Kim Kardashian Suing Old Navy Over Doppelganger Commercial

• 
  nts

Melissa Molinaro and Kim Kardashian (Old Navy/Celebuzz)

There is only one Kim Kardashian -- and nshe's declaring a legal war on Old Navy for using a look-alike in a recent ad campaign, TMZ has learned.

Kardashian is filing a lawsuit against the clothing giant, claiming they intentionally used a look-alike in an effort to dupe the public into thinking Kim was affiliated with Old Navy.

We're told Kim is especially furious that Old Navy has been tweeting to her page about the look-alike in an effort to gain even more publicity.

One of those tweets read, "@CBSNEWS reports that Old Navy's Super CUTE star looks like @kimkardashian. #LOL. What do you think?"

We're told Kim believes the copycat campaign has damaged her wallet somewhere in the range of $15 to $20 million.

It probably doesn't help that her ex-boyfriend Reggie Bush is also rumored to be dating the look-alike.

See also

• Kim Kardashian to Paris: Flattery Schmattery

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/07/20/kim-k-suing-old-navy-cant-copy-me/#ixzz1SiNbo2dl

Related articles

• Kim Kardashian sues Old Navy over ads starring lookalike [Poll] (latimesblogs.latimes.com)
• Why Is Kim Kardashian Suing Old Navy?? (khmx.radio.com)

Nude Nuns? Video? WTF?

A Utah investment company late Friday dropped its copyright-infringement lawsuit against 5,865 BitTorrent users who allegedly downloaded the movie Nude Nuns with Big Guns between January and March of this year.

Incentive Capital, which is embroiled in litigation with another company called Camelot Distribution over who actually owns the B-rated flick, notified the Los Angeles federal judge presiding over the copyright action that it was dropping the case. (.pdf) An identical Nude Nuns lawsuit brought by Camelot Distribution, a California company, was voluntarily dismissed three weeks ago.

Neither company stated a reason, but the dismissals come after the April 22 order by a federal judge demanding the plaintiffs to explain why it was suing so many people at once. The judge also appointed the Electronic Frontier Foundation to defend the rights of the 5,865 IP addresses.

The copyright infringement lawsuits are part of a nationwide surge of suits collectively targeting more than 130,000 BitTorrent users for pilfering indie films, porn and exploitation flicks from the internet. Unlike the Recoding Industry Association of America’s former litigation campaign, which targeted only a handful of defendants at a time, the BitTorrent film lawsuits are targeting thousands of defendants by internet IP address, and then asking federal judges to order ISPs to identify the subscribers by name.

The Nude Nuns lawsuit, first reported by Threat Level in March, was among the largest of its type. But after our report, it emerged that Camelot’s claim to the film was in dispute. One of the company’s creditors, Incentive Capital, claimed it had legal ownership over Nude Nuns and filed its own mass lawsuit against the same 5,865 IP addresses —  a lawsuit it dropped Friday.

Click here for the daily Met-Art Gallery. Never be disappointed :-)

Related articles

• 'Nude Nuns' Judge Questions Mass BitTorrent Lawsuit (wired.com)

Britney Spears Bites Back!

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

Britney Spears Bites Back at Marketing Firm

LOS ANGELES (CN) - Britney Spears fired back at the marketing firm that said the pop princess illegally cut it out of her perfume deal with Elizabeth Arden. Spears filed her own lawsuit claiming she promised the company only limited royalties.
In March, Brand Sense sued Spears, her father, Jamie Spears and her company, Britney Brands in Superior Court, claiming it had orchestrated the deal with Elizabeth Arden, making millions for Britney and her company in 2004 in exchange for 35 percent of her profits.

But 6 years later, Brand Sense claimed it caught Spears' dad "red-handed" trying to cut the marketing company out of payments for Britney's "Radiance" perfume. Brand Sense said Jamie Spears told Elizabeth Arden to send all royalties directly to Britney Brands, in violation of the original deal that sent the money to Brand Sense to divvy up.

Brand Sense claimed Jamie Spears admitted that Britney's camp still owed it on the perfume deal but "complained that the commission was too high and said that Britney did not want to pay it," according to the March lawsuit.

Brand Sense demanded $10 million, claiming the contract guaranteed it royalties on all perfumes developed by the partnership between Britney and Elizabeth Arden.

"Britney knew that the Radiance brand and all future fragrance brands were and are included under the parties' agreements," the March lawsuit states.

But Britney's new lawsuit, filed Wednesday, contests that claim.

The pop star's company filed a cross-complaint claiming the contract with Brand Sense only applies to the three perfumes it has already created with Elizabeth Arden, not to any other fragrances they may release in the future.

Britney Brands also claims that the marketing firm withheld its royalties.

The company was supposed to provide a monthly accounting "for the many millions of dollars in royalties it received from Elizabeth Arden," according to the complaint. "Instead, Brand Sense was improperly retaining Britney's share of these proceeds - often for several months - and without paying Britney any interest on the wrongfully retained funds."

Britney Brands demands damages, an accounting of royalties and a declaration that Brand Sense is not entitled to royalties from perfumes Britney and Elizabeth Arden have yet to launch.
Howard Weitzman of the Santa Monica firm Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert is representing Britney Brands.

Click here for the daily Met-Art Gallery. Never be disappointed :-)

Related articles

• Is Britney Spears the New Lady Duff-Gordon? (lawprofessors.typepad.com)