Lohan’s complaint, brought in New York state court, recites three claims. Moreover, the one thing in the commercial that Ms Lohan claims decisively points to her is also the very thing she finds offensive, which invites the response “If the shoe fits, wear it.” Naturally, had the ad used the name Lindsay without the “milkaholic” reference, no one-including Ms Lohan-would have been likely to draw a connection, and this seems to give the lie to the “recognizable single-name” argument. Nevertheless, opinions as to whether the commercial actually invokes Ms Lohan appear to break down along generational lines, and to define a spectrum running from “of course they were referring to Lindsay Lohan” to “that would never have occurred to me.” Her claim that Lindsay is a commonly-recognized single-name celebrity-identifier along the lines of Cher, Madonna, and Oprah appears unsupported by evidence that she has billed herself by first name only nor is Lindsay as unusual or distinctive a name as those others. Lohan has to demonstrate that the ad’s use of the name “Lindsay” is likely to invoke her identity. The consensus seems to be that the case will be won or lost at the threshold, where Ms. The buzz continues about Lindsay Lohan’s suit against E*TRADE over its use of the name “Lindsay” to identify a “milkaholic” character in the latest in its ongoing series of talking-babies commercials.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |