With great fame comes great…er chances of being sued. Nobody knows this fact better than celebrities, and 2016 was no different. This past year we saw some of our most beloved stars entangled in celebrity court battles ranging from the bizarre to the just plain wrong. For the sake of nostalgia, here are our picks for the top celebrity legal battles of 2016!

10. Lindsey Lohan Loses to Grand Theft Auto

Lindsey Lohan suing @RockstarGames over Grand Theft Auto 5 character pic.twitter.com/5TPQpDnVRL

— RushLimpCall (@rushlimpcall) October 11, 2014

Actress Lindsey Lohan was convinced Grand Theft Auto V illegally used her likeness when creating its infamous red bikini girl, Lacey Jonas. As a result, she sued the game’s makers back in 2014, but it wasn’t until 2016 that her case was eventually dismissed. The overall judgement concluded:

[They are depictions] not of Lohan herself, but merely the avatar in the game that Lohan claims is a depiction of her.

Even if we accept plaintiffs’ contentions that the video game depictions are close enough to be considered representations of the respective plaintiffs, plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed because this video game does not fall under the statutory definitions of ‘advertising’ or ‘trade’.

Better luck next time LiLo.

Read: Lindsay Lohan’s Lawsuit Against “Grand Theft Auto V” Will Proceed

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Celebrity Legal Battles of 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Comedian and former TV superstar Bill Cosby is due back in court on Tuesday, for proceedings in one of the only sexual assault cases against him that hasn’t passed the statute of limitations. He is accused of drugging and sexually assaulting about 60 women over the past 50 years, but many of the women revealed what happened well after the fact, and prosecutors were unable to purse charges. The Andrea Constand case took place in 2004 in Pennsylvania, where the statute of limitations is 12 years, meaning January 2016 was the deadline for pressing charges. In December of last year, Pennsylvania prosecutor Kevin Steele did so.

Andrea Constand was an operations manager and coach for the women’s basketball team at Temple University, Bill Cosby’s alma mater. As in the other alleged assault cases, he invited her over to his house, gave her some pills to make her relaxed, and then  assaulted her. Cosby has denied any wrongdoing.

Two months ago the judge in the case rejected Cosby’s request to have the criminal charges dismissed. On Tuesday he is due back in court for a pretrial hearing, and his lawyers want the judge to dismiss two pieces of key evidence: Cosby’s deposition from 2005, and a recording of a phone call between Cosby and Andrea Constand’s mother from the same year.

HAPPENING TODAY: Bill Cosby is back in Montgomery Co. court for evidence hearing. Could learn trial date @CBS21NEWS pic.twitter.com/W38d3F05wP

— Sara Small (@SaraSmallTV) September 6, 2016

The Constand case is in part based on Cosby’s 2005 deposition. Cosby talked about having extramarital affairs that he claimed were consensual, despite admitting to drugging the women. According to his defense team, he only talked freely about that because then district attorney Bruce Castor promised to not bring a criminal case against Cosby. But Castor said he made the promise so that Cosby couldn’t use the Fifth Amendment to avoid the questions.

Andrea Constand’s mother Gianna was recording when Cosby phoned her in her home in Canada in 2005, without Cosby’s knowledge. According to Canadian law it is legal to record a call with only one party’s consent, but Cosby’s lawyers want the court to apply the Pennsylvania law to the case, which would require both parties’ consent.

However, prosecutor Kevin Steele claimed that Cosby either knew or suspected what was happening, based on comments Cosby made on the call, and the fact that he claimed to have that information in his 2005 deposition.

Cosby is currently free on a $1 million bail but could face up to ten years in prison if found guilty.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bill Cosby Back in Court For Andrea Constand Sexual Assault Case appeared first on Law Street.

The award for “most creative vandalism” may have to go to Minnie Driver–the actress has been accused by her neighbor of throwing “baby food jars filled with black paint” against the walls of his property, according to TMZ. Daniel Perelmutter has filed a lawsuit against the “Good Will Hunting” actress, claiming that she has been interfering with construction on his home and causing him a great deal of stress. He also accuses the actress of blocking access to a shared electric gate in front of his driveway.

The baby food paint grenades are just one part of what seems to be an ongoing, bizarre war between Driver and Perelmutter. Driver was granted a temporary restraining order against her neighbor last year, and last week Perelmutter pleaded not guilty to a contempt charge after Driver accused him of “yelling profanities, scaring her children and jumping in front of her car,” according to KABC-TV.

Cops also had to come by and break up a fight between the neighbors last week, after Perelmutter’s delivery truck blocked Driver’s driveway.

Perelmutter fired back against the claims and spoke in front of the courthouse last week, telling a reporter that the actress has wished death upon him multiple times and that she needed to be “institutionalized.” Perelmutter, who recently had a heart transplant and was holding a cane while speaking to reporters, pointed out that he was “in no condition” to leap in front of her car, and alleged that Driver herself was the one who tried to hit him.

Before rushing to judgment, it seems that this isn’t Perelmutter’s first time fighting with a neighbor over property. A 2008 filing shows that he fought with previous neighbors over access to a shared driveway, a case which he appears to have lost.

It remains to be seen who’s truly at fault in this “he-said, she-said” situation, but with a trial set for August, this totally bizarre case is worth keeping an eye on.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Minnie Driver And Her Neighbor Are In a Bizarre Legal Dispute Involving Baby Food Jars appeared first on Law Street.

In a controversial ruling, Canadian radio host Jian Ghomeshi was found not guilty on multiple accounts of sexual assault and one count of choking based on the allegations of three women. In his judgment, Justice William B. Horkins cited “serious deficiencies in the evidence” that left reasonable doubt in the case.

Ghomeshi was the host of the popular radio show “Q,” but was fired from his position at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) last October after the network claimed to have seen evidence of him causing “physical injury” to a woman. Around the time of his dismissal, multiple women came forward to the Toronto Star with various allegations of violence and sexual harassment against Ghomeshi (there would end up being over 20 accusations total). This particular trial involved incidents occurring in 2002-2003 involving three women, two who chose to remain unidentified during the trial; the third was Canadian actress Lucy DeCoutere.

While it may hold true that there was not enough evidence to garner a conviction for Ghomeshi, the real outrage surrounding the acquittal seems to stem from the actual judgment released by Justice Horkins, which tore apart the testimonies of the alleged victims and addressed any inconsistencies in their recollections of the events as being “outright deception.” Horkins also claimed that the evidence provided included “questionable behaviour” by the witnesses.

Judge in Ghomeshi trial called witness’s behaviour “odd.” Yup! When you’ve been sexually assaulted, things can seem “odd” #IBelieveSurvivors

— DeAnne Smith (@DeAnne_Smith) March 24, 2016

The judge’s comments in #Ghomeshi case uphold that rape culture and victim-blaming is alive and well. #IBelieveSurvivors

— Janet Mock (@janetmock) March 24, 2016

Witness 1 shared rxn to #Ghomeshi verdict w/ @Chatelaine: “He called us all liars. This was an insult to women.” pic.twitter.com/levQxBF1TV

— Sarah Boesveld (@sarahboesveld) March 24, 2016

Further, Horkins hit upon the fact that witnesses failed to disclose information that he believed would be “significant” to the trial, such as the fact that DeCoutere engaged in multiple “kissing sessions” with Ghomeshi the night of the assault, and the fact that victims had engaged in “flirtatious” behavior with him. This response by the judge seemed to imply that this behavior by the witnesses were indications of consent on their part.

Ghomeshi himself was never put on the stand; however, after his firing by CBC he responded in a now-deleted Facebook post, indicating that his aggressive sexual behavior was consensual. He wrote:

Let me be the first to say that my tastes in the bedroom may not be palatable to some folks. They may be strange, enticing, weird, normal, or outright offensive to others. But that is my private life. That is my personal life. And no one, and certainly no employer, should have dominion over what people do consensually in their private life.

After the news of the verdict broke, protests broke out in front of the courtroom in Toronto, and people gathered to rally in support of the accusers. There were also calls by many for legal reform in sexual assault cases within the Canadian legal system. Ghomeshi’s fight is not completely over yet; he will be back on trial in June to face one of the other charges levied against him.

Actress Zoe Kazan also released a series of tweets yesterday, alleging that Ghomeshi had acted inappropriately towards her:

Before we went on air, he told me I was “just his type.” “Funny, sexy, just the right amount of damage,” he said (after talking abt 3 mins).

— zoe kazan (@zoeinthecities) March 24, 2016

Later he showed up @ party I was at & wdnt leave me alone. His unwanted attention made me feel like I’d “asked for it.” I felt dirty & sad.

— zoe kazan (@zoeinthecities) March 24, 2016

This behavior is insidious, but so is a culture that condones it, by turning a blind eye, or shaming the victim. We internalize these mores.

— zoe kazan (@zoeinthecities) March 24, 2016

Ghomeshi may have been set free by the Canadian legal system, but in the court of public opinion, it looks as if his reputation may be tarnished for good.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Jian Ghomeshi’s Acquittal Provokes Debates on Victim-Blaming and Consent appeared first on Law Street.

In an ironic development, the Kardashian sisters are now being accused of not enough self-promotion: Kourtney, Khloe, and Kim are being sued for over $180 million due to lack of marketing and promotion efforts for their “Kardashian Beauty” makeup line. In court filings obtained by Radar Online, the Plaintiff, Hillair Capital Management, LLC, alleges:

…in July 2014, whereby Hillair agreed to put up millions of dollars to help the Kardashians salvage their struggling ‘Kardashian Beauty’ makeup line after former distributor, Boldface, went belly up amidst legal and financial troubles. The essence of the parties’ bargain was that Hillair would put up millions of dollars to fund the continued distribution of the Kardashians’ line, and the Kardashians would continue to be the faces of the line and actively promote, market and support the line, while making certain concessions under their existing deal with Boldface.

The problem, Hillair alleges, is that the sisters did not uphold their end of the bargain: “the Kardashians wanted a better, more lucrative deal than they had struck with Hillair after the money to continue the line was already committed, and they used their ability to withhold their support of the line to attempt to force Hillair into a buyout of its interest.”

In return, Hillair is now demanding the return of the over $10 million it invested into the company, as well as up to $180 million in loss of value of equity interest.

This makeup line has been the cause of multiple legal headaches for the Kardashian sisters. The line was launched in 2012 under the name Khroma Beauty, but was accused of trademark infringement by two different companies: the Los Angeles-based Chroma Makeup, and a separate Florida-based company called Kroma Makeup. While the former was denied by courts, the second (Kroma with a K) was successful in forcing a temporary injunction to stop sales of the Kardashian’s brand for the duration of the trial. As a result, the company was finally forced to change its name to “Kardashian Beauty” in 2013.

The troubles only continued from there: the distributor of Kardashian Beauty, Boldface Licensing and Branding, began to experience financial troubles, which is where Hillair stepped in and agreed to invest. Now, the management company is alleging that its deal specified that the Kardashians would continue the promotions they had been working on under their previous deal with Boldface, which they allegedly did not do.

Another day, another Kardashian lawsuit we’re “keeping up with.”

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Kardashians Sued for Not Promoting Makeup Line appeared first on Law Street.

Celebrities are often involved in lawsuits, and whether they’re the target or the plaintiff, most have pretty high powered legal teams to protect them. But occasionally they’ll have to sit through depositions under oath. What comes out of these depositions can sometimes veer into comedic gold. Check out the top five funniest celebrity depositions in recent years:

5. Tom Cruise

Tom Cruise is known for the “Mission Impossible” films, his adherence to Scientology, and that time that he jumped on Oprah’s couch and it was super weird.

In 2013, Cruise’s relationship with Katie Holmes hit the rocks. In the tabloid fall out that followed, two magazines–In Touch and Life & Style–claimed that he “abandoned” his daughter Suri. During the lawsuit, he gave a deposition in which he had some pretty fantastically weird quotes.

For example, he explained why it’s just so much more convenient to fly on private planes: “Generally its easier, yes … it does save – it does save time. Sometimes the flight itself is longer if you have, you know…but yeah, it’s better. It’s much more comfortable.”

There was also an exchange in which he compared his job and resulting absence from his daughter to fighting in Afghanistan:

Lawyer:  ‘Now, your counsel has publicly equated your absence from Suri for these extended periods of time as being analogous to someone fighting in Afghanistan.  Are you aware of that?’

Cruise:  ‘I didn’t hear the Afghanistan, but that’s what it feels like, and certainly on this last movie, it was brutal.  It was brutal.’

While it’s easy to respect that Cruise deeply missed his daughter, comparing his absence to shoot a movie to a soldier deployed in Afghanistan went way too far, and showed how out-of-touch the actor is.

4. Kanye West

In 2014, Kanye West was served with a lawsuit in which he was accused of beating a photographer and smashing the photographer’s camera. During the deposition, which was obtained by TMZ, he had some fantastic standout quotes.

One of the best, and most humble, was: “I’m the smartest celebrity you’ve ever f—— dealt with. I’m not Britney Spears.”

He also didn’t take too kindly to the questioning from the plaintiff’s attorney, stating:

I’m in the business of trying to make dope s— for the world.  You’re in the business of representing scums and trying to make as much money as long as there’s this lapse in the law.

3. Paula Deen

Everyone’s favorite racist chef Paula Deen had to give a deposition after she was sued by a woman named Lisa Jackson, who claimed that Deen subjected her to sexual harassment and racial discrimination. Top quotes from the deposition included when Deen exclaimed that “of course she’s used the N-word,” and then when asked about the context explained:

Well, then, tell me the other context in which you’ve used the N-word?
I don’t know, maybe in repeating something that was said to me.
Like a joke?
No, probably a conversation between blacks. I don’t — I don’t know.

She also explained the other kinds of totally PC jokes she tells saying:

Okay. Would you consider those to be using the N word in a mean way?
That’s — that’s kind of hard. Most — most jokes are about Jewish people, rednecks, black folks. Most jokes target — I don’t know. I didn’t make up the joke, I don’t know. I can’t — I don’t know.
Okay.
They usually target, though, a group. Gays or straights, black, redneck, you know, I just don’t know — I just don’t know what to say. I can’t, myself, determine what offends another person.

She also described a wedding she had attended in which the servers were all black men in suits as a “really southern plantation style wedding.”

While the lawsuit was eventually settled, Deen certainly didn’t come across as a bastion of acceptance.

2. Lil Wayne

Lil Wayne got into a legal battle with Quincy Jones III over the film “The Carter,” which was a look at Lil Wayne’s life. During Lil Wayne’s deposition during a countersuit, it was clear he wasn’t taking the whole matter too seriously. A section of the deposition is below:

If you don’t want to watch the whole video, top quotes include when Lil Wayne didn’t like the lawyer questioning him very much:

Lil Wayne: “What’s his name?” [referring to the lawyer]
Judge: “Pete Ross.”
Lil Wayne: “Pete Ross, that’s a stupid-ass question.”

He also consistently made no sense:

Lil Wayne: “[The judge] can’t save you.”
Lawyer: “What does that mean?”
Lil Wayne: “I was talking to myself.”

And generally gave some fantastic answers:

Lil Wayne: “How would I describe my image in the media? I wouldn’t describe it.”
Lawyer: “Well, how would you describe it if you had to?”
Lil Wayne: “I don’t have to.”

Lil Wayne ended up losing over $2 million to Jones as the result of the countersuit.

1. Justin Bieber

The winner of the funniest celebrity deposition, however, is Justin Bieber himself. He was sued in 2014 after his bodyguard allegedly beat up a photographer.

Bieber comes across as a supreme asshole, and the video is definitely worth a watch, but if you don’t get a chance, here are some of the better quotes. Both Usher and Australia seem oddly difficult concepts for Bieber to understand.

Photographer’s lawyer: Do you know Raymond Usher IV?
Bieber: No.
Photographer’s lawyer: Do you know an individual in entertainment by the name of Usher?
Bieber: Yeah. Usher. That sounds familiar.

Photographer’s lawyer: Do you remember being in Australia, ever?
Bieber: I don’t know if I been to Australia. [turns to his counsel] I been to Australia?

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Celebrities in Court: Top Five Funniest Celebrity Depositions appeared first on Law Street.

Custody battles are often an issue among spouses who are not able to work out their personal differences for the sake of their children. Magazines today often depict celebrities as stars who are “just like us,” showing photos of them pumping their own gas, tanning in the park, or buying groceries at Whole Foods. So, just like us, celebrities also deal with intense and drawn out custody battles. Kelly Rutherford, better known as Lily van der Woodson on “Gossip Girl,” has been dealing with a custody battle regarding her two children, Hermés Giersch and Helena Giersch, with ex-husband Daniel Giersch since their divorce in 2008. This drawn out battle sheds a light on the issues that celebrities’ children face when their parents are in the news.

On May 22, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mark Juhas ruled that Rutherford’s son and daughter be brought back to the United States from Monaco for a June 15 custody hearing, where she was to be temporarily granted sole custody. Her ex-husband’s lawyer argues that because the children are residents of Monaco, California does not have jurisdiction over the children. There has been widespread speculation that Rutherford made fraudulent statements and lied to receive custody of the children. It has now been ruled that the children will not return until just  before June 15, when the Los Angeles and Monaco judges will discuss the situation at a custody hearing. Rutherford’s lawyer says that there is still hope for Rutherford, since this decision does not grant Monaco jurisdiction.

Fighting for what she claims are the basic human rights of her children, Rutherford has started a Children’s Justice Campaign, including Youtube videos with updates on the status of her children, stating,
“American children should not be forced to leave their own country. My children were born here, they have a right to live here, just like the millions of children who were born in this county.”

https://t.co/jRv3MsQlH6 https://t.co/zqzncYk0Er

— Kelly Rutherford (@KellyRutherford) March 15, 2015

Rutherford hopes the court is able to come to a decision soon, claiming that she has spent everything she’s ever worked for on legal fees to get her children back. In December of 2008, Rutherford filed for divorce from her husband, Daniel Giersch, while pregnant with their second child. By August of 2009, the two were able to reach a temporary settlement of joint legal and physical custody, which lasted until April 2010. In April 2012, Giersch’s American visa was revoked after substantial evidence, including terrorist acts, fraud, and his involvement in drug and weapon dealings in South America, were discovered to deport him. The removal of his visa forced Giersch to be permanently removed from the United States, and because of this, he took up residence in Monaco. This resulted in the order by a California judge for the children to live in France with their father since he is unable to enter the U.S. Rutherford, however, claims that there is no official evidence to support Giersch’s claims of being denied access into the U.S. Giersch filed court papers in Monaco, causing the children to be declared habitual residents, subject solely to Monaco law. Both parties are still waiting for the June 15 court hearing.

But one thing to keep in mind is that given that Kelly Rutherford is a well-known celebrity who starred in television hits like “Melrose Place” and “Gossip Girl,” once the court makes a decision, the battle itself will have long residual effects. Years from now when her children are a little bit older and are able to understand the years of back and forth between their parents, they’ll be able to simply Google information on their custody battle.

Rutherford has not been the only celebrity to have her children deal with the issues that come with being in the lime light, and some are fighting back. In 2014, Kristen Bell and her husband Dax Shepard began a “no kids” policy to get news outlets to stop sharing, buying, or posting photos of celebrities’ children without consent. The movement nicknamed the photographers “pedorazzi,” and this action is changing the paparazzi culture. Bell has stated.

No parent should feel like their child is being taken advantage of because of the choices they made on their career paths.

In agreement with Bell, I fully believe celebrities have the right to a private lifestyle, but there is contradictory behavior that comes from other stars that makes it difficult for celebrities to request privacy. Take Kim Kardashian for example–her daughter is regularly talked about on social media for her extravagant outfits, has been taken to fashion shows, and has even been on the family’s reality television show, all before the age of three years old. To celebrities, privacy has become more of a request then a right. When Kardashian’s child gets older, she will be able to find countless photos of herself at six months old hiding under a blanket. News outlets exploit celebrities and their children to such an extent that their entire lives can be accessed at the tap of a mouse pad. This American obsession with celebrities is exactly how I was able to gain such detailed information on the history of Rutherford’s and Giersch’s custody battle.

Kelly Rutherford has been dealing with the consequences of her decision to part ways with Giersch since before the birth of her now five year old daughter. They’ve had years of constant custody battles under a very public microscope–eventually this nightmare has to end.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Should Celebrity Custody Battles Put Children in the Limelight? appeared first on Law Street.

America’s red-lipped singing sweetheart Taylor Swift is at the center of another intellectual property dispute, this time with vendors on Etsy. The dispute is over several items, including t-shirts using her likeness and candles adorned with her lyrics. Swift’s legal team sent several vendors on the online DIY marketplace cease and desist letters demanding the immediate removal of their trademark-infringing products.

This takedown spree comes just one week after Swift registered phrases from her album “1989” with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The phrases include:

• “Party like it’s 1989”
• “This sick beat”
• “Nice to meet you, where you been?”
• “Could show you incredible things”
• “Cause we never go out of style”

If you’re wondering why her hit song’s title “Shake it off” didn’t make the list, that’s probably because it’s because the phrase was already trademarked by a diet company.

The singer already holds a slew of other trademarks related to her music, which she has been notoriously protective over. She made headlines back in November when she pulled all of her music from the popular music streaming website Spotify, claiming the site didn’t adequately compensate artists for their work. Swift’s label is also quick to have users on YouTube take down lyric videos because they can be converted into mp3s that violate copyrights.

The Etsy vendors who received the cease and desist letters were shocked to have been singled out by the singer’s camp for making what they thought were just fan items. One anonymous vender told Buzzfeed:

We originally made the item for fun, we love Taylor and we had friends that love Taylor. We never intended for it to be a profit making item. The cost of the item covered shipping costs, and production costs with very little left over.

When we got the e-mail that the trademark infringement occurred, we were pretty shocked because while our item was popular we didn’t feel as if it had become popular enough to cause harm to Taylor Swift’s empire. We were shocked. And we were scared. We didn’t even make enough money for a lawyer and this had seemed like such a harmless and fun idea.

If you’re a T-Swift fan don’t fret, there’s still plenty of other merchandise with “1989” lyrics being sold on the site that Swift has yet to legally claim, like this classic coffee mug.

Taylor Swift is trademarking lyrics, but you can still buy plenty of T-Swift garbage on Etsy: http://t.co/pjAq73NDy0pic.twitter.com/9CLOSY94yE

— Fusion (@ThisIsFusion) January 29, 2015

Many are wondering how it’s even possible for Swift to trademark popular phrases like “Nice to meet you, where you been?” in the first place. Richard Rochford, a partner in New York’s intellectual property litigation group Haynes and Boone, explained to Billboard that unlike copyright law, trademark rights don’t require the phrases to be absolutely unique or for the applicant to have coined them personally. This makes it easy for artists like Swift to acquire rights to these phrases if they can prove that they’re profiting off of a phrase associated with their brand. Britney Spears attempted to do the same thing, trying to trademark her popular song title “Toxic,” as well as Beyonce with her alter ego “Sasha Fierce”.

Ultimately this is smart move by Swift, showing that the 25-year-old singer doesn’t want to messed with. By marking her territory now, she can ensure others won’t be able to profit off of her brand if and when she decides to produce her own merchandise using the phrases.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Taylor Swift vs. Etsy Vendors: Singer Trademarks Song Phrases appeared first on Law Street.