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?