Lady Gaga Threatens Breast Milk Ice Cream Makers With Lawsuit

Lady GagaLady Gaga is threatening to sue The Icecreamists, the Central London ice cream parlor, that used part of her name to sell their human breast milk-derived frozen treat.

The Icecreamists have gained some publicity since premiering the specialty ice cream, 'Baby Gaga,' nearly two weeks ago but now face a lawsuit.

Gaga's attorneys at the law firm of Mishcon de Reya sent the owners a legal letter asking them to stop using the name 'Gaga' in their ice cream, calling their concoction "deliberately provocative and, to many people, nausea-inducing."

The singer's lawyers are accusing Icecreamists owner Matt O'Connor of trying to promote his ice cream by linking it to her name stating, "The references you are making to Lady Gaga are thus clearly deliberate and intended to take advantage of her reputation and good will. Associating the Lady Gaga mark with a food product which may be unsafe for human consumption (owing to the risk of it carrying such viruses as hepatitis) is also highly detrimental."

Apparently, the ice cream is not for sale until it is officially cleared, according to O' Connor in an official statement on the ice cream parlor's blog. "It is worth noting that this ice cream was on sale for just a few hours before it was banned by Westminster Council, so it's not as if its been a best seller for a parlor where the paint is barely dry and the doors open just over a week," says O' Connor. "Nobody seems to have told her it is no longer for sale."

In a recent interview with Britain's Evening Standard, O'Connor said that the Gaga threats were unfair. "We think this is very unnecessary, the whole thing will be over by next week, but we are prepared to fight this in court," he said. "This is a David versus Goliath battle. I'm convinced we will eventually win. The world's biggest superstar has taken umbrage with the world's smallest ice-cream parlor. For Lady Gaga to accuse us of stealing her image is laughable when you consider how much she has borrowed from popular culture to create her look and music. She also seems to have forgotten that since the dawn of time the word gaga has been one of the first discernible phrases to come from a baby's mouth. This is why we chose the name."

O'Connor added, "As for her assertion that our product is distasteful, perhaps she should reflect on her blood-spurting performance at the MTV Video Music Awards, or the fact she wears clothes fabricated from the flesh of dead animals. We have applied to register the trademark Baby Gaga and are confident we'll secure this."

When Baby Gaga first went on sale, women in Gaga-inspired garb served the ice cream at Icecreamists. Scooped into a martini glass, liquid nitrogen is then poured into the ice cream via syringe, and it's served with a a rusk or baby teething biscuit.

The specialty ice cream is pasteurized then churned with Madagascan vanilla pods, lemon zest and sells for a whopping $23 per serving. Nearly 15 reported women, in total, have already reportedly volunteered to donate their milk to produce more Baby Gaga.

http://xml.channel.aol.com/xmlpublisher/fetch.v2.xml?option=expand_relative_urls&dataUrlNodes=uiConfig,feedConfig,entry&id=691977&pid=691976&uts=1273167996http://www.popeater.com/mm_track/popeater/music/?s_channel=us.musicpop&s_account=aolpopeater,aolsvc&omni=1&ke=1http://cdn.channel.aol.com/cs_feed_v1_6/csfeedwrapper.swfGabourey Sidibe attends The American Cancer Society's Choose You luncheon on May 5th in New York City.oKExp.start("popeater3-popeater_music_popscene");

View the original article here

Read more...

Hair Lawsuit Against Paris Hilton is Cut

HAIR LAWSUIT AGAINST PARIS HILTON IS CUT
A $35 million lawsuit against Paris Hilton which alleged she failed to promote a range of hair extensions has been dropped.

The 30-year-old socialite was accused of missing a launch party for HairTech International products in 2007, and was also seen wearing a competitor's extensions.

The company had paid her $3.5 million to be the face of their Dream Catchers range of clip-in locks.

However, the company's founder and CEO Chris Volek has now admitted the allegations were wrong and has dropped the case against her.

The blonde star - who had countersued for $2.1 million in damages and had missed the launch party because she was in jail for violating the terms of her probation as a result of a reckless driving charge - admits she is pleased with the decision.

She said: "It is certainly not unusual for businesspeople to have their disagreements, but I am glad that Chris has acknowledged the hard work and dedication I put into promoting his products."

Discussing why he had dropped the case, Chris - who had claimed her failure to turn up to the party had lost the company $6.6 million in lost revenue on its own - confessed the information he had received about her actions had been incorrect.

He said in a statement: "The information I received from others and on which I based the lawsuit was not accurate."


View the original article here

Read more...

Christina Aguilera's Lawsuit Blues

With her recent misfortunes continuing to pile up, Christina Aguilera has been named in a newly filed federal lawsuit submitted by TufAmerica.

According to TMZ, the "Burlesque" beauty and co-defendant Sony Music are accused of paying the wrong distributor for rights to sample the 1968 tune "Hippy Skippy Moon Strut" in her Grammy-winning song "Ain't No Other Man".

TufAmerica is hoping to nullify other publishers' claims to the rights while also demanding punitive damages after Sony arranged to sample the song via deals with Condigo Mysic and the Clyde Otis Music Group.

The lawsuit comes just after Aguilera and boyfriend Matthew Rutler were arrested for alcohol related charges - though Christina will not be prosecuted for her misdemeanor offense.

Of the incident, Los Angeles County Sheriff's department spokesperson Steve Whitmore told, "She was not capable of taking care of herself. ... She was incapacitated, not belligerent, but just intoxicated."


View the original article here

Read more...

$430k settlement reached in Love Twitter lawsuit (AP)

By ANTHONY McCARTNEY, AP Entertainment Writer Anthony Mccartney, Ap Entertainment Writer – 34 mins ago

LOS ANGELES – Courtney Love's 140 character Twitter rants against a fashion designer are costing her more than $430,000, an attorney says.

The singer has settled a lawsuit filed by Dawn Simorangkir, who sued the Hole frontwoman in March 2009 accusing her of making false statements about the designer and her past in a series of postings on the microblogging site Twitter and Love's MySpace blog.

The settlement was confirmed by Simorangkir's attorney, Bryan J. Freedman. The designer's label is called Boudoir Queen, and according to her lawsuit, she first came in contact with Love in 2008 and they met in February 2009 in Los Angeles to discuss some custom clothing.

The lawsuit contained several postings written under Love's former Twitter account, courtneylover79, that accused Simorangkir of theft and of having a criminal background.

The widow of grunge rocker Kurt Cobain, Love has gained a reputation on the microblogging service Twitter, posting occasionally profane and sometimes nonsensical messages on a variety of topics. Several posts have lashed out at attorneys and other individuals who have drawn the musician's ire, with her Tweets coming in rapid succession and using every bit of the site's 140 character maximum per post.

The case had been scheduled to go to trial in February, and was expected to be the first trial in which a jury decided whether a celebrity's Twitter posts could be considered libel.

Freedman confirmed that a settlement had been reached, and said Love's attorneys had hoped to keep it confidential.

"In order to show the world the comments were derogatory and completely illegal, it was imperative to my client to have the settlement be public," Freedman said.

The attorney said a public statement will be issued next week, but the nearly $430,000, plus interest, that Love is required to pay, reflects the seriousness of the case.

"Personally I think $430,000 is an appropriate way to say she's sorry," Freedman said.

The settlement was first reported by The Hollywood Reporter.

Love's attorney, Michael Niborski, did not immediately return an after-hours phone message.

Douglas Mirell, a First Amendment attorney and partner at the firm Loeb and Loeb, said it was not surprising that the case settled before reaching trial.

Earlier rulings in the case had established that Simorangkir only had to prove that Love was negligent in her postings, not that she knowingly knew them to be false. That increased the designer's likelihood of winning at trial, Mirell said.

He said despite many of the statements in question being posted on Twitter, the case wasn't unique.

"The laws controlling what is and isn't libelous are the same regardless of the medium in which the statements appear," Mirell said.

The libel laws that would govern similar cases have been established for decades, Mirell said. Although Love lost an early motion to dismiss the case, he said there was also the possibility she could win on appeal.

Love's attorneys had denied wrongdoing, saying it couldn't be proven that some of the statements were false, and that others were protected speech.

Freedman said Love had hoped to keep the terms of the settlement private and that a public statement will be issued next week.

Simorangkir's lawsuit claimed Love became angry with her after she completed five outfits for the singer and sent her a bill.

"Love mounted a malicious campaign to not only terrorize Simorangkir, but to ruin and destroy her reputation and livelihood," Freedman wrote in a May 2009 filing.

Some of the statements directed toward Simorangkir were posted on Love's blog on MySpace and in comments on the designer's merchandise on online stores.

The designer's lawsuit does not state how much she was seeking to recoup from Love, but states her postings damaged her business relationship with several clients.

Love's attorney disagrees, stating in a filing that Simorangkir's profile actually improved as a result of Love's rants.

"She simply did not suffer any financial harm due to any alleged actions undertaken by Ms. Love — in fact, her relationship with Ms. Love greatly enhanced her business image and profits," Niborski wrote in a brief filed in December.

Mirell said that if Love lost at trial, it might cause celebrities to become more cautious about how they tweet, but probably wouldn't have much impact legally.

Freedman predicted that will happen anyway once people see the amount Love is paying.

"People are getting in trouble for Twitter postings on an almost daily basis," he said.

He said stars do need to be cautious about how and what they post online, especially when they're talking about other. "When you start talking about someone other than yourself, you are beginning to get into dangerous territory," Mirell said.


View the original article here

Read more...