'09
Last year Woody Allen sued American Apparel for using his image on billboards without his permission. Now the company is using several ridiculous tactics and arguments in its attempts to protect itself from losing up to $10 million. They’re trying to bring up irrelevant old scandals, like Allen’s divorce from Mia Farrow and subsequent marriage to her adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn. And this makes it okay for American Apparel to illegally use Woody Allen’s image how?
Actor-director Woody Allen has accused a clothing company of trying to harass and intimidate him with a “scorched earth” approach to defending itself against a $10 million lawsuit. In papers filed Wednesday by his lawyers, the 73-year-old Allen said American Apparel Inc. went too far in requesting information about his family life, personal finances and career.
Allen sued the company last year for using his image on the company’s billboards in Hollywood and New York and on a Web site. Allen, who does not endorse products in the United States, said he had not authorized the displays, which the Los Angeles-based company said were up for a week. The new court papers said American Apparel has “adopted a `scorched earth’ approach,” issuing broad document requests and subpoenas to many people close to him, including his sister.
Allen’s lawyers said the company was seeking to “tarnish Mr. Allen’s reputation a second time” and called it a “despicable effort to intimate” him. American Apparel lawyer Stuart Slotnick said the company plans to make Allen’s relationships to actress Mia Farrow and her adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn, whom Allen married, the focus of a trial scheduled to begin in federal court in Manhattan on May 18. “Woody Allen expects $10 million for use of his image on billboards that were up and down in less than one week,” Slotnick said. “I think Woody Allen overestimates the value of his image.”
He said the company’s belief was that “after the various sex scandals that Woody Allen has been associated with, corporate America’s desire to have Woody Allen endorse their product is not what he may believe it is.” Allen’s lawsuit said the billboard falsely implied he sponsored, endorsed or was associated with American Apparel. Slotnick said it was not a cheap shot to bring up Allen’s sex life in a lawsuit over the billboard and Internet ads. “It’s certainly relevant in assessing the value of an endorsement,” he said.
[From the Huffington Post]
Allen has made it clear that he does not engage in any form of product endorsement in America. Yet one of the company’s many ridiculous defenses is that, “corporate America’s desire to have Woody Allen endorse their product is not what he may believe it is” is absolutely irrelevant and ridiculous. Allen already said he doesn’t endorse products in The U.S. – that’s the point. And even if he did, it doesn’t change the fact that he did not endorse American Apparel.
All ignorant lawyer Stuart Slotnick is doing is backing up Woody’s claims. And he further puts his foot in his mouth when you consider the fact that even though “corporate America’s desire to have Woody Allen endorse their product is not what he may believe it is,” American Apparel sure had quite the desire to use Allen’s image, even if it meant doing so illegally. So he completely nullifies his point on both counts. The upside is that Allen’s certain to win, considering American Apparel hired a numskull attorney that can’t even think through a logical argument. All he’s been able to come up with to defend the company is Allen’s unrelated scandal from 15 years ago. Something tells me Stuart Slotnick graduated bottom of the class.
Written by JayBird
Posted in Lawsuits, Woody ALlen
- TV Shows that outstayed their welcome [Pajiba]
- Goopy and Cameron Diaz went to a Coldplay concert [Lainey Gossip]
- The bacon milkshake! [D-Listed]
- Ashanti looks... good? [Go Fug Yourself]
- 20 great songs under 2 minutes [Fark]
- Snooki and J-Woww on notice [IDLYITW]
- Jennifer Aniston through the years [Popsugar]
- Kirsten Dunst looks so pretty here [Evil Beet]
- Mila Kunis without makeup [Celebslam]
- The awful cover letter all of Wall St. is mocking [Gawker]
19 Responses to “American Apparel is trying to smear Woody Allen in lawsuit”
Leave a Reply
By commenting you agree to our comment policy
Use the "Report this comment as spam or abuse" link to ask the moderators to delete a comment if it's offensive. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please e-mail cbcomments at gmail.com to get it retrieved.
Get an icon next to your name by signing up for a free Gravatar
If his image isn’t worth as much as he thinks then why on earth did American Apparel decide to use it for advertising purposes? Surely the purpose of advertising images is to use those that reflect on the company and are ‘influential’.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
And the company obtains free marketing over the illegal use of name and image, therefore justifying it’s attorney’s fees.
Negative marketing appears to be the winner in today’s advertising.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Any Hebrew speakers out there know what the billboards say?
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Have they lost their minds?
They don’t have any legal right to use his image without his permission, so their “defense” is making matters worst?
I am not sure they are not insulting any orthodox jews by this display.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Maybe someone can help me understand why Mia or Soon-Yi would be brought up in this court case?
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Hope Allen sues the pants off them—-and wins.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Debbi click on the link to the first story Celebitchy wrote about the lawsuit; there’s an explanation there.
Lori, they’re going for a hackneyed scorched earth defense. Shows what a poor quality lawyer they have. They’re wrong and they know it, so instead of being decent and settling, they’re being even bigger jerks.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
What the hell were they trying to sell in that ad other than controversy?
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Agreed that AP’s defense for using WA’s image is ridiculous.
And on the topic of American Apparel, does anyone really like their clothes? They have a store here in Germany and I just can’t get in to them. Is it me or are they all boring 80′s knockoffs that they sell for WAY more than what they are worth? I guess some of their socks are cute, though.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Pay the man his money!
Report this comment as spam or abuse
It is possible the attorney sucks, but it is more likely that his client, American Apparel, refuses to settle the case and is forcing him to go to trial (it’s entirely AA’s choice) and come up with a bunch of stupid, losing arguments.
True, he could walk away from the case. But he’s probably their corporate atty and who wants to be unemployed in this economy??
All I’m saying is – its probably AA that is acting stupid here. Be easy on the attorney!
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Is AA responsible for those atrocious gold leggings that would make anyone who’s not a size zero look like a garish tractor trailer?
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Why yes, Codzilla. Yes they are.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Who would even WANT to use Woody Allen for their products? I recoiled from his likeness when he molested and married his 16yr old daughter. I’m a adopted, if my father did that to me when he was alive……….ewwwwwww.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
AA’s defense is to reduce damages. it’s not about winning the lawsuit it’s about reducing the 10 mil allen wants. bringing up his notorious and repulsive past will bolster AA’s claim that allen’s image is not worth 10 mil in damages and then the jury will come back with less…hopefully…for AA.
Report this comment as spam or abuse
Anyone else realize that the billboard is on Allen Street???
And hey I’m not a fan either but he’s right to be mad and I don’t think 10 mil is out of the realm of possibility. They broke the law and even though he may have a scandalous past he is still considered an influencial figure by many (proven by his staying power in Hollywood through the years).
Report this comment as spam or abuse
i hate american apparel – all their clothes are very cheap, and look like something suzanne summers would have worn in “three’s company.”
Report this comment as spam or abuse
i’m ot surprised woody allen doesnt want anything to do with american apparel they are famewhores like peta and will do anything to garner public attention. i hope woody gets the 10mil and totally screws them over!
Report this comment as spam or abuse
I used to be a fan of american apparel but their lawyers cheap tactics are wrong – his arguement has nothing to do with the simple fact that he did not give permission to use his immage. They can argue the value being asked for, 10 million for 1 week, but throwing in his personal life should have no relevance to the case.
Report this comment as spam or abuse