Lindsay Lohan is NOT happy about reports that she'll be pAArtying it up in Dubai for the New Year, and has even had her lawyers fire off a cease and desist letter to the company planning the event on the QE2, demanding that they stop using her name to promote it!
As we mentioned yesterday, Lindsay LohanLydia Hearst is set to star in an upcoming movie Dogs in Pocketbooks, which is quite obviously based on LiLo's life.
Hearst is set to play "a bratty movie goddess in and out of rehab, in trouble with the law, and hounded by greedy agents, predatory paparazzi, off-the-wall stalkers and crazed media."
As a result, Team LiLo is considering pursuing legal action against the film's producers.
Here's what Dina Lohan had to say about the potential lawsuit:
"[The new movie] is definitely based on Lindsay's likeness. We have a very strong case. It's shadowing E*TRADE" — referring to Lohan's suit against the online brokerage firm which produced a commercial featuring a baby Lindsay."
Lohan family lawyer, Stephanie Ovadia, continued:
"They are again using her likeness without her being compensated. Not only that but they are advertising the fact that they are using her likeness."
Looks like they've got a case here. Guess we'll see if the producers' pocketbooks are big enough to keep Dogs in Pocketbooks moving forward.
Okay, so technically she’s suing the company E*trade, but it’s still pretty crazy.
We’ll refer to her by her entire name, Lindsay Lohan, as we tell you this story, because apparently you can run into ALL TYPES of problems if you just use her first name.
Lindsay Lohan is suing E-trade because their commercial featured a “milkaholic” baby named Lindsay, which she felt was clearly a reference to her, and apparently her lawyer feels the same way.
E*trade argues that there are 250,000 women named Lindsay in the United States, and that Lindsay Lohan doesn’t have a trademark on her name, like Oprah, Cher, Madonna, or Beyonce.
Here’s what Lindsay Lohan’s lawyer, Stephanie Ovadia, has to say against E-trade’s argument. Get comfortable…this is a hefty read:
"As they say, 'What's in the name?' It is in the totality of circumstances that a particular name or person acquires popularity or notoriety. It is in (sic) totality of circumstances that a name or person becomes a distinguished name. Some names such as Bill, Hillary, Bush, Tiger, Paris, Johnny, Allen, are very common names. There may be millions, if not billions, of people with these names in the world. Some words may not necessarily be just the names for human beings but may convey other meanings also. For example, 'Tiger' is an animal and is associated with a jungle or zoo in a particular context. However, when used in the context of [the] Golf game world, it conveys (sic) totally different message."
And more babble from Lindsay Lohan’s lawyer:
"The issue, in (sic) case at bar, is not how many people in the USA are with the name 'Lindsay' or 'Lindsey'. The issue is how many celebrities are with this name 'Lindsay' in the USA, and then (sic) in the context, manner, characterization, persona…If Defendants take this name, 'Lindsay' in context of a celebrity name (sic) then by Defendants' own admission, there are only a few limited celebrities with this name around, and this number may not be more than four or five.'
Don’t worry about it if you skimmed this. We’re thinking the Court will probably do the same thing.
The photo (above) was posted Monday with the caption:
"Our Oscar Sunday. Yes, that's a lip ring. Thanks @kimkardashian"
It immediately sent fans and followers into a frenzy, with a shockingly large number of them thinking the lip ring was actually real and that Kourt had allowed her toddler to get her bottom lip pierced. As if! Like, seriously folks, none of the older members of the family have a lip piercing. Why would a child have one???