Taylor Swift Sued over Lucky 13 (Sexy Pics Sought!)

August 4th, 2015. By LucyC

This really is crazy—a new level of crazy. Taylor Swift, world famous pop star, is being sued by Robert Kloetzly, the owner of a California fashion chain—for her usage of the phrase “Lucky 13 “ because it also happens to be the name of Kloetzly’s Lucky 13 clothing line.

OK—on first take one would guess that it’s all about publicity. But Kloetzly appears to be ready to go the distance, and ride this out no matter what the cost. To that end, the 25 year old singer was recently bombarded with hundreds of discovery requests by his lawyers, including a request for any promotional videos or photos that show glimpses of her ‘partially visible’ breasts or bottom, the Daily Mail reports. No, I am not making this up.

The logic behind the request, apparently, is that Kloetzly’s lawyers will argue (if they get to court, which is looking quite likely) that the risqué images of Swift constitute evidence in their case—evidence that Swift uses her sex appeal to target a similar audience to his products. Ok, seriously? I’d say that’s a reach. Can you name a female pop star who doesn’t milk the honey for all it’s worth? 

Not surprisingly, Swift’s attorney’s hit back by asking for a protection order from further ‘prejudice and harassment’, stating that they considered this latest move an abuse of the legal process. Well, it’s abuse alright—but of the legal process?

‘[The] Plaintiff has escalated its harassing tactics,’ Swift’s lawyers wrote in court papers, the Daily Mail Online reports.

‘For instance, Plaintiff served a final set of written discovery on Defendants that requested irrelevant material such as … all photographs and videos of you in which your breasts are at least partially visible as well as documents reflecting, evidencing or revealing who took each such photograph and video and where and when.’ The documents make a similar demand for ‘all photographs and videos’ in which Swift’s ‘buttocks are at least partially visible’.

This lawsuit began in May 2014, when Kloetzly reportedly noticed that Swift was selling t-shirts and greetings cards with a shamrock design saying Lucky 13, a reference to her birthday and favorite number. So he sued ( I smell an opportunity) in Orange County, California seeking damages and all of her profits, contending that she had ‘confused’ the marketplace by copying the brand he launched back in 1991. I’m confused, but not for the reasons Kloetzly contends.

It is entirely possible that people may be confused by the duplicate use of the name, but Kloetzly has defined the user group by identifying videos featuring ‘fast cars, and dangerous men who drive inappropriately’, which, he alleges, provide evidence that Swift was aiming her products at the same edgy, tattooed crowd that buy his clothing, jewelry, body spray, car plates and other items.

Swift’s lawyers responded by arguing that her t-shirts were totally different and disputing suggestions the small, little-known clothing company had suffered any injury or losses. Ouch. That had to hurt…

Swift’s legal team is also claiming that Kloetzly’s attorneys have been inundating many of the companies Swift works with, heavy hitters such as Coca Cola, Toyota and Elizabeth Arden, with similarly frivolous requests for documents and information. Betting that’s not going down well.

But back to the request for photos of body parts…according  to Kloetzly’s attorneys, the request for photos of Swift’s buttocks and cleavage was merely to demonstrate she was tapping into the same market as Lucky 13. He added: ‘One of their positions is that the demographics are very different and that the edgy-looking image and the models we use for the Lucky 13 brand are not congruent with Miss Swift’s image.

‘Unfortunately we’re being forced to counter that by showing that in her public appearances she is transitioning towards a more adult, alternative demographic.’ I’m confused.

Well, they’re all headed to court in November, in attempt to sort this out. BUT—Swift’s lawyers have stated that the pop star will not attend or provide evidence. I guess we’ll find out who really is “Lucky.”

This was posted on Tuesday, August 4th, 2015 at 6:06 pm and is filed under Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See . Feel free to respond, or trackback. Read our comments policy.