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.

You had to see this coming:

According to a BBC report, It appears that life at Craigslist has become even more interesting. As you may know, Craigslist has been embroiled in a legal tussle with Internet giant eBay Inc. (NASDAQ: EBAY). After purchasing a 28.4% stake in the company over a year ago, eBay now claims that Craigslist's founder Craig Newmark and its chief executive Jim Buckmaster have done things to disadvantage eBay's stake in the company. The BBC report didn't specify exactly what eBay claims Craiglist officials have done to "dilute" eBay's interests. Craigslist has now filed a counter suit against eBay, alleging illegal competition. You can get more information on eBay's original lawsuit here.

The BBC report states: "The lawsuit demands that eBay restore all shares of Craigslist owned by eBay or for the court to require eBay to divest its holdings in Craigslist." This demand is apparently supported by the premise that after acquiring its stake in Craigslist, eBay gleaned operating information from that company and then used it to launch Kijiji. Craigslist also insists that eBay, "[...] violated [Craigslist] trademarks and used misleading advertising on Google to run ads for its rival Kijiji site."

What a pretty picture of corporate raiding we have here. I think the outcome of this legal battle shall be dictated by two particular things. First, Craigslist will need to provide a first class package of documentation to support its legal counter claims. Second, it wouldn't hurt if it could find a judge who has been ripped off using eBay...

YouTube, (NASDAQ: GOOG) awaits those clever minds that shall reap the great rewards stored within it's pixels. Sources like LonelyBloggers are already reporting that "lonelygirl15" is actively seeking sponsors. Could it be that a cornucopia of income producing opportunities is at our hands? You had better believe so!

Google itself is just beginning to poke and prod the video web world to find sound and sustainable ways to legitimize YouTube as a profit generating force to be reckoned with. The GigaOM blog reported on Google's placement of Shashi Seth to spearhead those efforts. A nice choice of personnel for the task, I might add.

But what is most intriguing to me are some of the ideas that are swirling around in regard to the ways little guy might garner some of that cash. For instance, there's an idea that successful YouTubers could solicit sponsorships for name recognition spots and trademark icon placements. These "tubers" would, for a one time fee from $50 to $500, place a company's product image or logo in the lower corner of their video as a "watermark" image similar to those ghosted logos you see in the lower right corner of most of your favorite television programs. Also being considered are product placements within user videos.

What the proposition requires is that the YouTuber must be able to document prior performance (viewership) of their videos, they must exhibit proper business acumen, they need to be registered with the proper taxing authorities as a viable business and they need to understand negotiations and contracts. It is already believed that contracts for advertising via YouTube videos are to be solicited from Coke, Pepsi, EverReady, Kodak and Sprint Nextel.

Some bright techie with gonads, smarts and some business law background is going to lay hold of this concept and form a management group strictly for negotiating YouTube advertising contracts. They need to get in right now while the door is open wide. No doubt Google is aware that these concepts will quickly take root. It will be better for everyone if an independent gets in there and wedges the door open before Google tightens up the program.

( Off in the distance, I hear the sound of someone getting filthy rich!)