Surprise! It’s me again, member of the Anti-Kim club (or is it klub..?). Now to those of you who have a soft spot for the Kardashians, I respect your affections which is why I suggest you discontinue reading this post — it will save you a lot of time and energy expressing your hate for my “hate” only to reveal a mutual, albeit thinly veiled distaste for the Kardashians as well (yay!). In any event, Kim’s latest “career” move is suing the pants off of Old Navy. No pun intended.
Having said that, let’s get down to the troubled business. Several months ago, or who the hell knows when, Kim Kardashian pitched a legal fit when they featured a hot babe in one of their commercials who resembled the one and only, Kim Kardashian. Big whoop right? Apparently not. According to Kim Kardashian, Old Navy damaged her reputation… ha! I’m sorry… ha… hahaha. Oh, oh, wooo, OK I’m back. Where were we? Ahem, “damaged reputation,” right. So now Kim would like the Gap-owned company to fork over $20 million.
Totally reasonable right? Let’s imagine for a moment, a world where we could attain $20 million because someone looked like you in notoriously sh*tty commercials (let’s face it Old Navy commercials are the worst). Now imagine that $20 million… I just tried and it was like attempting to comprehend the continuum of the universe and all that it contains after taking a hit of salvia while doing a hand stand.
You be the judge.
Since Old Navy is a confluence of all my childhood nightmares, it makes sense that they would find a model/actress that would almost identically emulate Kim Kardashian’s appearance. It’s like they didn’t even bother trying to pass their ad off as anything other than a Kim Kardashian endorsement. And did they really expect that the wrath of the Kardashians would not bear down upon them like the hammer of Thor? In all honesty, they should have just asked — I’m sure they could have bought Kim with a few cosmos, one or two empty promises and a couple million for cab fare for when the cameras stopped rolling.
What does give the Gap company a case is the ambiguity surrounding what Kim’s “career” actually entails:
According to THR, The Gap has hired high-powered Hollywood lawyer Louis Petrich, who has set out to essentially determine the value of Kim Kardashian’s reputation. To do this, he plans to look into financial records from her Bebe and Sears deals, why Bebe dropped Kim ‘nd Kim’s ‘reputation as a singer and dancer.’ THR speculates that the defendant intends to argue that Kim’s reputation is already so tarnished that ‘no injury could cause true damage” and that she is thus ‘libel-proof.’ Or that because she can’t sing or dance (which she can’t–remember that whole Prince concert debacle? Or her short-lived stint on Dancing With the Stars?) she doesn’t measure up to her Old Navy doppelganger Melissa Molinaro, who apparently used to be on MTV’s Making The Band 3.
Is this insane? As much as I hate to admit it, this woman is herself, a brand, and Old Navy blatantly exploited that “brand” without permission — but $20 million!? Who has the better case here: Kim or The Gap?