In article ,
"JonesieCat" wrote:
> "comadrejo" wrote in message
> news:comadrejoagua-142ED2.06101409032010@news.giganews.com...
> > In article
> > <598dfd09-8923-4e4f-84f0-e70b5d83b14f@q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> > edonline wrote:
> >
> >> Ovadia wants to force the spot off the air, claiming Lohan is owed $50
> >> million in exemplary damages and another $50 million in compensatory
> >> damages.
> >
> > They should declare victory if the lawsuit isn't dismiss as frivolous in
> > the preliminary stages.
>
> That may well be. But I gotta admit, I hear "Lindsay" I think "Lohan".
Ms. Lohan doesn't have a proprietary rights to the name "Lindsay".
"Milkaholic" is not libel per quod for "drug festering skany alcoholic".
Even if "Lindsay" was intended as an indirect reference to Lindsay
Lohan, it has other defenses, mainly parody has some defenses, and
Lindsay's constant need for media attention is a bit of implied consent
to use her for parody.
The commercial is stupid, but having the "Lindsay" appear in the
commercial eradicates an direct or indirect reference to Lindsay Lohan. |
