The lawsuit filed by rockabilly label ‘Lucky 13′ against Taylor Swift for trademark infringement is raging on! Twenty five year old Swift has allegedly always had a strong connection to the number – it’s part of her twitter handle and she allegedly writes 13 on her hand before every concert, considering it a good luck charm. Even her management company is called 13 Management, LLC. However, it was her use of the phrase ‘Lucky 13′ on t-shirts and gift cards that she sells via her online store that riled up Robert Kloetzly, the owner of the Lucky 13 fashion brand and trademark.
When news of the lawsuit first broke, Kloetzly, speaking with Enterntainment Weekly, described Swift as “a tatted up singer who likes fast cars and dangerous men who drive them inappropriately.” He also claimed her ‘I Knew You Were Trouble’ music video could be mistaken for a Lucky 13 advertisement. (No, we’ve never noticed any tats on Taylor either – maybe he’s confusing her with Taylor Hawkins?)
The lawsuit, filed last year, claims “There can be no doubt that Swift – who has an extensive trademark portfolio and numerous business and licensing partner knows, understands and substantially profits from her carefully cultivated and meticulously managed trademarks and brand, image, and other intellectual property.” Earlier this year Lucky 13 sent Swift discovery requests, including photos of her body in revealing clothes, to show that her grown-up image overlaps with its own customer base. According to WWD, the company also requested that Swift “make a formal deposition stating whether or not she knew about the existing Lucky 13 trademark.” On Monday her lawyers filed a motion asking for a protection order from further requests.
Kloetzly and Swift are scheduled to go to trial in the California District Court in November with Lucky 13 apparel’s owner seeking profits from Swift’s “Lucky 13” t-shirt and greeting cards, as well as damages for the ever mounting legal fees that he’s racking up. The question is, what will happen if this reaches the courts in November? Kloetzly may own the trademark but will it be invalidated? The phase has been around for a long time – the Neil Young album springs to mind, and it’s a common name among tattoo parlours the world over. Nonetheless, he owns the trademark relating to fashion and we can see why he doesn’t want his customers associating the brand with a pop princess! Normally these suits settle but Kloetzly built this business up from scratch and we get the feeling he won’t back down, whatever the price. And rightly so! Stay tuned to Wigs And Gowns for updates.