There's a lot to read. The best bits are at the start and end: Interestingly, while North Face introduces its Complaint herein by referencing its founders, th

There's a lot to read. The best bits are at the start and end: Interestingly, while North Face introduces its Complaint herein by referencing its founders, the present owner of the North Face brand, VF Corporation (formerly known as Vanity Fair Corporation, not to be confused with the Conde Naste publication of the same name), also is understood to own Jansport, Eastpak, Napajiri and Kipling (among others), generally but eroneously perceived by the marketplace as independent competitors of North Face. The original North face founders are understood to have stopped exploring the very brand they created. ... Plaintiff's (NF) products are marketed as products that are to be used in furtherance of an adventurous lifestyle full of exploring, climbing, hiking, skiiing and other outdoor activities. Plaintiff's (NF) products are generally perceived and actively marketed to be expensive items for the "exploring" consumer. Despite paragraph 3 and because of paragraph 4, Plaintiff's products are perceived as being largely consumed by those who have little to no interest in living an adventurous lifestyle, but, rather, are interested in acquiring Plaintiff's products for the status and/or notoriety they receive from being seen in Plaintiff's expensive apparel and accesories. Defendants recognise this bizarre phenomenon. Defendants, utilizing parody, are making a bona fide social commentary on the pervasive banality, frivolity, absurdity and comedic nature of the consumer culture and those who participate therein.