t too
happy with the fact that a plant that grinds out pictures on a quota settled in
their town, appropriated Burbank’s name and uses it as a front for their films.
It is even possible
that the Burbank family is prouder of the potato produced by the old man than
they are of the fact that your studio emerged “Casablanca” or even “Gold
Diggers of 1931.”
This all seems to add
up to a pretty bitter tirade, but I assure you it’s not meant to. I love
Warners. Some of my best friends are Warner Brothers. It is even possible that
I am doing you an injustice and that you, yourselves, know nothing about this
dog-in-the-Wanger attitude.
It wouldn’t surprise
me at all to discover that the heads of your legal department are unaware of
this absurd dispute, for I am acquainted with many of them and they are fine
fellows with curly black hair, double-breasted suits and a love of their fellow
man that out-Saroyans Saroyan.
I have a hunch that this
attempt to prevent us from using the title is the brainchild of some
ferret-faced shyster, serving a brief apprenticeship in your legal department.
I know the type well—hot out of law school, hungry for success, and too
ambitious to follow the natural laws of promotion.
This bar sinister
probably needled your attorneys, most of whom are fine fellows with curly black
hair, double-breasted suits, etc., into attempting to enjoin us.
Well, he won’t get
away with it! We’ll fight him to the highest court!
No pasty-faced legal
adventurer is going to cause bad blood between the Warners and the Marxes. We
are all brothers under the skin, and we’ll remain friends till the last reel of
“A Night in Casablanca” goes tumbling over the spool.
Sincerely, Groucho
Marx
Final Note: A number of other letters followed this one. Warner Brothers eventually withdrew their objection.
USE THIS LINK TO Comment OR VIEW COMMENT PAGE
Other Peoples MailBY PAUL LIVIUS
Earlier this week we received a post from former Alderman Steve Meyers. His message was in response to a story I wrote last week in my Paul's Rant column. Apparently it hit a nerve, because Steve was not slow in firing back. He addressed the post to Greg, so I turned it over to him for a response. I entitled the story "Other People's Mail".
If anyone reading this page is wondering what on earth this is all about I suggest you read the lead story in last week's Raytown Report.
Paul Livius
STEVE MEYERS WROTE
Greg, as I spoke and addressed the Board of Alderman after accepting my appointment to the P&Z Commission I was clear it came with MIXED EMOTION and even said as much. Yes I stepped forward to fill an immediate need as the volunteer members had reached minimal numbers and I had served before, so I was pretty much a plug and play option. But as I stated emphatically I would have preffered younger,enthusiastic, and eager example of the "future faces" of our community been in front of the Board accepting the P&Z appointment. I'm 60 yrs old. While maybe not quite ready to be put out to pasture should I cross paths with a younger and eager citizen taking interest in our legislative process, I will gladly accept handing off the future leadership baton and happily mentor. And did I challenge each of the BOA members to seek out these next gen leaders within your Wards and get them involved with volunteer available boards and positions with the City. You Bet I DID. 20 year term Alderman and 60 year old Insurance Agents aren't Raytown's future Greg. It's young families moving in with young leadership interest. You know like you were back in the day.
GREG'S RESPONSE Let’s be honest about it Steve. Your insincere comments were not meant
as a compliment. They were meant to degrade the some members of the Board of
Aldermen simply because of their age.
The senior members on the Board are the beneficiary of experience. To paraphrase that great American songwriter Billy Joel*, “Things I did not know at first, I learned by doing twice.”
You wrote, “I stepped forward to fill an immediate need as the volunteer members had reached minimal numbers and I had served before, so I was pretty much a plug and play option.”
It may interest you to know you were not the only candidate for a seat on the Planning and Zoning Commission. In fact there are still two vacancies on the P&Z Commission and have been vacant for quite some time.
I know of two highly qualified women with strong records of public service who applied for vacancies on the Park Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
One of them tole me she was passed over because the Mayor said there
were so many qualified applicants who had already applied ahead of her. The other was
told he had stacks of applications to consider first.
Which causes one to wonder why you took the appointment after clearly expressing your desire for new blood on the Planning and Zoning Commission. . Yes, one of those aforementioned applicants is even younger than you.
Raytown is a diverse community. Placing restrictions on who can be considered because of their age is simply a bad idea. It is as bad as making appointments based on gender, creed or race. Making that judgment based on how much grey hair they have is even more ridiculous.
There are many retired individuals, still in their prime, who have a lot to offer Raytown. Their knowledge, enthusiasm and especially their experience can make our city a better home for all.
Give them a chance. I think you will be impressed at what they bring to the table.
2 comments:
4:41 PM, I have been wondering about the lack of comments myself. Maybe no one has anything to say. Glad that you commented.
Andy Whiteman
Andy, Thank you for your message. Apparently, not all of the links that connect to our comments section were copied properly. We believe the problem is resolved. We apologize to our readers for the mistake. Please do not hesitate to send us a message if this should happen again.
Post a Comment