Lawsuit
Page: 7
Ye (formerly Kanye West) is facing another lawsuit accusing him of illegal sampling, this time over allegations that he incorporated an instrumental track into two songs from Donda even after he was explicitly denied permission.
The case, filed Wednesday (July 17) in Los Angeles federal court, claims that Ye borrowed elements from a song called “MSD PT2” for his own “Hurricane” and “Moon” — both of which reached the top 20 on the Hot 100 when they were released in 2021.
Filed by a company that owns the rights to the earlier song, the case claims that when Ye was refused a license to use it, he simply “decided to steal it.”
Trending on Billboard
“This lawsuit is about more than defendants’ failure to pay a fee,” writes Oren Warshavsky and other attorneys from the law firm BakerHostetler, representing the plaintiffs. “It is about the rights of artists, musicians, and songwriters to determine how their works are published and used. Intellectual property owners have a right to decide how their property is exploited and need to be able to prevent shameless infringers from simply stealing.”
In an act of particularly “blatant brazenness,” the lawsuit claims that Ye even credited the song’s four creators — Khalil Abdul-Rahman Hazzard, Sam Barsh, Dan Seeff and Josh Mease — as songwriters despite their refusal to work with him.
Wednesday’s case was filed not by the artists themselves, but by a company called Artist Revenue Advocates (ARA), which owns the copyrights to “MSD PT2.” Lawyers for the company say the four artists turned to ARA after they “unsuccessfully attempted to collect their share of the proceeds from these songs” for nearly three years.
A spokesperson for Ye could not immediately be located for comment on the new case.
The new allegations come less than a month after Ye settled a separate lawsuit filed by the estate of Donna Summer over a very similar accusation. In that earlier case, Summer’s estate claimed the rapper had used her 1977 hit “I Feel Love” in his own “Good (Don’t Die)” despite a similarly explicit refusal.
“Summer’s estate … wanted no association with West’s controversial history and specifically rejected West’s proposed use,” the estate’s attorneys wrote at the time. “In the face of this rejection, defendants arrogantly and unilaterally decided they would simply steal ‘I Feel Love’ and use it without permission.”
Even before the two recent cases, Ye has been sued repeatedly for uncleared samples and interpolations in his music.
In 2022, Ye was hit with a lawsuit claiming his song “Life of the Party” illegally sampled a song by the pioneering rap group Boogie Down Productions; accused in another case over allegations that he used an uncleared snippet of Marshall Jefferson’s 1986 house track “Move Your Body” in the song “Flowers”; and sued in a different case by a Texas pastor for allegedly sampling from his recorded sermon in “Come to Life.”
Before that, West and Pusha T were sued in 2019 for sampling George Jackson‘s “I Can’t Do Without You” on the track “Come Back Baby.” That same year, he was sued for allegedly using an audio snippet of a young girl praying in his 2016 song “Ultralight Beam.” Further back, West was hit with similar cases over allegedly unlicensed samples used in “New Slaves,” “Bound 2” and “My Joy.”
This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings and all the fun stuff in between.
This week: Young Thug’s criminal trial is in chaos after the judge is forced to recuse himself; Nirvana ends a long-running lawsuit over its famed smiley face logo; the Beastie Boys launch a copyright battle against Chili’s over “Sabotage”; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Young Thug Trial Judge Removed From Case
The controversial, oft-delayed, never-normal criminal trial of Young Thug got another stunning twist this week, when the Atlanta judge overseeing it was ordered removed from the case. Judge Ural Glanville’s recusal came a month after revelations of a secret “ex parte” meeting between the judge, prosecutors and a key prosecution witness. Attorneys for Thug and other defendants had argued that Glanville aided prosecutors in coercing the witness to testify and that the meeting had violated their constitutional rights to a fair trial. In her decision Monday (July 15), Judge Rachel Krause ruled that the secret meeting had not been “inherently improper” and that Glanville “can and would continue presiding fairly over this matter” if left on the case. But she criticized him for his handling of the fallout from the meeting revelations, and ordered him to step aside for the sake of “preserving the public’s confidence in the judicial system.” That’s all well and good, but the public’s confidence has already repeatedly been tested by the case against Young Thug. The sprawling racketeering case, which claims the rapper and dozens of others ran a violent Atlanta street gang called YSL, has meandered through the court system for more than two years — first through an unprecedented 10-month jury selection and then repeated delays and disruptions, including the stabbing of another defendant. Prosecutors have only presented part of their vast list of potential witnesses, and nobody expects the case to conclude early next year. All the while, Young Thug has sat in jail, repeatedly denied bond by Glanville. What happens now is anybody’s guess. With a new judge already set to take over (Judge Shakura L. Ingram was listed on the court docket by late Monday) defense attorneys will likely re-file their requests that Thug and the other defendants be released on bond. They will also likely renew their demands for a mistrial over Glanville’s handling of the case — a motion that, if granted, would force prosecutors to start the entire massive case over from scratch.
THE OTHER BIG STORY: Nirvana Settles Logo Battle
An epic, three-way legal battle over Nirvana‘s iconic smiley face logo is over. For years, lawyers for the rock legends had been locked in sprawling litigation over the image, which emerged as an unofficial emblem for the band in its heyday and has only grown more valuable in recent years amid a boom in ‘90s/’00s nostalgia. First, Nirvana sued fashion designer Marc Jacobs in 2018 for using it without permission on grunge-themed apparel. Then, a designer at Geffen Records named Robert Fisher came out of the woodwork to argue that he — and not Kurt Cobain — had created the image and owned the rights to it. “For 30 years now, Nirvana has reaped enormous profits from Mr. Fisher’s works,” his lawyers wrote when he jumped into the case in 2020. “Nirvana was able to do so without any compensation to Mr. Fisher by falsely claiming authorship and ownership.” Nirvana’s attorneys staunchly maintained that Cobain designed the logo — or at the very least, that Fisher didn’t own any rights to it. But those questions are moot now: Attorneys for all three sides filed a motion last week saying they had reached a settlement to end the case. Go read our full story on the settlement, which recounts the back story of a case that probed into the creative origins of one of rock’s best-known pieces of iconography.
Trending on Billboard
Other top stories this week…
CAN’T STAND IT – The Beastie Boys sued the owner of Chili’s over allegations that the restaurant chain used the rap trio’s 1994 song “Sabotage” in a social media advertisement without permission — an especially serious allegation from a trio that famously doesn’t allow its music to appear in ads. The offending content? An apparent spoof of the iconic “Sabotage” video featuring a restaurant heist and 1970s-era disguises. LABELS SUE VERIZON – The major music companies filed a massive copyright case claiming the telecom giant effectively encouraged its internet subscribers to steal music on a “staggering” scale. Seeking billions in damages, the case is the latest in a long series of lawsuits aimed at forcing ISPs to crack down on “repeat infringers.” And it came with a zinger: “While Verizon is famous for its ‘Can you hear me now?’ advertising campaign, it has intentionally chosen not to listen to complaints from copyright owners.” AI FIRMS LAWYER UP – AI music companies Suno and Udio hired Latham & Watkins to defend them against lawsuits filed by the three major labels that accuse the companies of using vast swathes of copyright music to “train” their models. Latham is a big deal in the BigLaw world, but especially in the burgeoning sub-niche of AI-training copyright defense litigation. The firm already reps Anthropic in such a case filed by music publishers, and OpenAI in a similar suit filed by The New York Times. DEFAMATORY DENIAL? Film composer Danny Elfman was hit with a libel lawsuit over statements he made to the media last year defending himself from claims that he sexually abused Nomi Abadi, a former friend and fellow composer. In denying the allegations, Abadi says Elfman falsely tarred her as a “liar, homewrecker, and an extortionist.” EX-RHCP IN HOT WATER – Josh Klinghoffer, a former guitarist for the Red Hot Chili Peppers, was sued for wrongful death over allegations that he struck and killed a pedestrian near Los Angeles earlier this year due to “distracted driving.” Lawyers for the victim’s family say they have video evidence showing Klinghoffer “using a device mere seconds before he crashed” into Israel Sanchez. CLASS ACTION IN THE REARVIEW – A group of Spotify customers dropped their class action against the streaming giant over its recent decision to kill its short-lived “Car Thing” device, resolving a case that claimed Spotify left users holding “a useless product.” Terms of the deal were not disclosed, but Spotify has more clearly indicated since the case was first filed that it will provide refunds to people who purchased the Car Thing. ABUSE CLAIMS AGAINST IRV GOTTI –The co-founder of Murder Inc. Records was hit with a lawsuit accusing him of sexual assault and rape, filed by an unnamed woman who says he repeatedly “coerced” her into sex by leveraging his “power and influence in the music world.”
More than a month after Min Hee-jin, CEO of HYBE subsidiary label ADOR, successfully avoided HYBE’s attempt to dismiss her from the job, another HYBE imprint has reportedly filed a lawsuit against the embattled executive and NewJeans executive producer.
On Monday (July 15), Korea JoongAng Daily reported that Source Music, the Korean label under the HYBE Labels umbrella that’s home to K-pop girl group LE SSERAFIM, has sued Min for 500 million Korean won (about $361,000), accusing her of defamation and disruption of business stemming from comments she made during two emotional press conferences she held in April — thereby damaging the LE SSERAFIM project.
Trending on Billboard
During those press conferences, Min claimed that her girl group project under Source, where she previously worked, was pushed aside by HYBE after the company decided to focus its efforts on LE SSERAFIM, which notably included two members of the hugely popular girl group IZ*ONE. According to Min, that change in focus led her to move away from Source and establish ADOR — a label operating under the HYBE Labels umbrella that Min previously told Billboard “started with guaranteed autonomy” — to house her project, which eventually became NewJeans.
During the press conferences, the ADOR CEO also shared what some considered disparaging remarks about several HYBE artists and Source Music’s talent casting — telling reporters that future NewJeans member Minji was the only Source trainee she wanted to recruit and that she cast the rest of the group members herself.
Source Music has not shared a statement on the reported lawsuit. Billboard has reached out to HYBE to verify the lawsuit and offer further details.
While LE SSERAFIM’s Coachella debut in April turned the girl group into a hot topic in Korean media over the pressure put on K-pop artists, Min’s subsequent remarks turned up the heat even more. The backlash to her critiques was so harsh that it led NewJeans and its five members to disable comments on their Instagram pages in late June.
The new lawsuit marks the second time a HYBE subsidiary has filed suit against Min. In May, BELIFT LAB sued Min for defamation and obstruction of business over her comments that BELIFT’s breakout girl group ILLIT had plagiarized NewJeans, stating that the label “copied all the formulas that we had with” the group.
The new lawsuit reportedly filed by Source is just the latest development in a continually unfolding drama. On July 9, Min reportedly arrived at the Yongsan Police Station in Seoul for questioning after HYBE reported her to authorities for breach of trust. Continuing her proclivity to engage in direct media interactions (instead of putting out press releases and statements like HYBE), a smiling Min left the station after eight hours and, to the press gathered outside, called HYBE’s accusations “comedy.”
Amid the commotion, NewJeans has continued rolling out new music. In late June, the group released its first two singles aimed at the Japanese market: “Supernatural” (which peaked at No. 7 on the Billboard Japan Hot 100) and the B-side “Right Now” (which peaked at No. 47 on the same chart) before holding a fan meeting at the famous Tokyo Dome. Meanwhile, Source Music confirmed that LE SSERAFIM is set to drop new music at the end of August following the February release of its EP Easy, which peaked at No. 8 on the Billboard 200.
AI music companies Suno and Udio have hired elite law firm Latham & Watkins to defend them against lawsuits filed by the three major labels in late June, according to court documents.
Filed by plaintiffs Sony Music, Warner Music Group (WMG) and Universal Music Group (UMG), the lawsuits claim that Suno and Udio have unlawfully copied the labels’ sound recordings to train their AI models to generate music that could “saturate the market with machine-generated content that will directly compete with, cheapen and ultimately drown out the genuine sound recordings on which [the services were] built.”
Latham & Watkins has already played a key role in defending top companies in the field of artificial intelligence. This includes the firm’s work to defend Anthropic against allegations of infringement levied by UMG, Concord Music Group and ABKCO last October. Latham represents OpenAI in all of its lawsuits filed by authors and other rights owners, including the case filed by the New York Times and a case filed by comedian Sarah Silverman and other writers.
Trending on Billboard
The Latham team is led by Andrew Gass, Steve Feldman, Sy Damle, Britt Lovejoy and Nate Taylor. Plaintiffs UMG, WMG and Sony Music are represented by Moez Kaba, Mariah Rivera, Alexander Perry and Robert Klieger of Hueston Hennigan as well as Daniel Cloherty of Cloherty & Steinberg.
It is common for AI companies to argue that training is protected by copyright’s fair use doctrine — an important rule that allows people to reuse protected works without breaking the law — and it is likely this will become a core part of Latham’s defense of Suno and Udio’s practices. Though fair use has historically allowed for things like news reporting and parody, AI firms say it applies equally to the “intermediate” use of millions of works to build a machine that spits out entirely new creations.
So far, both Suno and Udio have declined to comment on whether or not they have used unlicensed copyrights in their datasets. However, the music industry started to question what was in those datasets after a series of articles written by Ed Newton-Rex, founder of AI music safety nonprofit Fairly Trained, were published by Music Business Worldwide. In one of them, Newton-Rex said he was able to generate music from both Suno and Udio that “bears a striking resemblance to copyrighted music.”
The lawsuit cites circumstantial evidence to support the labels’ belief that their copyrighted material has been used by Suno and Udio in AI training. This includes generated songs by Suno and Udio that sound just like the voices of Bruce Springsteen, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Michael Jackson and ABBA; outputs that parrot the producer tags of Cash Money AP and Jason Derulo; and outputs that sound nearly identical to Mariah Carey’s “All I Want For Christmas Is You,” The Beach Boys’ “I Get Around,” ABBA’s “Dancing Queen,” The Temptations’ “My Girl,” Green Day’s “American Idiot” and more.
The Beastie Boys are suing the owner of Chilis over allegations that the restaurant chain used the rap trio’s iconic 1994 song “Sabotage” in a social media advertisement without permission.
In a lawsuit filed Wednesday (July 10) in Manhattan federal court, the hip-hop legends accused Brinker International of infringing their copyrights by using the song without a license — an especially serious allegation from a trio that famously doesn’t allow its music to appear in ads.
“Use of the ‘Sabotage’ sound recording, music composition and video was all without permission,” the group’s attorneys write. “The plaintiffs do not license ‘Sabotage’ or any of their other intellectual property for third-party product advertising purposes, and deceased Beastie Boys member Adam Yauch included a provision in his will prohibiting such uses.”
Trending on Billboard
The Beastie Boys says the Chilis ad in question featured three men in “70s-style” wigs, fake mustaches, and sunglasses carrying out a “robbery” of food ingredients from a Chilis. The group says it clearly “intended to evoke” the music video to “Sabotage,” a parody of 1970s “crime drama” television programs that featured Adam “Ad-Rock” Horovitz, Michael “Mike D” Diamond and the late Adam “MCA” Yauch in similar attire.
The band’s lawyers say using the song was bad enough, but that by recreating a video that featured “unauthorized video impersonations of Diamond, Horovitz and Yauch, Brinkers also violated federal trademark law by duping consumers with a false endorsement.
“The public was confused into believing that plaintiffs sponsored, endorsed and are associated with defendant Brinker in promoting defendant Brinker’s ‘Chili’s’ restaurants and products,” the lawsuit reads.
A spokesperson for Brinker did not immediately return a request for comment.
The Beastie Boys are infamously protective of their music when it comes to advertising, a stance underscored by the fact that Yauch’s will featured a provision prohibiting the use of his image, music and any art he created in advertising.
In 2013, the group sued a toy company called GoldieBlox after it released a viral parody of the group’s 1987 song “Girls” to promote its engineering and construction toys for girls, eventually winning a settlement in which the company apologized and donated a portion of its revenues to charities. And in 2015, the group won a $1.7 million verdict against Monster Energy over a video used by the energy drink company that used several of the group’s songs in a promotional video.
But they’ve also given certain uses of their music their blessing. In 2016, “Sabotage” appeared in a trailer for Star Trek Beyond; the next year, the group permitted the song to be used in an advertisement for the video game Destiny 2. Though those were advertisements, both of them were promoting artistic works rather than products.
Film composer Danny Elfman is facing a libel lawsuit over statements he made to the media last year defending himself from claims that he sexually abused a former friend and fellow composer.
In a case filed Wednesday (July 10) in Los Angeles court, Nomi Abadi accused Elfman of defaming her in his response to a July 2023 article in Rolling Stone, which detailed Abadi’s allegations that Elfman had repeatedly sexually harassed her, exposed himself and masturbated in front of her.
Her lawyers say that after Abadi “truthfully relayed facts” to Rolling Stone, Elfman attempted to “prop up his checkered reputation by destroying Nomi’s credibility” with “appalling lies” that branded her as a “liar, homewrecker, and an extortionist.”
Trending on Billboard
“Defamation law provides a remedy to those individuals who, because of wretched lies about their integrity, can no longer succeed on their merits in the marketplace,” her attorneys write in the lawsuit, obtained by Billboard. “It would be difficult to find an individual more meriting such a remedy than plaintiff Nomi Abadi.”
A representative for Elfman did not immediately return a request for comment on Thursday (July 11).
Last year’s Rolling Stone article reported that Elfman and Abadi had entered into a previously unreported $830,000 settlement in 2018 to resolve her accusations. It also reported that Abadi had recently sued Elfman for breach of contract, claiming he had missed payments required by the earlier settlement.
The article detailed Abadi’s allegations against Elfman at length. In a police report cited in the story, she claimed that over the course of nearly a year, Elfman had exposed himself and masturbated multiple times in front of her without her consent. In one particularly graphic accusation from the police report, Elfman allegedly presented her with a martini glass that Abadi claimed Elfman said was filled with semen.
Elfman — a prolific film composer who has written more than 100 film scores and composed the famous intro to The Simpsons — responded in the article with an extensive statement. Calling the allegations “vicious and wholly false,” he described Abadi as having a “childhood crush” on him and intending to “break up my marriage and replace my wife.” Elfman said that when he attempted to distance himself from her, “she made it clear that I would pay for having rejected her.”
According to Abadi’s new case, those statements to Rolling Stone were clearly defamatory — falsely portraying her as “a scorned woman seeking revenge and money.”
“In so doing, Elfman and his agents left Nomi’s career ambitions in tatters, requiring the commencement of this action,” her lawyers write. “In publicly branding Nomi as a liar, and a failed temptress who lied about him for reasons of revenge and greed, Elfman and his representatives defamed Nomi.”
Rolling Stone (which is owned by the same parent company as Billboard) is not named in the lawsuit nor accused of any wrongdoing.
Beyond Elfman’s statement, the new case also takes aim at two more factual assertions relayed by an unnamed “rep for Elfman” to Rolling Stone. In one, the representative denied the martini glass allegation, claiming it had actually been filled with “moisturizing cream” and was intended as a joke. In another, the rep addressed a claim that Elfman had snapped nude images of Abadi, arguing that it had been her idea and that she had “disrobed almost immediately without any encouragement.”
In her new lawsuit, Abadi said those claims were also false and defamatory: “Nomi did not initiate the nude photography,” her lawyers write in their complaint. “Elfman coerced her into it. Elfman masturbated in front of Nomi, afterwards apologizing to her and promising not to do so again.”
The lawsuit does not specify how much money Abadi is seeking in damages.
Josh Klinghoffer, a former guitarist for the Red Hot Chili Peppers, is facing a wrongful death lawsuit over allegations that he struck and killed a pedestrian near Los Angeles earlier this year due to “distracted driving.”
Filed in Los Angeles court Wednesday (July 10), the case claims that Klinghoffer was driving a black 2022 GMC Yukon with no license plates on March 18 in Alhambra, Calif., when he took a left turn and struck 47-year-old Israel Sanchez in a crosswalk. Sanchez later died of his injuries.
“Video of the incident shows that defendant Josh Adam Klinghoffer made no braking or slowing motion until after he fatally struck Israel Sanchez, indicating that defendant was likely driving while distracted,” lawyers for the victim’s daughter, Ashley, write in the complaint, obtained by Billboard. “This horrible outcome was foreseeable and demonstrates a willful disregard for the rights and safety of others.”
Trending on Billboard
Sanchez’s lawyers claim they have video evidence that shows that Klinghoffer was “using a device mere seconds before he crashed” into Sanchez.
The lawsuit claims that Klinghoffer was not arrested after the incident, left for a tour with his band, and has never reached out to Sanchez’s family: “He has shown no remorse for his behavior.”
In a statement to Billboard, Klinghoffer’s attorney Andrew Brettler said: “This was a tragic accident. After which, Josh immediately pulled over, stopped the vehicle, called 911, and waited until police and the ambulance arrived. He is fully cooperating with the traffic investigation.”
After serving as a touring guitarist for the Red Hot Chili Peppers in the late 2000s, Klinghoffer joined the band as a full-time member in 2010 to replace longtime guitarist John Frusciante. But in 2019, after performing on two studio albums, he was fired by his bandmates after Frusciante chose to return to the group. He later served as a touring musician for Pearl Jam and has released solo material under the pseudonym Pluralone.
In technical terms, the lawsuit accuses Klinghoffer of wrongful death and negligence — meaning that he allegedly knew that what he was doing was dangerous but did it anyway.
“Klinghoffer … was more focused on his personal business than on acting as a responsible driver,” the lawsuit says. “These decisions culminated in the motor vehicle, inflicting fatal injuries on decedent, whodied a horrific and excruciating death.”
The complaint does not specify how much the family is seeking in monetary damages.
A group of consumers have dropped a class action lawsuit against Spotify over its recent decision to kill its short-lived “Car Thing” device, a case that claimed the streamer left users holding “a useless product.”
Filed in May, the case came just days after Spotify announced that the Car Thing — a device launched in 2021 for playing music in a car — would be bricked in December. The customers claimed the move left them “with nothing more than a paperweight that cost between $50 and $100.”
But less than two months later, attorneys for the jilted consumers said Tuesday (July 9) that they would drop the lawsuit. The move came without explanation and does not indicate that any kind of settlement with Spotify was reached.
Trending on Billboard
In their initial complaint, the aggrieved buyers claimed Spotify had refused to offer refunds and, at the time of the lawsuit’s filing, the company’s FAQ addressing the deactivation did not make any mention of refunds. It simply told users that Spotify was “not offering any trade-in options” and urged them to consider “safely disposing of your device following local electronic waste guidelines.”
But after the news of the lawsuit had spread, Spotify’s website was updated to include a new section covering refunds. In the updated text, Spotify tells users: “Individuals seeking a refund can contact customer support with proof of purchase to discuss their options.”
It’s unclear if the move to more clearly offer refunds resulted in the withdrawal of the lawsuit, and neither side immediately returned requests for more information. But the voluntary dismissal was made “without prejudice,” meaning the accusers could refile the case at some point in the future if they choose to do so.
Spotify announced Car Thing in April 2021, saying it would provide users with a “seamless and personalized in-car listening experience.” The product — a touch screen with a physical dial that still requires access to a smartphone — rolled out in February 2022 at a price point of $89.99. But just months later, Spotify said it would cease production, telling investors that they “frankly haven’t seen the volume at the higher prices that would make the current product financially viable.”
Then in May, Spotify alerted users that it would stop supporting the devices entirely. The company told users that it was “not a decision we made lightly” and offered a link to customer service to “ensure that you have the right place to reach out if you have any questions.” A week later, the company confirmed in a public statement that the move, set to take effect Dec. 9, would render the devices fully inoperable.
On May 28, three Car Thing buyers — Hamza Mazumder, Anthony Bracarello and Luke Martin — filed their lawsuit, accusing Spotify of violating state and federal laws by essentially duping their clients into buying a “useless product.”
“Had plaintiffs and other members of the class known that Spotify manufactured the Car Thing with the ability to brick the product at any point after its introduction to the marketplace and in Spotify’s total discretion, they would not have bought a Car Thing, or would have paid substantially less for them,” the lawsuit read.
HipHopWired Featured Video
Diddy might need better guidance on how to keep a lower profile. He has been criticized for living his best life while facing legal problems.
As reported by Page Six the Bad Boy Entertainment founder was recently spotted in Wyoming vacationing with his family. Wearing a life vest and black shorts the “Missing You” rapper was white water rafting at Snake River and enjoying the sun. After the water festivities, he and his family boarded his private jet named “Combs Air”.
Paparazzi were tipped off to his whereabouts and captured photos of him out and about. Naturally, the imagery struck a bad chord with his accusers. In an exclusive statement to TMZ, Cassie Ventura’s lawyer Douglas Wigdor says “I don’t think white water rafting will prepare him for the choppy waters that lie ahead.”
Adria English’s attorney Ariel Mitchell-Kidd also expressed her disapproval saying “After seeing Defendant Combs white water rafting and jetting around on his personal plane, seemingly enjoying life despite all the atrocities he has caused and has been accused of by countless individuals over decades, Mrs. English is even more motivated to ensure justice prevails.
“English claims she was trafficked by Diddy at his invite-only all-white parties. She alleges she “regularly had to drink alcohol laced with narcotics like ecstasy and was encouraged to flirt with guests,” and was required to have sex with Jacob Arabov, aka “Jacob The Jeweler.”
Last week it was reported Diddy had put up his Los Angeles mansion for sale. This is the same property that was raided back in April. Combs has yet to respond to the matter. You can watch Diddy rafting below.
—
Photo: Getty
The leader of a Philadelphia wedding band called Jellyroll has agreed to drop a trademark lawsuit he filed earlier this year against rapper-turned-country singer Jelly Roll.
The case accused Jelly Roll (Jason DeFord) of infringing the trademark to “Jellyroll” — a name Kurt Titchenell says he’s used for decades for an act the Philadelphia Inquirer has labeled as “Philly’s favorite wedding band.”
But in a court filing on Tuesday (July 9), Titchenell agreed to voluntarily drop his lawsuit permanently. In a statement, Titchenell said he had “settled” the case by reaching an “amicable agreement” with the superstar artist: “We look forward to our continued use of the name, Jellyroll Band, in connection with our party band business.”
Trending on Billboard
Court records do not confirm that such a settlement was reached. The filing dismissing the case was not signed by attorneys for Jelly Roll, and instead simply dropped the case against him unilaterally. A spokeswoman for the star did not immediately return a request for comment.
Titchenell sued in April, claiming that Jelly Roll’s increasing popularity — his “Need A Favor” reached No. 13 on the Billboard Hot 100 in November — has flooded the market with his name, making it difficult for prospective clients to find Titchenell’s band.
“Prior to the defendant’s recent rise in notoriety, a search of the name of Jellyroll … returned references to the plaintiff,” his lawyers write in their complaint, obtained by Billboard. “Now, any such search on Google returns multiple references to defendant, perhaps as many as 18-20 references, before any reference to plaintiff’s entertainment dance band known as Jellyroll can be found.”
Titchnell claimed he’s been using the name for his band since 1980. In a 2019 Inquirer article marking the band’s 40th anniversary, the newspaper described Jellyroll as a group that nearly every Philadelphian has likely heard at some point, at one of thousands of weddings, galas and other public events.
In media interviews, Jelly Roll has said that his mother gave him the nickname as a child. He used the name on a 2003 self-released mixtape called The Plain Shmear Tape, and then on dozens of subsequent releases over nearly two decades as a little-known Nashville rapper.
The two artists appear to have peacefully co-existed until recently when Jelly Roll climbed the charts and became a household name. Following his breakout 2021 hit “Son of a Sinner” and last year’s “Need A Favor,” he was nominated for Best New Artist at this year’s Grammy Awards and won a trio of major honors at this year’s Country Music Awards.
In the April lawsuit, Titchenell’s attorneys had asked for an immediate court order that would stop the star from using the name “Jelly Roll.” They specifically pointed to an upcoming concert at Philadelphia’s Wells Fargo Center in October: “Despite his receipt of a demand to cease and desist using plaintiff’s registered service mark, defendant has ignored this demand.”