Eagleionline

Lindsay Lohan brought suit against E*Trade Bank and E*Trade Securities LLC on Monday in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for violating her civil rights under New York law.  Lohan has claimed that two E*trade commercials entitled “The E*Trade baby is back” and “E*Trade Baby Girlfriend” have used her name without her permission to promote their products to the detriment of Miss Lohan.  The two commercials, which were first aired during the 2010 Superbowl and then again during the 2010 Winter Olympics, make brief mention of a third party named “Lindsay” and describe her as a “milk-a-holic”.  It is this mention of a person named “Lindsay” during the commercial that allegedly infringes Miss Lohan’s civil rights under Section 51 of the Civil Rights Law of New York.  The complaint requests injunctive relief preventing further transmission of the commercials, seizure of those commercials, and monetary and exemplary damages.  The commercial itself and commentary appear after the jump.

One of the clear and glaring issues at stake in this case is whether or not the act of mentioning “Lindsay” in the commercial actually references Miss Lohan at all.  Although she claims that referring to a “Lindsay” as a “milkaholic” is a derogatory reference to her personality, the connection is not so clear to the defendants.  Individuals who have changed their names to a single word can claim first name identification because of the unique nature of their names.  Madonna, Cher, Jay-Z, Prince, Monique, and other celebrities have the ability to claim ownership of those single word names because of they are unique and clearly identified with those celebrities personality.  The ability of Miss Lohan to claim ownership of the ordinary name of “Lindsay” is not so clear because Lindsay is not a very remarkable or unique name and does not have an irrefutable connection to Miss Lohan’s likeness.  This issue will likely be brought up on a motion for summary judgment and may end this case before it reaches trial.

Miss Lohan has also demanded monetary and exemplary damages on grounds that her name was used without her permission to her detriment in violation of the Civil Rights Law of New York.  The statute allows Miss Lohan the right to receive monetary damages when her civil rights are infringed, but the question of whether or not she has received any detriment to her person is not so clear.  It is hard to imagine how Miss Lohan’s ability to earn income or capitalize on her celebrity personality would be damaged by this commercial.  In fact, the only reason an average viewer would presume Miss Lohan is the “milkaholic” mentioned in the commercial is because her status is already that of a boyfriend-stealing girl addicted to a certain substance resembling milk.  Proving actual damages will be a significant task for Miss Lohan’s attorneys.

Does Miss Lohan have an actual chance at collecting from E*Trade or is she just grasping at straws, claiming intellectual property over commonplace names she can’t actually assert ownership?  Is this really a civil rights violation?