State Champ Radio Legal News
Page: 103
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: Taylor Swift beats a copyright case that her lawyers say “never should have been filed”; Lizzo faces a sexual harassment lawsuit from former tour dancers; a Cardi B concertgoer files a police report after the star throws a microphone at a Las Vegas show; and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: Taylor Swift Beats Copyright Lawsuit
“This person might as well sue anyone who’s ever written a diary or made a scrap book.”
That’s what Aaron Moss, a veteran music litigator at the firm Greenberg Glusker, told me last August, when Teresa La Dart first sued Taylor Swift for copyright infringement. The case claimed that Swift’s companion book for her album Lover had borrowed several key elements from La Dart’s self-published book of poetry, also called Lover.
The problem? That La Dart was essentially suing Swift over stock book design elements, including the use of “pastel pinks and blues,” as well as an image of the author “photographed in a downward pose.” She also alleged that Swift copied the book’s “format,” namely “a recollection of past years memorialized in a combination of written and pictorial components.”
That kind of stuff isn’t covered by copyrights – and experts said the case against Swift probably bordered on frivolous: “This lawsuit should be thrown out on a motion to dismiss, if the plaintiff’s lawyer doesn’t think better of it and voluntarily withdraw the complaint first,” Moss said at the time.
One year later, those predictions have come true. Go read our entire story on the end of the lawsuit against Swift, including the arguments from Taylor’s lawyers about how the case “never should have been filed.”
Other top stories…
HARASSMENT CASE AGAINST LIZZO – The star and her Big Grrrl Big Touring Inc. were hit with allegations from three former dancers who claimed they were subjected to sexual harassment and a hostile work environment, including being pressured to touch nude dancers during a live sex show. They also claimed Lizzo “called attention” to a dancer’s weight gain – a particularly loaded allegation against an artist who has made body positivity a central aspect of her personal brand.
ACTIVISION ISN’T PLAYING GAMES – Video game giant Activision filed a lawsuit against a prominent TikTok music critic named Anthony Fantano, accusing him of running a “scheme” to demand “extortionate” settlements over a heavily-memed video he created. Activision says Fantanto intentionally uploaded the audio from his “enough slices” video into TikTok’s free sound library, but now is unfairly threatening to sue the company and others for using it: “A textbook example of how intellectual property law can be misused.”
CARDI’S VEGAS MICROPHONE TOSS – A concertgoer filed a police report after Cardi B was captured on video at a Las Vegas event throwing her microphone at a fan who splashed her with a drink. Though police did not mention Cardi by name, the report (alleging battery) was filed by an individual who claimed to have been “struck by an item that was thrown from the stage” at the venue where the star was performing.
ASTROWORLD REPORT RELEASED – The Houston Police Department released the 1,200-page+ police report on the deadly 2021 crowd crush disaster at Astroworld, offering a full accounting of the chaos that left 10 people dead and hundreds injured. The report features transcripts of calls to 911, summaries of police interviews, and reams of text messages from that night: “I know they’ll try to fight through it but I would want it on the record that I didn’t advise this to continue,” said one festival official. “Someone’s going to end up dead.”
MATTY HEALY MALAYSIA KISS FALLOUT – The 1975 and lead singer Matty Healy could be facing legal action after he kissed a male bandmate on stage at a concert in Malaysia and sharply criticized the country’s anti-LGBTQ+ policies. The stunt – criticized by some local gay rights activists as counterproductive – resulted in the Malaysian government canceling the rest of the three-day Good Vibes Festival, citing Healy’s “controversial conduct and remarks.”
LAST CALL FOR PRE-1972 SONGS – More than nine years after members of the 1960s rock band The Turtles filed a series of groundbreaking lawsuits over the legal protections for so-called pre-1972 sound recordings, a federal judge dismissed their final case — a lawsuit against Pandora that he called the band’s “last case standing.”
JOHN SUMMIT ENDS NAME CONTROVERSY – DJ John Summit vowed to change the name of his new record label (Off The Grid) and apologized after a brief – but very public — legal dispute with a smaller company that had been using the name for dance music events for the better part of a decade.
Subscribe to The Legal Beat here for free.
A concertgoer has filed a police report after Cardi B was captured on video at a Las Vegas event throwing her microphone at a fan who splashed her with a drink. The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department confirmed to Billboard on Monday (July 31) that an individual filed a police report Sunday alleging battery, claiming […]
Just moments before rap superstar Travis Scott took the stage at the deadly 2021 Astroworld festival, a contract worker had been so worried about what might happen after seeing people getting crushed that he texted an event organizer saying, “Someone’s going to end up dead,” according to a police report released Friday.
The texts by security contract worker Reece Wheeler were some of many examples in the nearly 1,300-page report in which festival workers highlighted problems and warned of possible deadly consequences. The report includes transcripts of concertgoers’ 911 calls and summaries of police interviews, including one with Scott conducted just days after the event.
The crowd surge at the Nov. 5, 2021, outdoor festival in Houston killed 10 attendees who ranged in age from 9 to 27. The official cause of death was compression asphyxia, which an expert likened to being crushed by a car. About 50,000 people attended the festival.
“Pull tons over the rail unconscious. There’s panic in people eyes. This could get worse quickly,” Reece Wheeler texted Shawna Boardman, one of the private security directors, at 9 p.m. Wheeler then texted, “I know they’ll try to fight through it but I would want it on the record that I didn’t advise this to continue. Someone’s going to end up dead.”
Scott’s concert began at 9:02 p.m. In their review of video from the concert’s livestream, police investigators said that at 9:13 p.m., they heard the faint sound of someone saying, “Stop the show.” The same request could also be heard at 9:16 p.m. and 9:22 p.m.
In an Aug. 19, 2022, police interview, Boardman’s attorneys told investigators that Boardman “saw things were not as bad as Reece Wheeler stated” and decided not to pass along Wheeler’s concerns to anyone else.
A grand jury declined to indict anyone who was investigated over the event, including Scott, Boardman and four other people.
During a police interview conducted two days after the concert, Scott told investigators that although he did see one person near the stage getting medical attention, overall the crowd seemed to be enjoying the show and he did not see any signs of serious problems.
“We asked if he at any point heard the crowd telling him to stop the show. He stated that if he had heard something like that he would have done something,” police said in their summary of Scott’s interview.
Hip-hop artist Drake, who performed with Scott at the concert, told police that it was difficult to see from the stage what was going on in the crowd and that he didn’t hear concertgoers’ pleas to stop the show.
Drake found out about the tragedy later that night from his manager, while learning more on social media, police said in their summary.
Marty Wallgren, who worked for a security consulting firm hired by the festival, told police that when he went backstage and tried to tell representatives for Scott and Drake that the concert needed to end because people had been hurt and might have died, he was told “Drake still has three more songs,” according to an interview summary.
Daniel Johary, a college student who got trapped in the crush of concertgoers and later used his skills working as an EMT in Israel to help an injured woman, told investigators hundreds of people had chanted for Scott to stop the music and that the chants could be heard “from everywhere.”
“He stated staff members in the area gave thumbs-up and did not care,” according to the police report.
Richard Rickeada, a retired Houston police officer who was working for a private security company at the festival, told investigators that from 8 a.m. the day of the concert, things were “pretty much in chaos,” according to a police summary of his interview. His concerns and questions about whether the concert should be held were “met with a lot of shrugged shoulders,” he said.
About 23 minutes into the concert, cameraman Gregory Hoffman radioed into the show’s production trailer to warn that “people were dying.” Hoffman was operating a large crane that held a television camera before it was overrun with concertgoers who needed medical help, police said.
The production team radioed Hoffman to ask when they could get the crane back in operation.
Salvatore Livia, who was hired to direct the live show, told police that following Hoffman’s dire warning, people in the production trailer understood that something was not right, but “they were disconnected to the reality of (what) was happening out there,” according to a police summary of Livia’s interview.
Concertgoer Christopher Gates, then 22, told police that by the second or third song in Scott’s performance, he came across about five people on the ground who he believed were already dead.
Their bodies were “lifeless, pale, and their lips were blue/purple,” according to the police report. Random people in the crowd — not medics — provided CPR.
The police report was released about a month after the grand jury in Houston declined to indict Scott on any criminal charges in connection with the deadly concert. Police Chief Troy Finner had said the report was being made public so that people could “read the entire investigation” and come to their own conclusions about the case. During a news conference after the grand jury’s decision, Finner declined to say what the overall conclusion of his agency’s investigation was or whether police should have stopped the concert sooner.
The report’s release also came the same day that Scott released his new album, “Utopia.”
More than 500 lawsuits were filed over the deaths and injuries at the concert, including many against concert promoter Live Nation and Scott. Some have since been settled.
The Houston Police Department released its final report on the 2021 crowd crush tragedy at Travis Scott‘s Astroworld festival on Friday (July 28). The more than 1,200-page document details the Houston PD’s investigation into the tragedy, which left 10 people dead and hundreds more physically injured. The report arrives just a month after a Houston […]
More than nine years after members of the 1960s rock band The Turtles filed a series of groundbreaking lawsuits over the legal protections for so-called pre-1972 sound recordings, a federal judge has now dismissed their final case — a lawsuit against Pandora that he called the band’s “last case standing.”
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In a decision issued Wednesday, Judge Philip Gutierrez ruled that the Sirius XM-owned Pandora had not violated California state law by streaming the band’s songs, like the iconic 1967 cut “Happy Together,” without permission and without paying sound recording royalties.
In doing so, the judge recounted the decade-long story of how the two founders of the Turtles (legally Flo & Eddie, Inc.) filed such cases against music services in courts around the country — and how they had lost in every one of them.
“This case is one of many lawsuits brought by Flo & Eddie, seeking to hold internet and satellite radio services liable for the unauthorized public performance and reproduction of its sound recordings that were fixed prior to February 15, 1972,” the judge wrote. “Flo & Eddie’s action against Pandora is the last case standing.”
The Turtles first sued SiriusXM and Pandora in 2014, claiming that both companies had been illegally refusing to paying royalties for pre-1972 songs. That was a legal gray area at the time, since songs prior to that year had not been covered by federal sound recording copyrights. But the Turtles claimed pre-1972s could still be covered by state-level laws aimed at preventing misappropriation.
Initially, the band won a key ruling in California federal court, finding that California state law contained a so-called public performance right that would require services like Sirius and Pandora to start paying up. But then, slowly but surely, courts around the country — first the top court in New York, then the Florida Supreme Court, then a federal appeals court in California — ruled no such right existed.
“One after another, federal circuit courts and state Supreme Courts answered with a resounding ‘no’,” Judge Gutierrez wrote in Wednesday’s ruling.
In some ways, Wednesday’s ruling is anti-climactic. The larger issues raised by the Turtle’s pioneering lawsuits — whether the owners of a vast swath of American recorded music were entitled to a new revenue stream from services like SiriusXM and Pandora — were largely rendered moot by the passage of the federal Music Modernization Act in 2018. Among other major changes, that law required such royalties to be paid for pre-1972 records, ending the state-level ambiguity that drove the Turtles to sue.
But Judge Gutierrez had previously ruled that the MMA’s new requirements did not apply to pending lawsuits, meaning that the band still could have won a ruling forcing Pandora to hand over unpaid royalties from the years before the MMA’s enactment.
Barring a successful appeal, Wednesday’s ruling foreclosed that possibility: “The court grants Pandora’s motion for summary judgment. This order closes the case.”
In seeking to revive their lawsuit against Pandora, the Turtles argued that, even if no public performance right existed under California state law, the streamer had still violated their so-called reproduction right by illegally copying their music to make it available on the service. But those “repackaged” claims had also been rejected by the other courts, Judge Gutierrez wrote.
“Even if the Court would like to independently consider these claims, its ‘hands are tied,’” the judge wrote. “In the absence of an exclusive right to publicly perform its pre-1972 sound recordings, Flo & Eddie has no viable copyright claim against Pandora.”
A Mississippi woman has dropped her copyright lawsuit claiming that Taylor Swift stole aspects of a self-published book of poetry when she created a companion book for her album Lover, months after the star’s lawyers called it a case that “never should have been filed.”
Teresa La Dart sued Swift last year, claiming that “a number of creative elements” from her 2010 book (also called Lover) were copied into Swift’s book. But in a motion filed Thursday in Tennessee federal court, La Dart’s lawyer said she would permanently drop the case.
The sudden voluntary dismissal — which appears to be unilateral and not the product of any kind of settlement — came after Swift’s lawyers harshly criticized the lawsuit in their last filing. Demanding that case be dismissed, they said it was “legally and factually baseless” and “never should have been filed.”
Those arguments echoed what legal experts told Billboard were serious flaws in La Dart’s case. Lawyers said that she was essentially suing Swift over stock elements that could not be monopolized by any one author: “This person might as well sue anyone who’s ever written a diary or made a scrap book.”
Faced with such strong counter-arguments, dropping the case might have made monetary sense for La Dart. If she had continued to litigate the case and had ultimately lost, the judge may have ordered her to repay Swift’s legal bills — a sum that could have totaled tens of thousands of dollars.
La Dart sued Swift in August over the star’s Lover book — an extra bundled with the special edition of her Lover album that the New York Times called a “must-read companion” for Swifties. Released in four different versions, Swift’s book included a total of 120 pages of personal diary entries, accompanied by photos selected by the singer.
The lawsuit claimed that Swift had borrowed a number of visual elements from La Dart, including “pastel pinks and blues” and an image of the author “photographed in a downward pose.” She also claimed a copyright to the book’s overall format, including “a recollection of past years memorialized in a combination of written and pictorial components” and “interspersed photographs and writings.”
Just one problem: In their response in February, Swift’s lawyers said those elements were nothing more than commonplace features of almost any book, meaning they fall well short of being unique enough to qualify for copyright protection.
“This is a lawsuit that never should have been filed,” attorney Doug Baldridge wrote for the superstar. “These allegedly-infringing elements, each a generic design format, are not subject to copyright protection. Thus, defendants could not possibly have infringed plaintiff’s copyright.”
That motion to dismiss the case remained pending when La Dart dropped the case on Thursday. Baldridge did not return a request for comment on Thursday.
La Dart’s attorney William S. Parks did not immediately return a request for comment. But after Swift’s response in February, he defended bringing the case: “Miss La Dart has questions that will hopefully and eventually be answered regarding her perceived similarities between the two works,” Parks said at the time. “Unfortunately, she felt it necessary to bring this suit in order to possibly obtain such answers. We will see how the judge decides at this point.”
DJ John Summit publicly apologized Tuesday (July 25) for “all the drama” that he “stirred up” last week in a legal dispute with a smaller company over the name of his Off the Grid record label, vowing to change his company’s name to resolve the disagreement.
Early last week, Summit took to Twitter to blast the organizers of a rival “Off the Grid” music event, claiming they had “sued” him and were demanding “7+ figures” over their identical names. Summit, an electronic music A-lister who’s worked with Kaskade, Diplo and others, said at the time that it “f—ing sucks when ppl want to screw u over.”
But after deleting those tweets and going silent over the weekend, Summit made an about-face on Tuesday. In a new tweet, he said he had “acted out of emotion” in last week’s rant and wanted to “truly apologize” to the rival Off The Grid group.
“I’ve been talking w the OTG campout team and apologized to them directly but i also wanted to do so publicly,” Summit wrote. “They’ve agreed to stop pursuing legal action & my team and i are working on a rebrand. in the meantime, to all my fans, please stop sending negative messages to OTG campout. i was wrong in condoning that behavior in any way.”
Summit announced the launch of Off The Grid in March 2022, tweeting that he was “so stoked” to announce his own imprint where there would be “nothing off limits.” The label has since released music by artists including Mau P, Danny Avila and Summit himself, and has hosted live events, including a camping event in Tennessee this past April.
Just one problem: A music promoter named Mikey Made Cromie had already been using the name Off The Grid since 2015 for his own dance music events, including a flagship three-day “campout” that draws as many as 1,000 fans.
In June, attorneys for Cromie sent a cease and desist letter to Summit over the name of his new label. They warned that Cromie claimed Off The Grid as an exclusive trademark and that Summit’s use of an identical name for a company that sells the exact same genre of music would clearly infringe it.
It was that letter that prompted Summit’s outburst on social media last week. “Getting sued for trademark over my ‘off the grid’ label name by a small promoter even tho it’s a common phrase and i built up this brand 100% myself,” Summit wrote at the time. “i REFUSE to get threatened for 7+ figures over a LABEL NAME.”
Cromie, meanwhile, denied that a lawsuit had been filed and said he had never made a demand for seven figures, but confirmed that he had sent the cease and desist letter and wanted Summit to stop using the name. In an email to Billboard last week, Cromie said that Summit’s team “knew about us the whole time and thought we were so small of a company that they could use the name without any recourse.”
In Tuesday’s new tweet, Summit suggested that some kind of formal settlement had been reached, saying he would be changing his name and Cromie’s company would stop pursuing any legal action. But he offered no additional details, like when the name would be changed or whether any money had changed hands.
“All we want now is for both our communities to come together and be able to dance as one,” Summit wrote in his tweet. “i def learned my lesson from this and from here on out, i’m going to focus my attention in a positive light so we can get back to releasing music and throwing fun parties.”
Cromie did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Billboard on Tuesday. But he seemed to confirm the settlement on his Facebook page: Above a giant image of a peace sign, he wrote simply: “Peace is always the answer!”
Organizers of the Good Vibes Festival in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, tell Billboard that the controversy surrounding The 1975’s performance at the festival, during which lead singer Matty Healy insulted the government and kissed a bandmate on stage, has left the festival in financial ruin and could limit future concerts in the country for years to come.
The claim is the latest in the fallout from Healy’s protest and the heavy-handed decision by the country’s communications and digital ministry to cancel the remainder of the festival while also banning Healy from playing in the country in the future. Malaysia places very restrictive rules on foreign artists performing in the country, and Healy’s manager “had acknowledged in writing that Matt Healy would adhere to all local guidelines and regulations” prior to his performance Friday, says Wan Alman, whose company, Future Sound Asia, has promoted the festival for more than 10 years. Alman adds that “artists are briefed on the guidelines before the event.”
Alman confirmed that Future Sound Asia is considering pursuing legal action against the band, as the cancellation led to heavy losses for the promoter. The company likely already paid out artist deposits for the entire festival and might soon be required to issue refunds to fans, depending on an outcome of an investigation by the Malaysian government. Festival organizers might be able to make a legal claim against the band, explained Tim Epstein, a leading attorney for independent festivals in North America, depending on the language of the contract between the band and the promoter.
Specifically, Epstein said he would look to see how the contract deals with potential instances of unlawful behavior and what, if any, language dealt with local guidelines and regulations around speech. He said he would also want to confirm where the talent agreement designated that legal disputes be heard; most contracts defer disputes to U.S. courts. Finally, Epstein said the festival’s event cancellation policy could offset any damages, depending on the language in the policy. While government intervention is typically covered under a policy’s “force majeure” language, the Good Vibes Festival’s specific policy might include other provisions that make collecting difficult.
The 1975 incident has cast a negative light on Malaysia — and documents obtained by Billboard show that foreign artists playing in the country must agree to guidelines that include a ban on men wearing shorts on stage, prohibitions on women “wearing clothes that expose the chest area or that are too high above the knees” and strict rules prohibiting “entertaining or mingling with the audience at any time.”
In order to invite foreign artists into the country, promoters must complete the Communication and Digital Ministry’s Application for Filming and Performance by Foreign Artistes — a 40-page document outlining how artists are allowed to dress on stage and what they aren’t allowed to say about the government.
According to Amnesty International, in Malaysia it is illegal to protest the government, dress in drag or possess films or movies deemed to have LGBTQ+ elements. Much of the country’s criminal code is enforced through imprisonment with access to a court hearing, public flogging and, up until last year, the death penalty, which is currently banned under moratorium.
Neither The 1975’s agent, Matt Baum with Primary Talent — which represents the band in Asia — nor its manager, Jamie Osborne, would comment for this article.
An agent familiar with international bookings who did not want to speak on the record tells Billboard that the number of countries run by repressive regimes that host concerts is still relatively small, and it’s typically the promoter’s job to explain the rules to the band booked for a show.
That can be a double-edged sword, the agent explains, noting that the festival promoter “also may not want to be overly open about it for fear of discouraging people from playing.”
In many cases, the promoter does their best to balance the artist’s own right to expression while also being careful not to anger the host government.
“The 1975 shouldn’t have played there if they feel so strongly but I understand how they got to where they are,” the agent said.
Since opening the country to concerts by foreign artists in 2000, the Malaysian government has required visitors to adhere to a fairly restrictive code of conduct. Among other things, it requires modest attire and a ban on “provocative acts” like kissing a member of the opposite sex in front of a live audience.
The rules were updated in March by Malaysia’s communications and digital minister, Fahmi Fadzil, to include bans on cross-dressing on stage and “criticizing any government agency charged with upholding the law.”
Also banned under the guidelines are women’s clothes with “high slits, and clothes that are too tight or figure-hugging,” as well as a general ban on “performing in a wild manner, provocatively and displaying actions that are contrary to the performance code of ethics.” Other no-nos include “performing actions or making utterances that may be deemed as seditious” and “entertaining or mingling with the audience at any time.”
While some LGBTQ+ activists accused Healy of cynically protesting homophobia in the country for attention, others said it’s the government’s heavy-handed decision to cancel the festival over a same-sex kiss that deserves condemnation.
The controversy over LGBTQ+ rights and freedom of expression in Malaysia won’t likely go away any time soon. Coldplay is set to perform at the country’s Bukit Jalil National Stadium in November for a show promoted by Live Nation, which is also expected to produce a concert for the group Lany in the country in August.
Video game giant Activision is suing a prominent TikTok music critic over a viral audio clip that he created, claiming he is unfairly demanding that some social media users pay him “extortionate” settlements after they re-use the heavily-memed clip.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In a complaint filed Monday in California federal court, Activision accused Anthony Fantano of “misusing” intellectual property laws by threatening to “selectively” sue TikTokers who use “enough slices!” — a popular audio clip that originated with a video Fantano first posted in 2021.
Activision, which says it received such a threat after it used the clip in a promotion for its Crash Bandicoot game franchise, claims that Fantano intentionally made the clip available through TikTok’s audio library — meaning he cannot now sue the hundreds of thousands of users that chose to use it.
“This dispute is a textbook example of how intellectual property law can be misused by individuals to leverage unfair cash payments,” Activision’s lawyers wrote. “Fantano was very happy to receive the benefit of the public use of the Slices Video. It was only after he identified a financial opportunity — namely, receiving unjustified settlement payments — that he suddenly decided that his consent was limited.”
“The law does not permit, and the court should not countenance, such overt gamesmanship,” Activision’s lawyers wrote.
Fantano, a popular internet creator who reviews music on TikTok, YouTube, Instagram and other platforms, first uploaded the “slices” video in 2021. The clip — showing Fantano getting aggravated as a pizza is cut into increasingly smaller slices before screaming, “It’s enough slices!” — has garnered tens of millions of views. In the two years since, the audio has become internet shorthand for a situation that starts out well but eventually goes too far.
In its lawsuit, Activision says there’s an obvious reason why the clip was used so widely: Fantano “deliberately and knowingly” added the audio to TikTok’s library, making it easily available for millions of other users to incorporate into their own videos. They say he even opted into the “Commercial Sounds” library, which means he agreed his clip could be legally used in promotional videos for brands.
The company says it was surprised, then, when it received a legal threat from Fantano after it used “enough slices” in a TikTok video depicting the creation of custom Crash Bandicoot sneakers. He allegedly told the gaming giant the use of the clip not only used his name-and-likeness rights without permission, but also violated federal trademark laws by suggesting he had endorsed the company’s games.
Activision says it agreed to pull the clip down, but that Fantano demanded the company “eitherimmediately pay him substantial monetary damages or be prepared to defend a lawsuit.” The exact amount of money demanded was not included in the lawsuit, but Activision says Fantano asked for a “six-figure sum” and said that other companies had “paid a similar sum in order to avoid the expense of litigation.”
Rather than doing so, Activision responded by filing Monday’s lawsuit, which is aimed at proving the company and other TikTok users owe Fantano nothing for the use of his clip.
“With Fantano’s approval and encouragement, hundreds of thousands of TikTok users have incorporated the Slices Audio into their own videos over the past two years,” the company’s lawyers wrote. “But now … Fantano has embarked on a scheme whereby he selectively threatens to sue certain users of the Slices Audio unless they pay him extortionate amounts of money for their alleged use.”
Activision is seeking a so-called “declaratory” ruling that Fantano cannot sue TikTok users over the clip, as well as an order forcing him to repay the company’s legal bills.
Fantano did not immediately return a request for comment through his website.
Jessica Simpson’s company is suing the owner of a small online apparel retailer called “Jessica’s Everything Shop,” claiming the woman rejected a settlement that would have allowed both Jessicas to “live and let live” and instead tried to win a cash payout.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In a lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court, lawyers for the singer’s With You LLC say Simpson and her apparel collection have “always coexisted” with other women named Jessica — specifically name-dropping Jessica Alba, Jessica Biel and many other famous women with that name.
But Simpson’s lawyers say that Jessica Tirado and her “Everything Shop” have been improperly trying to secure their own exclusive trademark on “Jessica” without a surname — a step they say would cause “consumer confusion” and allow Tirado to unfairly sue Simpson over her longstanding use of the name.
When they reached out to resolve the problem without litigation, Simpson’s lawyers say they were met with an unreasonable demand for a “monetary payment to Ms. Tirado.”
“[With You] has a policy that it does not make any such payments, inasmuch as doing so invites ‘troll plaintiff’s attorneys’ to file claims against WY, believing that WY will, in each instance, pay monies,” Simpsons lawyers wrote in their Thursday (July 20) lawsuit.
Tirado’s attorney did not immediately return a request for comment on Monday. A lawyer for With You LLC (a holding that owns Simpson’s trademarks and other intellectual property) also did not return a request for comment.
Simpson, 43, initially launched The Jessica Simpson Collection in 2005 with a partnership with shoe designer Vince Camuto, eventually growing into a company with a reported $1 billion in revenue by 2014. In 2021, after part-owner Sequential Brands Group Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Simpson spent $65 million to win back complete control of the brand.
Tirado’s website, meanwhile, currently hosts a store featuring “create your own” t-shirts with custom designs. One features an image of from the film Hocus Pocus with the text “Turns Out I’m 100% That Witch;” another features an image of Santa Claus with the text “Bitch Better Have My Cookies.”
In last week’s lawsuit, Simpson’s lawyers say they first flagged Tirado after she applied in 2021 at the federal trademark office to register the full name of her brand — “Jessica’s Everything Shop *JES*” — as a trademark for an online apparel store. But they say they tried, at first, to hash things out peacefully.
“Before taking any action with respect to Ms. Tirado’s trademark application, WY sought to work out a ‘live and let live’ … arrangement that would allow Ms. Tirado to proceed with her exploitation of her name ‘Jessica Tirado’ in a way that would never impede WY’s activities,” the lawyers for Simpson’s company write.
After such talks were unsuccessful, Simpson’s company filed a formal opposition at the trademark office, asking the agency to deny the application. In a copy of that filing obtained by Billboard, lawyers for Simpson’s company warned that consumers were likely to confuse the two “Jessica” trademarks.
In last week’s lawsuit, Simpson’s lawyers said that a lawyer for Tirado then responded to that opposition filing with a demand of his own.
“Ultimately, Ms. Tirado engaged legal counsel to represent her in the opposition, who responded and indicated that Ms. Tirado was willing to settle the matter with WY, but only if WY was willing to make a monetary payment,” Simpson’s lawyers wrote. “When Ms. Tirado’s counsel made clear that the matter would not settle absent a payment, and he began to run up legal costs … WY was left with no alternative but to protect its position by filing this lawsuit.”
Thursday’s lawsuit is seeking unspecified damages, as well as an injunction forcing Tirado to “phase out” her use of the “Jessica’s Everything Shop” name over the course of three months.
