Last year Woody Allen sued American Apparel for using his image on billboards without his permission. Now the company is using several ridiculous tactics and arguments in its attempts to protect itself from losing up to $10 million. They’re trying to bring up irrelevant old scandals, like Allen’s divorce from Mia Farrow and subsequent marriage to her adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn. And this makes it okay for American Apparel to illegally use Woody Allen’s image how?

Actor-director Woody Allen has accused a clothing company of trying to harass and intimidate him with a “scorched earth” approach to defending itself against a $10 million lawsuit. In papers filed Wednesday by his lawyers, the 73-year-old Allen said American Apparel Inc. went too far in requesting information about his family life, personal finances and career.

Allen sued the company last year for using his image on the company’s billboards in Hollywood and New York and on a Web site. Allen, who does not endorse products in the United States, said he had not authorized the displays, which the Los Angeles-based company said were up for a week. The new court papers said American Apparel has “adopted a `scorched earth’ approach,” issuing broad document requests and subpoenas to many people close to him, including his sister.

Allen’s lawyers said the company was seeking to “tarnish Mr. Allen’s reputation a second time” and called it a “despicable effort to intimate” him. American Apparel lawyer Stuart Slotnick said the company plans to make Allen’s relationships to actress Mia Farrow and her adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn, whom Allen married, the focus of a trial scheduled to begin in federal court in Manhattan on May 18. “Woody Allen expects $10 million for use of his image on billboards that were up and down in less than one week,” Slotnick said. “I think Woody Allen overestimates the value of his image.”

He said the company’s belief was that “after the various sex scandals that Woody Allen has been associated with, corporate America’s desire to have Woody Allen endorse their product is not what he may believe it is.” Allen’s lawsuit said the billboard falsely implied he sponsored, endorsed or was associated with American Apparel. Slotnick said it was not a cheap shot to bring up Allen’s sex life in a lawsuit over the billboard and Internet ads. “It’s certainly relevant in assessing the value of an endorsement,” he said.

[From the Huffington Post]

Allen has made it clear that he does not engage in any form of product endorsement in America. Yet one of the company’s many ridiculous defenses is that, “corporate America’s desire to have Woody Allen endorse their product is not what he may believe it is” is absolutely irrelevant and ridiculous. Allen already said he doesn’t endorse products in The U.S. – that’s the point. And even if he did, it doesn’t change the fact that he did not endorse American Apparel.

All ignorant lawyer Stuart Slotnick is doing is backing up Woody’s claims. And he further puts his foot in his mouth when you consider the fact that even though “corporate America’s desire to have Woody Allen endorse their product is not what he may believe it is,” American Apparel sure had quite the desire to use Allen’s image, even if it meant doing so illegally. So he completely nullifies his point on both counts. The upside is that Allen’s certain to win, considering American Apparel hired a numskull attorney that can’t even think through a logical argument. All he’s been able to come up with to defend the company is Allen’s unrelated scandal from 15 years ago. Something tells me Stuart Slotnick graduated bottom of the class.