Home Videos Photos

Taylor Swift Gets Slapped With An Unlucky Lawsuit For The Lucky 13 On Her Merchandise!

| Filed under: Fashion SmashionTaylor Swift

taylor swift lawsuit lucky 13 clothing brand 5(1)

Has this guy been living under a rock? The number 13 has always been significant to Taylor Swift!

A man by the name of Robert Kloetzly has filed a lawsuit against the Fearless singer, claiming that she intentionally ripped off his brand name for her own merch!

His clothing line, Lucky 13, comprised of clothing and accessories, caters to the young rock 'n' roll crowd of today, but apparently Swifty took his brand name and put it on her own shirts to sell!

Robert described Tay Tay in the document as a singer who likes:

"fast cars and dangerous men who drive them inappropriately"

He also included in the lawsuit that Taylor's I Knew You Were Trouble music video was misleading and that it could totally be an ad for his clothing line.

The Lucky 13 creator is also asking for all of the profits she's made from that slogan.

We seriously can't imagine this lawsuit going any further than it already has.

Anyone and everyone who knows TSwizzle knows the double digit number is her fave and has only bestowed good luck to the songstress!

[Image via TNYF/WENN.]

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Email this  »
AMAs 2014: Worst Dressed!
AMAs 2014: Best Dressed!
Happy Birthday Sagittarius! Find Out Which Fiery Celebrities Are Centaurs HERE!
Best Dressed Celebs Of The Week!
Scarlett Johansson's Most Curvaceous Looks!
Worst Dressed Celebs Of The Week!

27 comments to “Taylor Swift Gets Slapped With An Unlucky Lawsuit For The Lucky 13 On Her Merchandise!”

  1. dina says – reply to this


    1

    This is so stupid. I cant stop laughing

  2. paula says – reply to this


    2

    It's been her lucky number for ever. No one can have a lucky number

  3. guima says – reply to this


    3

    apparently this company can't sell their trashy clothes so they're going to attack people who use #13.

  4. joelard says – reply to this


    4

    ahah is this a joke?



  5. 5

    My last p­ay ch­eck w­as $9­500 wo­rking 12 h­ours a we­ek on­l­in­e. My ne­ighbour's sister has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    vi­­sit thi­­s sit­­e rig­­ht h­­ere ➨➨➨➨➨➨ WWW.DOESJOBS.COM
    vi­­sit thi­­s sit­­e rig­­ht h­­ere ➨➨➨➨➨➨ WWW.DOESJOBS.COM
    vi­­sit thi­­s sit­­e rig­­ht h­­ere ➨➨➨➨➨➨ WWW.DOESJOBS.COM
    ✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦

  6. Teresa says – reply to this


    6

    It doesn't matter if you like the brand Lucky 13 or not. It has been around as long as I can remember. If she did put lucky 13 on her clothing that mimics his line then there is grounds for a lawsuit. I don't care who you are. But I have not seen any of her items so I don't know if it's an exact match.

  7. MB says – reply to this


    7

    That's kind of true… she liked me and I was a delivery driver. I would drive in the most unsafe weather conditions, partly forced to do it by my prick ass fuckhole dickwad manager, and part of it was to be the tough guy and show that useless fat prick up so he couldn't tell my ex girlfriend I was a wus when he talked to her about what I was doing and bring er back alive after a scary 12 hrs later. I almost died more than once and my life was in my own hands. Completely lost control of the truck in the snow PARKED and the truck slid backwards right into a ditch in the middle of a Texas Chainsaw Massaceresque town that had 100 tail-less stray cats running around. Got pulled out by a town backho operator, waiting for a tow truck. Watched a convoy of 6 tractor trailers wizz by me on an unmaintained 2 lane highway with 3 inches of snow on the road, on an S corner, only to have one of them jackknife just after they past me, stranding me on the side of the road for them to clean it up on the way back for 4 hrs, while it continued to accumulate snow, get dark, and made me get home at 12 PM 18 hrs later.

  8. tabitha says – reply to this


    8

    It really does not matter how long they have been around, they have to prove that she intentionally got her lucky number 13 from their brand. The fact that taylor has said her lucky number was 13 since 2006 because she was born on dec 13, she has a long list of reasons why 13 has been lucky for her and this clothing company is not listed as one of those reasons. Her fans said the shirt was only created to go along with her song called the lucky one. The font on the shirts are totally different, taylors shirt has fancy cursive writing and this companies shirt have big block lettering. He might own his lettering and look but how one can claim no one else is allowed to use the words lucky and 13 together for whatever reason is obsurd.

  9. Miller says – reply to this


    9

    People are always trying to sue successful celebs in hopes of getting a quick $ cash grab in a settlement.

  10. Dan Goodfellow says – reply to this


    10

    Re: Miller – that's true he's probably hoping to get money from her

  11. Teer Wayde says – reply to this


    11

    The brand owns the rights so they can suit the pant's off this stupid woman. Who cares if it's her favorite number she is stealing someone elses brand and logo and making money from it. This company has been around longer than she has been alive so it's simple.

  12. Natasha says – reply to this


    12

    I think the company is taking this a little overboard..

  13. AD says – reply to this


    13

    Re: Teer Wayde
    your missing the facts and the overall picture. her product and his product are completely different. There is no intent or motive to steal, yet she could have "stole" the number 69 and it would still make more money than that brick and mortar companies lucky number 13. the fact that no one can own something so simple is beyond retarded what would be left to be considered free speech? typical americans, sue someone for wealth. hopefully she sues for attorney fees i dont see this is going anywhere.maybe his motto is bad publicity is still publicity.

  14. Hilary says – reply to this


    14

    Re: Teer Wayde – Actually, the company was founded in 1991. She was born in 1989. And also, you can't own a number. This "business" is obviously trying to attract customers by using Taylor's celebrity. Because clearly she is more famous than they will ever be.

  15. dodgyend says – reply to this


    15

    There would be a case if their logos and demographics were similar. But alas they are not. Furthermore it seems like Lucky 13 has not even trademarked it for clothing. Pretty clear case of using huge celeb for promo in hopes of getting a big check for settlement because the celeb has no time for such bad publicity.



  16. 16

    Re: ADRe: dodgyend – The thing is, if they are both using "Lucky 13" and both selling clothing they store WILL have a point. Thye have established the brand longer than she has. They are not tyring to "own" the number 13 itself, but the name "LUCKY 13".
    Examples - a tiny breakfast joint in small town USA (in reality in my home towen outside way west of chicago) was named "Sunkist Restaurant". They got sued by Sunkist orange juice company for use of the name. As if anyone is going to confuse the orange juice with a tiny breakfats joint or think it is affiliated with the florida orange juice company?? Well, they won and the place had to change its name.

    Bigger reality - Lexus car company sues legal research company Lexis for name infringement. They lose because a) the spelling is not similar and b) nobodu looking to buy a car would confuse it with a legal research search engine or vice versa.

    Chicken and waffle place in Chicago sued by chicken and waffle place in NY for name infringement. Wins. Similar names, same business.

    So, if Taylor is using the EXACT same name on her merchandise, she will most likely lose. It is not a matter of the company trying to make bank off of her. They ued the "name" first on apparel.

  17. LoveStory says – reply to this


    17

    Re: MB – I'm pretty sure that in my 22 years on this earth, I've owned a couple of shirts with that phrase. None of which was created by either brand. It's absurd. Taylor's fans wouldn't be into his clothes, as I'm sure his fans wouldn't be into her apparel. No one is confused here but him. I doubt she has earned a cent from this coincidence. Chances are greater that he's profited more from this coincidence than Taylor.

  18. Robert K says – reply to this


    18

    Robert Kloetzly says, "BAD publicity is better than NO publicity when your business is fading and failing!"

  19. Jen says – reply to this


    19

    This is a cheap attempt to drum up publicity for a business that clearly must be having trouble. Using a big name star like Taylor to bring attention to their brand is despicable. I was in a Lucky 13 store once, and I thought it was dirty and smelly, so I left. I wasn't buying their cheap ugly apparel. They went of business in my city shortly thereafter. Taylor, don't settle, and sue for legal fees!

  20. ME says – reply to this


    20

    Re: Natasha – Anyone can trademark a phrase, but no one can sue unless it can be shown that there was intent to infringe on that trademark to steal a market share or there must be such similarity between the market demographics of the two parties or the products must be so similar in nature that it would cause market confusion. This is not the case. Infringement only applies when it is reasonable. There are bars out there that are called "Lucky 13" and there are other products with the same wording. He can not sue unless there is no way that the two would be indistinguishable. Taylor's shirt is definitely distinguishable and so are the market demographics.

  21. @v@ says – reply to this


    21

    The lawyers fell short on the registered title search? If someone else already has that registered label, Swift will have to mea culpa. That's just the way it is. You can't take someone else's label name without repercussions.

  22. lala says – reply to this


    22

    Re: Teer Wayde – the company started in 1991 taylor was born in 1989 dumbass

  23. Rose says – reply to this


    23

    Oh sweet allfather, this is great. I always think of the brand when I hear her mousy voice say it. Also, no one should put that much stock int a number…wait actually they should both be paying my father…he was born on a Friday the 13th in the 40s and thinks it's his lucky charm hahaha boom, older than both the company and swifty.

  24. stacey says – reply to this


    24

    Perez you're an imbecile, Lucky 13 brand has been around since before this little girl was famous, get your shit together

  25. stacey says – reply to this


    25

    Re: Teer Wayde

    uhh no, they actually confronted her about it first awhile ago, either she never got the message her PR was supposed to give her, or she ignored it "'I'm taylor swift I can do anything I want", ugh her music is so gross

  26. me says – reply to this


    26

    @stacey,,what the connection this lawsuit with her music,,lol,,btw her music is beautiful at least for me and for million her fans,if u dont like her music ok its ur choice but dont insult her music.

  27. Hilary says – reply to this


    27

    Re: kabuki girl – There is only one shirt on her merchandise site that uses the phrase Lucky 13. And it is a bright green t-shirt with the phrase "Lucky 13" in cursive and a picture of a shamrock.

    The shirt came out for St. Patrick's Day. Also, considering the phrase has its own Wikipedia page, I'd say it isn't even that original in the first place.