The subtle but essential difference is what the Viacom marketing team was perpetrating just a small subset of the claimed infringement. To reiterate, I don't t

The subtle but essential difference is what the Viacom marketing team was perpetrating just a small subset of the claimed infringement. To reiterate, I don't think the original claim has any merit, but I'm wondering whether this parallel action to the claimed grievance legally sinks their case. Put it in front of a jury and Viacom would probably get blown out of the water, but the rhetoric makes it sound like this one action renders the whole thing legally frivolous (which I'm not convinced of).