The First Lady is back in the news as the plaintiff in another defamation case. She doesn’t like it when people suggest she was escort. Fine. But what crackerjack lawyer thought this was a good argument for assessing her speculative damages?
”Plaintiff had the unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, as an extremely famous and well-known person…to launch a broad-based commercial brand in multiple product categories, each of which could have garnered multi-million dollar business relationships for a multi-year term during which plaintiff is one of the most photographed women in the world...The [statements] also constitute defamation per se because they impugned on her fitness to perform her duties as First Lady of the United States,”
As a result of defendant’s publication of defamatory statements about plaintiff, plaintiff’s brand has lost significant value, and major business opportunities that were otherwise available to her have been lost and/or significantly impacted.” [emphasis added]
The product categories we are talking about include, “among other things, apparel, accessories, shoes, jewelry, cosmetics, hair care, skin care and fragrance,” according to the $150 million filing.
I realize the lawyer behind this is the one who successfully torpedoed Gawker for Thiel. I realize they don’t care if they win. (You think a blogger has $150 million?) This is all just bullying.
But c’mon! These guys aren’t even trying to be coy about cashing in. “Plaintiff had the unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity”?! You can’t seriously expect to win a claim that damaging your reputation means you can’t cash in on your position as First Lady. Considering how much 45 thumbs his nose at The Emoluments Clause, it’s worth bringing up a scholarly view (warning PDF) on how that behavior impacts Trump, and specifically his family’s ability to cash in on his presidency.
While there is little authority addressing the question whether the Clause covers payments and emoluments given to an immediate family member of a federal officeholder, the better view is that it does, at least in circumstances remotely like these.
To be fair, those arguments were made in December and only focused on the boys running a so-called blind trust, but I think one can extend these arguments to MelaniaTM if she is going to use her position as First Lady to pimp her jewelry collection.
Anyone who remembers Lady Di, remembers how much impact she had on popular fashion, far beyond wedding dresses. Now we’re going to have to deal with fawning media breathlessly reporting on “The stunning gown worn by the First Lady complemented by the gorgeous MelaniaTM jewelry from her personal line, available for a limited time on QVC network!” You think that’s hyperbole? You must have forgotten the flak Ivanka caught for hawking the $10,800 bracelet she wore on her “60 Minutes” interview. you really think they would pass up the prime opportunity to cash in on the First Lady’s visibility? Think again. Before TeenVogue reported on it, the Official White House Biography Web Page for Melania said:
Melania is also a successful entrepreneur. In April 2010, Melania Trump launched her own jewelry collection, "Melania™ Timepieces & Jewelry” on QVC.”
That crass commercialism has been edited out. But apparently they are just going to keep looking for new opportunities every chance they get. What can I say? Keep it classy!
Tuesday, Feb 7, 2017 · 3:14:30 AM +00:00 · Victor Klemperer Respawned
In related news: I didn’t realize MelaniaTM was trademarked. Well, it is. It was submitted in August of 2016 (right after the Republican National Convention nominated Trump). The trademark application (IC 014. US 002 027 028 050. G & S) is for goods and services:
“Jewelry namely, necklaces, bracelets, rings and earrings, precious gemstones; semiprecious gemstones; diamonds; pearls; timepieces; watches and watch bracelets, jewelry boxes, jewelry cases, brooches, amulets, anklets, lapel and hat pins, and clocks”
Still think they aren’t going to try and cash in on this gig every way they can?