Know Your San Francisco Gay Pride Weekend Shootings and Then You Won’t Get Sued by SF Pride Attorneys

Sometimes things happen in town and sometimes people die. That’s the way it is.


SF Pride bullies individuals who post videos of violence near its events

and then review the current hit results here…

…and then check out the threatening letter below.

Obviously, not every shooting that occurs in the 415 during the last weekend in June is a “Pride Shooting.” Obviously.

Anyway, take a look at both sides of this issue and decide which one you’re on.

Now, do I think that the San Francisco Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Pride Celebration Committee, Inc. has  been run poorly?


Does it benefit in me in any way shape or form to say that?


Do I think that the people behind Pride should be looking within instead of lashing out?


“Dear Mr. Wilton:

I am General Counsel for the San Francisco Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Pride Celebration Committee, Inc. (“SF Pride”), the producer of San Francisco Pride and the owner of the trademark “SF Pride, among other valuable marks.

The YouTube video that you filmed and display at falsely states that there was a “shooting at Pride 2011”. The police and the media have all confirmed and made affirmative public statements that the shooting that happened on Saturday evening, June 25th WAS NOT AT SF PRIDE and was not connected the Pride Festival.

For example, see: which quite clearly leaves out any reference to SF Pride or the Pride festival. And which notes that the shooting was “blocks from the Pride festivities.”

Your YouTube posting falsely claims in the title and in the introductory splash page at 0:010:06. In fact, the shooting was NOT on the SF Pride festival grounds and was not related to SF Pride, or the Pride Festival, or any LGBT issue or concern.

You did not, for example, title your video “shooting in front of Apple iPad advertisement.” Nothing in the video has any connection with SF Pride or the Pride festivities. You simply chose to sensationalize your posting by wrongly associating a violent tragedy with the safe and peaceful, SF Pride. Your advertising harms SF Pride by that false association. It harms SF Pride’s ability to attract attendees and sponsors for future events by creating the false impression that the event and festival were the site of a violent shooting.

Your video constitutes false advertising from an attorney, trade libel, and constitutes tortious interference with SF Pride’s prospective economic advantage by associated its safe event with this tragic and entirely unrelated incident.

According to YouTube, over 3,200 have viewed this outrageous misrepresentation already. Specifically:

San Francisco / Civic Center Shooting at Pride 2011 – Sat 6-25-2011

The end of the video at about 2:27 in states:

Filmed by David Wilton
Law Offices of David Wilton
(415) 669-4059

SF Pride demands that you at once do the following or we will take all other necessary and appropriate legal action:

1. Take down the above referenced video.

2. Replace it with an affirmative public apology to SF Pride for wrongly associating it with violence, and clarifying that the shooting on Market Street had nothing to do with the SF Pride festival, and was blocks away from it;

3. Pay SF Pride $10,000 in damages and costs. Any delay will certainly see this amount increase.

Very Sincerely,
Brooke Oliver
Outside General Counsel, San Francisco Pride”


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Responses to “Know Your San Francisco Gay Pride Weekend Shootings and Then You Won’t Get Sued by SF Pride Attorneys”

  1. Bluoz says:

    Pride officials threaten youtube videographers…

    A video that was uploaded on Youtube shortly after the shooting on Market street on June 25th has been removed and re-uploaded with a different caption and title because of legal threats from an SF Pride attorney the video (with new title) and threats…

  2. jeff says:

    I got educated on tradmarks a few years ago when I registered One thing trademark attorneys won’t tell you is that trademark law cannot over-ride the first amendment. In fact the primary purpose of a trademark is for the protection of the consumer(against fraud and confusion of trademark brands). Trademark law was NOT written to protect the mark holders. It only protects mark holders against each other to prevent fraud with the general public

    so as long as Mr Wilton isn’t willfully tarnishing the mark by providing false and misleading info, he’s got nothing to worry about. Think of it this way. If people couldn’t even be critical of brand names, we wouldn’t have Consumer reports

    Pride would have a case if Wilton was trying to sell Pride stuff without authorization, or falsely claiming to represent Pride, but nothing even comes close to that.

    Pride has no case, and they know it. I saw this immediately when I saw the letter. So I hope the story goes far and wide in order to send notice to trademark attorneys that they cannot use their marks to intimidate the general public and news gathering

  3. Danb says:

    Brooke Oliver has managed to do that which Mr. Wilton’s video or years of her client’s mismanagement of the celebration have done: Get me to the point of saying I will never again donate to, or volunteer for, that organization. Succinctly: Fuck ’em.

  4. jeff says:

    and, more publicity for both Pride and Wilton, which they wouldn’t have gotten if just left well enough alone…That’s the ‘barbra streisand effect’ and if they ever do sue, it will get much much worse

Leave a Reply