LegalZoom Blog

Legal news and small business tips.

Lindsay Lohan v. E*Trade: The Plaintiff’s Brief

no comments yet

Remember when we talked about the Lindsay Lohan v. E*Trade lawsuit?

For those who don’t remember, the quick version is that E*Trade made a commercial featuring a “milkaholic” boyfriend-stealing baby named Lindsay, and Lohan sued for $100 million alleging that the ad defamed her and violated her right to privacy through its use of her “likeness, name, characterization and personality.”

For old times’ sake, here’s another look at the commercial:

Well in the latest Milkaholic Lawsuit news, Lohan’s lawyer has filed her side’s brief. Although normally we don’t want to bore LegalZoom blog readers with court filings and such, we think you just might enjoy a peek into the 27-pages presented to the court by Lohan’s lawyer Stephanie Ovadia — arguably one of the most entertaining briefs ever filed.

As we mentioned in the previous post about this case, Lohan’s case revolves around the claim that she has essentially cornered the market on the name “Lindsay” similar to stars like Madonna and Oprah, who are known by one name only. E*Trade has countered that not only are a quarter million people in the United States named “Lindsay” or “Lindsey” including famous women such as Lindsay Davenport (tennis star), Lindsay Wagner (actress), and Lindsey Vonn (Olypmic skier), but also, unlike Madonna and Oprah, Lohan has not registered a trademark on her first name.

Lohan’s lawyer counters, though, that the number of Lindsays is irrelevant. “The issue is how many celebrities are with this name ‘Lindsay’ in the USA, and then in the context, manner, characterization, persona. . . . If Defendants take this name, ‘Lindsay’ in context of a celebrity name 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.” The brief goes on to assert that of the famous Lindsays, only Lohan fits “the role of an alcoholic bimbus woman, that Defendants were looking for in their said commercial.”

Ouch. Again, remember, this is in the brief *supporting* Lohan.

You can read the full brief below.


What do you think of this case? Will Lohan’s argument stand up in court?

H/t cnet.

ShareShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on LinkedInEmail this to someone

Sign up for the LegalZoom newsletter!

Written by

August 26th, 2010 at 10:03 am