Lady Gaga threatens to sue over 'Baby Gaga' human breast milk ice cream
Lady Gaga wants the makers of "Baby Gaga" ice cream to stop using her name.
March 4th, 2011
08:00 PM ET

Lady Gaga threatens to sue over 'Baby Gaga' human breast milk ice cream

Lady Gaga has threatened to sue the makers of an ice cream made from human breast milk if they don't stop selling the product under the name "Baby Gaga."

News of the flavor's sale in a London sweets shop by a waitress dressed like Lady Gaga raised eyebrows worldwide and led to its confiscation after the Westminister City Council deemed it unfit for human consumption.

That hasn't stopped the meat-wearing entertainer from accusing Covent Garden's Icecreamists of riding her "coattails" to promote a "deliberately provocative" product that many consider "nausea-inducing," according to legal documents filed on her behalf.

In using her name and her image, Gaga - whose real name is Stefani Germanotta - accuses the shop of misleading the public into believing she endorses the concoction of breast milk, vanilla pods and lemon zest.

"The references you are making to Lady Gaga are thus clearly deliberate and intended to take advantage of her reputation and good will," the document states.

Furthermore, "associating the Lady Gaga mark with a food product which may be unsafe for human consumption (owing to the risk of it carrying such viruses as hepatitis) is also highly detrimental" to her brand, according to the document.

Gaga demands that Icecreamists change the name of the ice cream to something that is not "aurally, visually or conceptually similar" to Lady Gaga and to remove all references to Baby Gaga from their website and marketing materials or face an injunction and further legal proceedings.

The owner of Icecreamists, Matt O'Connor, said he intends to fight the allegations, which he calls "preposterous and outrageous."

He also said he plans to continue selling the breast milk ice cream under the name Baby Gaga if he gets the ice cream back from the council.

"We think this is very unnecessary, the whole thing will be over by next week, but we are prepared to fight this in court," he said.

soundoff (282 Responses)
  1. Enough!

    Lady Gaga is a product that many consider "nausea-inducing."

    March 5, 2011 at 1:54 am | Report abuse |
  2. GoGo

    Is Lady Gaga still around? I thought her 15 minutes of fame were up months ago. Anyway, I just wanted to point out evreything about Lady Gaga was ripped off of someone else. The makers of Baby Gaga should win this one. A drug dealer named "Rick Ross" tried suing the rapper "Rick Ross" for using his name. Same spelling and everything. A judge ruled in favor of the rapper even though the rapper admits he stole the name and persona of the drug dealer citing people know the difference between Rick Ross the drug dealer and Rick Ross the rapper. Both go by the alias "Freeway" Ricky Ross as well. Lady Gaga does not own the word "Gaga".

    March 5, 2011 at 2:32 am | Report abuse |
  3. Chris

    The name isn't the important factor here, it's that they are using the name in clear reference to her. BBC did coverage on this and the waitress was obviously dressed like her. There are no other intentions for the restaurant to use both "her" name and her image if they aren't intending to cash in on her popularity.

    March 5, 2011 at 2:50 am | Report abuse |
  4. Scott

    How is gaga linked to just her ? That's like copyrighting *coothie cootchie coo*.... you can't copyright or claim trademark on common words even *IF* it can be confused with a persons character

    March 5, 2011 at 3:04 am | Report abuse |
  5. NPhxAz

    This "performer" has balls to say ANYTHING is half as "nausea-inducing as she in fact is.

    March 5, 2011 at 3:09 am | Report abuse |
  6. gogolac

    english dictionary should sue lady gaga for using the word "lady" as anyone can see she is no lady. also madonna should sue her for copying her style and babies should sue her for using the word "gaga" derived from "goo goo ga ga"

    March 5, 2011 at 3:18 am | Report abuse |
  7. koinu

    some of you are a little lost. she is suing over the fact that they are making money off of her name and image, im sure she couldn't care less about the pocket change she'll get out of it.

    March 5, 2011 at 3:25 am | Report abuse |
    • lol

      She's been making money off the name and image of Madonna for more than a year. It's all well and good if Madonna pretends not to care but it's still pathetic for Lady Gaga to get upset over some tiny business clowning around with her image. They've gotten ten times as much publicity from her whining about it.

      And I'm sure she thinks that she's helping her own career by whining about it too. So really the entire thing is the highest degree of fake.

      March 5, 2011 at 3:58 am | Report abuse |
  8. john williams

    ...what? does she have a trademark on the name? a child, I called my grandmother GAGA because I could not pronounce Gertrude...What this is all about answers to the name of "publicity", and if you want it to go away, just ignore it.

    March 5, 2011 at 3:38 am | Report abuse |
  9. lol

    Yeah, like Lady Gaga hasn't been riding anybody's coattails.

    March 5, 2011 at 3:55 am | Report abuse |
  10. Lucid Citizen

    Interestingly enough, if the waitress had not dressed like Lady Gaga the real Lady Gaga would have no case. There are plenty of examples of the term goo-goo ga-ga representing baby talk in the English language for almost a hundred years. And it reasonably follows that a product made with human breast milk would be associated with babies. Therefore naming such a product Baby Gaga is logical (if not clever), reasonable, and contextually autonomous from the Lady Gaga brand....And obviously Lady Gaga does not have copyrights to every phonetically similar word or phrase in the free market....Its possible that even though the seller of Baby Gaga did infringe by marketing with a likeness of Lady Gaga, all the seller has to do is cease further use of things obviously related to Lady Gaga. Piggybacking on her phonetic similarity is not itself a crime, its just smart marketing....Years ago when Viagra was new on the market sales of a bottled water named Niagra increased exponentially. Granted, Niagra was a pre-existing brand.

    March 5, 2011 at 4:16 am | Report abuse |


    March 5, 2011 at 4:32 am | Report abuse |
    • Mcaswell82

      I gotta say I don't think she has a case. Unless the waitresses are calling themselves Lady Gaga I'd say that it's satire. Also they're not calling it Lady Gaga ice cream its Baby Gaga last time I checked play on words not illegal. So Lady Gaga is claiming the right to the word Gaga again not gonna fly. Gaga is actually a form of the game dodgeball played in an octagonal pit. Lady Gaga just needs publicity as always she is pathetic.

      March 5, 2011 at 8:13 am | Report abuse |
    • rabbit one

      It would be a lot more exceptional and impressive if Lady Gaga would just ignore this jest. The fact that she is getting legal, especially when Madonna just gave her free license to utilize melodies similar to "Express Yourself", is not flattering to her image of being such an accepting person. She should take the intellectual and artistic high road and just ignore this ice cream abomination.

      March 5, 2011 at 9:38 am | Report abuse |
    • Cry Baby Gaga

      What a sad human being Gaga (am I allowed to type her name here?) really is. She is all about being outrageous as long as she is making lots of money doing so. She is showing what a blazing hypocrite and phony she is. Did Madonna sue her for stealing her entire schtick and musical style? Perhaps she should have. Gaga was always just a cheap copy. Gaga is so over. Move on. Nothing to see here.

      March 5, 2011 at 10:21 am | Report abuse |

      This just in: Lawyers around the country are ramping up efforts to find a way to get their clients on board. The reasoning is over the concern that millions of parents of infants are potential litigants to a huge class-action suit.
      Every time a young child just learning to speak utters "gaga," the child's parent must cut a check for $5 or face stiff penalties, up to and including arresting the child or worse- forcing that child to look at Stefani Germanotta (LG).
      Doctors warn Americans the latter penalty can result in vomiting, convulsions, or even death.

      March 5, 2011 at 11:25 am | Report abuse |
    • Civilrights?

      Two scoops please!

      March 6, 2011 at 12:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tod P

      These stupid celebrities think they "OWN" a word. Celebrities are making me really disgust them lately. They are so greedy and self centered, it is pathetic. They think they have to make money from everything, even from being fired. LOSERS!

      March 8, 2011 at 10:25 am | Report abuse |
  12. Troy from S'port

    The singer and the ice cream treat both make me want to GAG!

    March 5, 2011 at 4:43 am | Report abuse |
    • dragonfly

      me too.she has no case.the icecream store used gaga,not lady gaga who has the copyright..soooooo stupid
      before people want to stir up a LAW suite mabe they should know what the LAW is..

      March 5, 2011 at 9:01 am | Report abuse |
    • Stacey

      The ice cream is nasty but the singer is AWESOME!!! She is taking on the entire world and that's all you can say about her ?? Hahahahaha all the little mosters are just laughing at people like you.

      Have a great day!

      March 5, 2011 at 9:02 am | Report abuse |
    • Jo

      Stacey, really she is taking on the world?! What the fudge has she done? I didn't realize that she was the one that brought peace to Egypt, what a blessed soul she is.... Moron.

      March 5, 2011 at 11:37 am | Report abuse |
    • Freddy Mercury

      Dear Mrs. Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta,
      I´am the true owner of the word "Gaga".
      Please don´t use this word no longer time!
      Thank You.

      Freddy Mercury

      March 7, 2011 at 1:09 pm | Report abuse |
  13. Timothy A. Perez

    Does she think she owns the word "Gaga"? Dumb woman. America... hear me, don't let this woman be your children's role model in any way.

    March 5, 2011 at 5:59 am | Report abuse |
    • Jenny

      Of course not. What she owns is her name and likeness, and when a business rhymes their product's name with her name and has their employees dress like her to imitate her likeness to sell their product, then Lady Gaga has a legitimate suit against the company.

      March 5, 2011 at 7:10 am | Report abuse |
    • Read.

      Did you read the article? "News of the flavor's sale in a London sweets shop by a waitress dressed like Lady Gaga..."
      It's not about the word Gaga. It's about intellectual property. You may think Lady Gaga is dumb, and you may be correct, but her lawyers are not.

      March 5, 2011 at 7:12 am | Report abuse |
    • someoneelse

      You're right about her being a crap role model, but this is obviously a case of people stealing her image (name) and fame for their own uses.

      March 5, 2011 at 7:46 am | Report abuse |
    • Mcaswell82

      Yeah the waitresses are dressed "like" Lady Gaga when someone dresses "like" someone it's called satire. By that logic Tina Fey should have been sued for doing her Sarah Palin on SNL. Now if the waitresses are calling themselves Lady Gaga that would be different. For the record Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta is Lady Gaga's real name. Gaga is also not a word created by Lady Gaga. Gaga is actually a form of the game dodgeball it's played in an octagonal pit think UFC/Dodgeball. As for it being called Baby Gaga since when has clever play on words been illegal? It'll be interesting to see how this turns out if she does sue. I really think Lady Gaga needs publicity she's become less famous for her music and more for giving her opinion she is pathetic case closed!!

      March 5, 2011 at 8:19 am | Report abuse |
    • Stacey

      Seriously? Wow you are pathetic. Hopefully you are not married to anyone.

      March 5, 2011 at 9:01 am | Report abuse |
    • reality check

      Her name and likeness?, maybe Madonna and Rupaul should sue lady gaga for stealing their likenesses.

      March 5, 2011 at 9:38 am | Report abuse |
    • Jinxgt

      @Read.: I don't believe you understand how an intellectual property. Just because someone dresses and imitates Lady Gaga doesn't give her a case, if that were the case then David Bowie and Madonna could sue Lady Gaga since they were dressing weird before Lady Gaga did. Intellectually property needs to be at least time stamped at a minimum to have any case, so unless she came up with the idea of Baby Gaga before them then she doesn't have a case. A variation of a copyrighted term is not protected unless the variation is stealing a central word that is protected. Microsoft has no case if a company names itself Macrosoft, now if they were Microsoft Blanket Co., then Microsoft would have a case and still might not win if the word is a commonly used not in reference to the company, such as apple. As such, Apple is protected only in regards to the computer and electronics industry. So I can start a company called Apple Furniture and they would have no case. This doesn't mean they can't attempt to sue, but they will probably lose. Lastly, intellectual property laws are different for different countries, as Lady Gaga is copyrighted in the US and the ice cream establishment is in the UK, this could add another challenge to her lawsuit.

      March 5, 2011 at 9:53 am | Report abuse |
    • iteration2


      There's a big difference between making fun of someone in a comedy skit (CLEARLY parody) and using someone's branding (name and likeness) in order to sell a product not endorsed by that person. Has nothing to do with someone dressing similarly, or someone using a similar name. It's ALL ABOUT the deliberate association of said branding to a product, and a controversial product at that.

      For instance, if I were to develop a particularly brutal and inhumane type of rifle ammunition and market it with the name "Palin's Choice", she would probably have legal grounds to sue me.

      March 5, 2011 at 11:17 am | Report abuse |
    • Jinxgt

      @iteration2: Not at all, unless Sarah Palin copyrighted her name which is doubtful and probably not doable, she would have no case on your so called "Palin's Choice" bullets. The advantage Lady Gaga has is her stage name is copyrighted, but again a play on words of a copyrighted phrase or word isn't specifically an infringement. Her "likeness" is both not her idea/original nor is it something that can be protected under an intellectual property clause. Without the ice cream parlor directly using her name, there really is no case here. They might come to some sort of settlement out of court to minimize legal fees.

      March 5, 2011 at 12:27 pm | Report abuse |
  14. Timothy A. Perez


    March 5, 2011 at 6:00 am | Report abuse |


    March 5, 2011 at 7:01 am | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12