Rupert Murdoch sues God over rights to the word ‘sky’
Media mogul Rupert Murdoch is engaged in a multi-million dollar legal battle with God over the rights to use the term ‘sky’, claiming that the Almighty’s creation of the same name represents a clear trademark infringement.
‘This second rate deity has obviously stolen the whole idea from BSkyB,’ claimed Mr Murdoch. ‘He’s even taken our distinctive blue logo and is passing it off as His own. It’s a bloody disgrace.’
Lawyers for God claim that He got there first, pointing to documents in the Book of Genesis that establish that their client created the sky on the second day. However, Mr Murdoch contends that, while this may be true, God failed to secure a worldwide patent on the design or bothered to trademark the name.
‘I don’t know who was advising God at the time,’ said legal expert Joshua Rosenberg, ‘but before embarking on such an elaborate scheme He should have sought some legal advice. On the first day God really should have created a copyright lawyer.’
Lawyers for Mr Murdoch argue that customers could easily confuse his and God’s products – both are vast in scope, essentially blue and run by an omnipotent being with a reputation for wrath and vengeance.
Sky say that their case is also supported by consumer research which shows that a majority of the public believes that the heavens and the Earth are controlled by Rupert Murdoch, while God is a power-mad egomaniac responsible for an endless stream of sensational stories about sex and death.
‘The products are very similar,’ said lawyers for Mr Murdoch, ‘and the last thing we want is for people to start looking up at the sky and wonder in awe at God’s creation when they could be indoors watching Pineapple Dance Studios or Blackpool against Bolton on pay per view.’
Speaking at a press conference Mr Murdoch said: ‘This God bloke should give up now before I take Him for everything that He’s got. He might be merciful but I’m bloody well not.’
This is not the first time either Mr Murdoch or God has been accused of improper practice. Both have previously faced charges of nepotism after giving their sons top jobs in the family business, though each later admitted that the move didn’t turn out quite as well as they had hoped.Click to send this story to a friend
Posted: Aug 12th, 2010 by Ludicity
Click for more stories about: Business