The US Department of Justice announced Friday that it has settled a lawsuit brought by former US Army germ-warfare researcher Dr. Steven Hatfill, a development that may moot a landmark contempt case against former USA Today reporter Toni Locy now awaiting a ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Under the settlement, Hatfill would drop all damages claims against the government in return for a lump sum payment of $2.825 million and a 20-year annuity of $150,000 amounting to $3 million. Hatfill had initially sued the Department alleging that it violated the US Privacy Act by providing personal information and information about him to journalists - including Locy - during its investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks in which he was at one point named a "person of interest". Locy had refused to disclose her sources in discovery, arguing that the information Hatfill was seeking was not central to his lawsuit. In a letter to the Court of Appeals Friday informing it of the settlement, Hatfill lawyer Christopher Wright said that Locy's evidence was no longer needed by his client.

In March, US District Judge Reggie Walton found Locy in contempt of court for not disclosing her sources and ordered her to pay a fine of $500 a day, increasing to $1000 a day after one week and then up to $5000 a day after two weeks, the costs of which could not be covered by her former employer. Locy obtained an emergency stay of that order from the Court of Appeals and oral arguments on the merits of the sanctions were heard last month. The appeals court has yet to make a formal ruling on the status of the contempt case in light of the Hatfill settlement, but Locy said late Friday that she and her lawyers are hopeful that the deal would end the matter. Locy will be a professor at Washington & Lee University's journalism school this fall.

An Australian bridegroom was horrified to learn after he had walked down the aisle that he was already married — after a drunken holiday romance he could barely remember.

The husband has had to confess in the Family Court that he spent 28 days partying and drinking in Arizona in 1978 on leave from his job as a cook on the oil rigs.

He can remember the "nice" blonde American woman he met through a pen pal newspaper advertisement — but little more.

"He has no recollection of going through any form of ceremony of marriage with her, or of discussing marriage, or of anything referable to marriage," said Justice Sally Brown, who annulled the marriage last month.

Not only that, but the man, who describes himself as an old-fashioned romantic, was already married at the time — to his wife of 14 years.

Yesterday the 67-year-old, who cannot be identified, told The Daily Telegraph "the sky fell in" when he was shown the Arizona marriage license.

"I looked at the signature and thought it could have been mine or it could not have been," he said.

The man had since divorced his 1966 wife. It was when he married his Hawaiian girlfriend in 2006 and applied to live in Hawaii with her that U.S. immigration authorities broke the bad news.

He said his latest wife, who has become his girlfriend again because their marriage was declared invalid, was very understanding.

A ruling in a trademark infringement case filed by a New York street entertainer who performs as “The Naked Cowboy” is another indication that judges may be taking parodies too seriously when the parody conveys a commercial message.

Robert Burck alleged an animated cartoon advertisement that featured a blue M&M dressed “exactly like The Naked Cowboy” violated the Lanham Act, which prohibits a false endorsement of a product or service by a real person. The ad ran on oversized billboards in Times Square, where Burck plies his trade, dressed only in a white cowboy hat, cowboy boots and underpants.

M&M's manufacturer Mars, Inc. argued that no consumer would be likely to confuse its parody as an endorsement of its product by Burck. The cowboy M&M, it said, is “part of a series of parodies of the 'New York City experience,'” which also portrays an M&M as King Kong climbing the Empire State Building.

But U.S. District Judge Denny Chin denied Mars' motion to dismiss, finding factual issues as to whether the M&M Cowboy characters are a parody of Burck's creation.

“Some consumers, as defendants argue, may view the the M&M Cowboy characters as part of a larger work depicting New York scenes and parodying famous New York characters,” he said in a June 23 opinion. But, he continued,

other consumers may mistakenly believe that The Naked Cowboy himself endorsed the copying of his “trademarked likeness” because the M&M Cowboy characters appear in a commercial setting.

Chin's ruling is quite similar to that of a Los Angeles judge who ruled in December 2007 that Paris Hilton could sue Hallmark Cards over its humorous use of her likeness and “That's Hot” catchphrase on a greeting card.

“[T]he potential exists that the card is sufficiently evocative of an image Hilton has presented of herself that Hallmark is capitalizing on her notoriety,” U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson concluded.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has noted that “the cry of 'parody!' does not magically fend off otherwise legitimate legitimate claims of trademark infringement or dilution. There are confusing parodies and non-confusing parodies.” Dr. Seuss Enterprises v. Penguin Books, 109 F.3d 1394 (1997).

But parodies which have a commercial purpose should be protected under the First Amendment if the use of a trademark “was not specifically misleading as to sponsorship or endorsement.” In neither the Burck nor Hilton parodies is there any specific statement that the “real person” endorsed a product and judges are giving too much latitude to plaintiffs by ignoring that requirement.

Chin did dismiss Burck's publicity rights claim, in part because New York's "privacy statutes were not intended to protect a trademarked, costumed character publicly performed by a person."

The issue has split federal appeals courts and could become increasingly important as women who took maternity leaves in the 1960's and 70's approach retirement.

Their pregnancies occurred before the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act, enacted in 1979, barred companies from treating pregnancy leaves differently from other disability leaves. Since then, maternity leave has been credited toward retirement.

The case before the court involves four AT&T Corp. employees who each took at least one maternity leave between 1968 and 1976. They have 67-261 days of uncredited leave because their pregnancies occurred before the law changed.