Following an announced lawsuit against Old Navy retail stores for featuring an actress with long dark hair and "ample" features that looks a bit like her, Kim Kardashian is now claiming that any advertiser using images of dark haired women with a protruding rear end will be subject to trademark infringement and a lawsuit.
Claiming that any image, silhouette, black and white, or color, that portrays a woman with long dark curly hair, oversized breasts and a caboose that would block out the sun, falls under her "trademark domain", Kardashian is setting the stage for legal precedent.
"It's simply ridiculous", claims Haywood Jasumy, lawyer for the Network Advertising Group. "Because my sister has similar features, she can't get a modeling job without Queen Kim's permission? Good luck enforcing that in court".
Showing a picture of his sister during the discussion, Jasumy declared, "And don't you even think about saying a word about her back door".
Oddly timed against the backdrop of falling public interest in the whole Kardashian phenomenon, the lawsuit thrusts Ms. Kardashian, and her glazed buns, back into the spotlight.
"Struggling for a few more than 15 minutes of fame, apparently", asserts Jasumy. "Just another celebutard without any talent, except of course for that exceptional piece of real estate below her waisteline".
Without any word coming from the Kardashian camp, other models and lawyers seem to agree that the suit is nothing but a big pile of excrement.
" A woman's features and image are her own, but that doesn't mean that other woman can't look similar. Only when you claim to be Kim Kardashian, complete with booty in tow, is there an infringement", said Jasumy still ogling photos of Kim's badonkadonk.
Experts believe the suit will be dismissed, but writers will clearly enjoy coming up with more slang terms for Kardashian's pears.
