Apparently, Kim Kardashian just can't stand being out of the spotlight. And since she's not particularly talented at doing any other than being famous for her wealth, Kardashian apparently thought that attempting to add to her wealth would e a reliable way to soak up some more limelight. Kardashian's target? Old Navy. Yes, the queen of ostentatious celebrity wealth is going after the established market leader in $4 t-shirts. What's the beef? Kardashian claims that Old Navy is illegally using advertisements that feature someone that just looks a bit too much like her.
Yep, the "Dancing With The Stars" alum doesn't even have an appropriation claim, merely a look-alike claim. Apparently, Old Navy is violating Kardashian's right of publicity just because an advertisement of the company's features a pretty brunette. The basis of the lawsuit is that people viewing the commercial will be massively confused by the appearance of another pretty 20-something with brown hair and think that the star of a Skechers Super Bowl ad is endorsing something other than a product she's placed her name on after someone else made it.
Kardashian seems to think that the American public is pretty stupid, if they assume that every brunette is her. Or perhaps she's that egotistical. The Associated Press perhaps said it best when describing Kardashian's claims to fame as being "a friend of Paris Hilton and for having a sex tape." Now, she can add frivolous legal ventures to that impressive resume.
While the appropriating one's image and violating publicity rights are definitely illegal, the D-A-S-H- diva's claims appear to lose their legitimacy based on the broad nature of her claims. Can no advertiser cast any brunettes in commercials? Would a blonde actress have triggered legal action from Paris Hilton? In fact, the actress in the Old Navy ads, Melissa Molinaro, actually strikes more of a resemblance to US Women's soccer star Alex Morgan than Kardashian. But to the socialite, that doesn't matter, because she may or may not get her day in court, but more importantly, she'll get some more publicity.
But Kardashian isn't alone in pursuing patently absurd litigation. After all, Lindsay Lohan recently sued E-Trade for a commercial in which their talking babies referred to a baby named Lindsay as a milkaholic. Seriously? While the commercial was likely intended to bring Lohan to viewers' minds, there was no mention of her last name, and there are much worse things that being associated with taking in a lot of protein-rich dairy products.
Another overly sensitive celeb is 50 Cent, who sued Taco Bell after the chain jokingly suggested that he change his name to 89 Cent as a reference to the restaurant's inexpensive menu items. And along the same overly egotistic lines as Kardashian's lawsuit was Ralph Lauren's suit that claimed the magazine Polo - a magazine about the sport and its lifestyle - had no right to use the name of the sport that Lauren happened to slap on his clothing, long after the sport had been named.
Does Kardashian have more of a case than these other celeb-centric suits? Will she get mad about articles like this? Would you be laughed out of court if you dropped in with something even half as absurd as the cases above? Discuss these and other pressing questions in the comment section.
Note: This was written by a Yahoo! contributor. Join the Yahoo! Contributor Network here to start publishing your own articles.
- Arts & Entertainment
- Kim Kardashian
- Old Navy