If the current rash of courtroom events surrounding Victoria's Secret is what CEO Sharen Turney had in mind when she indicated that the company might have become "too sexy", I think there may be trouble in store for that flagship name of Limited Brands Inc. (NYSE: LTD). I don't know about you, but I find courtroom litigation anything but sexy. Unless of course, we're talking about the assistant district attorneys they cast for Law and Order.

First, Victoria's Secret pulled an 'Atomic Wedgie" on Kentucky couple, Victor and Cathy Moseley, by gaining a court order to block the couple from using a truncated version of The Victoria's Secret name. It's no big deal really because it was fairly obvious that the names "Victor's Secret" and "Victor's Little Secret" were pretty flagrant abuses of a trademarked name which deserves secure protection. The one little triumph which came out of that decade-long legal tussle was that the court determined that plaintiffs in trademark infringement cases do not need to show that the infringement actually cost them money, as revealed in a decidedly not sexy Associated Press news blurb.

Next, we find out that Juicy Couture has grabbed Victoria's Secret by the seat of the pants, regarding alleged product marketing infringement. It seems that Juicy thinks that Vicky has infringed on various aspects of packaging, color schemes and logo placement, as explained by blogger Bruce Watson. Personally, I haven't analyzed the claimed offenses. I'll leave that to the courts. I do however find the whole thing to be a bit blown out of proportion -- and very un-sexy.

A few years back, The Onion ran a spoof article in which it claimed that Microsoft was trying to copyright ones and zeros, in an attempt to corner the market on binary code. Of course, the problem with satire is, just when you think you've hit the jackpot on ridiculousness, reality trumps you.

Recently, Juicy Couture Inc. filed a lawsuit against Victoria's Secret, claiming that the lingerie giant had stolen many of its marketing gimmicks and design features. Among other things, Juicy stated that Victoria's Secret had copied:

• Juicy's packaging, which resembles candy (Lingerie disguised as candy?!? Didn't Spencer's Gifts come up with this idea somewhere around 1978?).
• Juicy's most popular color scheme, which revolves around the color pink (Pink? For girls? Clearly, Juicy's designers are underappreciated revolutionaries!).
• Juicy's most popular design, in which its logo is emblazoned across the backside of the wearer (I wonder if Juicy's next step will be to go after all the lower-back tattoo wearers out there. Tramp-stampers, beware!).

While Victoria's Secret (a subsidiary of Limited Brands, Inc.: NYSE: LTD) may well be guilty of plundering the ideas of others (in particular, Katerina Plew, whose lawsuit seems to have a little more merit), it seems like Juicy is getting a little ridiculous. Intellectual property is all well and good, but is it legitimate to copyright the color pink?

Still, as a luxury item, lingerie is probably not selling all that well right now. Maybe Juicy needs the dough?

Limited Brands Inc. (NYSE: LTD), which operates Victoria's Secret and Bath & Body Works, has seen a surge in insider buying. With over 400,000 shares having been purchased by insiders over the last week or so, clearly they believe the stock is trading cheap. For investors looking for a cheap retail stock, Limited may be the play. Chairman and Chief Executive Leslie Wexner bought 280,000 shares between the previous Friday and last Tuesday, his first open-market purchases in over 13 years.

With a PE of 10.25 and a PEG of 1.01, the stock looks cheap, even with lower guidance. I think that international expansion is the key. Not only international sales but outsourcing the production to places like India are sure to keep costs low. With an expected economic slowdown in Q1 and Q2 2008, this may be a play for second half '08, as the economy will rebound and bring the consumer along with it. This is the kind of stock I would rather be a bit early in than late, because once the market starts to move Limited shares will surge.

Finally, it's one thing when a company announces and/or completes a stock buyback. They could do it for a host of reasons. But when insiders dip into their own pockets to buy shares, it usually is a pretty good sign the bottom is near.

Aaron Katsman is the lead Portfolio Manager and Managing Director of America Israel Investment Associates, LLC. and Senior Editor of IsraelNewsletter.com. Disclosure: Writer has no position in any stock mentioned as of 12/03/07.

Limited Brands, Inc. (NYSE:LTD) successfully tendered and executed an offer to acquire all outstanding subordinate voting shares of La Senza Corporation, a leading apparel specialty retailer internationally and in Canada. According to a Limited Brands press release, La Senza Corporation owns and operates 326 La Senza Lingerie, La Senza Express, La Senza Spirit and La Senza Girl stores throughout Canada. Additionally, 341 La Senza and La Senza Girl stores are operated in 34 other countries in the world through corporate licensing and co-operation agreements.

La Senza subordinate voting shares outstanding were purchased for $48.25 per share for an approximate total of $609 million USD. It is reported that 14,202,648 subordinate voting shares, or 98.9% of total applicable voting shares were deposited to the share purchase offer. Limited Brands shall immediately proceed to acquire all remaining shares which were not deposited to the offer.

On February 2, 2007 Limited Brands announced their regular quarterly dividend of $.15 per share to become payable on March 16, 2007 to shareholders vested as of March 01, 2007. This marks the 129th consecutive quarter for which Limited Brands has paid a dividend.

Gary E. Sattler intends to take a position in Limited Brands shares this year.