Legal News
Page: 68
The band OK Go has reached a confidential settlement to end a bizarre legal battle with Post Foods over a new line of on-the-go cereal packages called “OK Go!”
Just months after OK Go — a power pop band best known for its viral music videos — vowed to fight back against a “big corporation” that “chose to steal the name of our band to market disposable plastic cups of sugar to children,” attorneys for both sides asked a Minnesota federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit permanently, with each side paying their own legal bills.
The filing said that the two sides had “settled this action on terms agreeable to all parties,” but did not include specific terms of the agreement in public court records, like whether the band would be paid or if Post would change the brand name. Neither side immediately returned requests for comment on Friday (June 2).
The settlement will resolve an unusual legal dispute that pitted a pop band against a multinational food company, asking the question: Will consumers who see a portable snack package of Fruity Pebbles on a supermarket shelf think that a band with a similar name had endorsed it?
The fight started in September when an attorney for the band sent a cease-and-desist letter warning Post that OK Go was “surprised and alarmed” to see Post’s new product line. He claimed the name infringed the trademark rights to the band’s name since it would “suggest to consumers that OK Go is endorsing Post’s products,” or falsely imply that the cereal company had received permission to use it.
“Our client regards this matter with the utmost seriousness and has authorized us to take all steps necessary in any venue to protect its rights,” OK Go’s attorney wrote in the September letter. “If we do not hear from you within 10 days of the date of this letter, we will assume that Post does not wish to resolve this matter amicably.”
A week later, an attorney representing Post responded, saying that the company must “respectfully disagree” with the band’s accusations. The attorney argued that rock music and breakfast cereal were “clearly unrelated” products and that the phrase “OK Go” was merely a common term that had previously been used by many other companies on their products.
In January, Post took the battle to court, asking a federal judge for what’s known as a “declaratory judgment” — meaning a pre-emptive ruling that the company did nothing wrong. Post argued that the trademark rights of a rock band like OK Go don’t extend to an unrelated product like cereal and that the new cups are clearly marked with Post’s own brand names to avoid any confusion.
“Without resolution by this court, Post will be unfairly forced to continue investing in its new OK GO! brand while under the constant threat of unfounded future litigation by defendants,” the cereal company wrote in its lawsuit.
In a statement to Billboard at the time, the members of OK Go said they’d been surprised to learn of Post’s lawsuit.
“A big corporation chose to steal the name of our band to market disposable plastic cups of sugar to children. That was an unwelcome surprise, to say the least,” the band wrote. “But then they sue US about it? Presumably, the idea is that they can just bully us out of our own name, since they have so much more money to spend on lawyers? I guess that’s often how it works, but hopefully, we’ll be the exception.”
According to Post’s lawsuit, the company had offered to pay the band as part of a “good faith effort” to resolve the dispute without resorting to litigation, despite its belief that the accusations lacked legal merit. The company claimed OK Go rejected that offer and made no counter-proposal, leaving Post with no choice but to file a lawsuit.
A month after Ed Sheeran won a high-profile jury verdict that his “Thinking Out Loud” did not infringe Marvin Gaye‘s “Let’s Get It On,” his copyright accusers have formally launched their appeal.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The heirs of Ed Townsend — who co-wrote the iconic song with Gaye – filed a so-called notice of appeal Thursday in Manhattan federal court, the first step toward asking a federal appeals court (the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit) to overturn the outcome and revive their lawsuit against Sheeran.
The upcoming appellate battle will mark the next chapter in nearly seven years of litigation over “Thinking Out Loud” — a commercial and critical success that hit No. 2 on the Hot 100 before eventually winning the Grammy Award for song of the year.
In their suit, Kathryn Townsend Griffin and other Townsend heirs claimed that Sheeran had “knowingly and intentionally infringed” the earlier tune, stealing the “heart” from one of the most “instantly recognizable songs in R&B history.”
The two songs at issue in the case do sound similar, as even Sheeran has seemingly acknowledged: The star was captured on video at a 2014 concert toggling back and forth between them, drawing huge applause from the audience. But his lawyers say that’s simply because the two tracks share commonplace musical building blocks – elements that are free for all to use and cannot be “monopolized” under copyright law.
After years of delay, the case finally went to trial in April. Lawyers for the Townsends urged the jurors to “give credit where credit is due,” playing that concert video of Sheeran and calling it a “smoking gun.” But Sheeran’s lawyers, supported by testimony from the star himself that included a brief guitar performance, argued the star had done nothing wrong by using “the scaffolding on which all songwriting is built.”
On May 4, jurors sided with Sheeran, finding that he and his co-writer had independently created “Thinking Out Loud” without copying it from “Let’s Get It On” and clearing him of millions in potential legal damages.
A verdict against the singer would have reverberated throughout the music industry, much like an infamous 2015 verdict against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams over their megahit “Blurred Lines,” which made musicians and companies more cautious about similar-sounding songs. Instead, his case represents the latest lawsuit in which such claims were rejected, following a 2020 ruling on Led Zeppelin’s “Stairway To Heaven” and a 2022 ruling on Katy Perry’s “Dark Horse.”
Thursday’s motion – procedural first step in any appeal in federal court – does not include detailed arguments; those will be filed later at the Second Circuit. But they will likely include challenges to what evidence the judge allowed to be used in the case and how he conducted the trial in April. Such appeals typically face an uphill climb, particularly when a case was decided by a jury rather than by a judge.
Briefs will be filed at the Second Circuit in the coming months. It could take the court well over a year to issue a final ruling.
A paparazzo is suingKanye West over an alleged incident in which the rapper grabbed her phone and threw it into traffic, according to court documents obtained by Billboard.
Photographer Nichol Lechmanik is suing West (sometimes known as Ye) for assault, battery, negligence and interference with the exercise of her civil rights following the alleged altercation, which occurred on the afternoon of Jan. 27 outside Sports Academy in Newbury Park, Calif., per the complaint filed in California Superior Court in Ventura County on Wednesday (May 31).
Lechmanik alleges that while driving her car and filming Ye’s ex-wife Kim Kardashian as she exited the facility, she noticed that West was “angrily confronting” another photographer on the street outside. “Given Defendant Ye’s reputation for violence against photographers, his history of physically harming them, and based on his threatening body language, Plaintiff became fearful for the photographer’s safety,” the complaint reads. It states that Lechmanik then began filming the incident on her phone from inside her car with the window open.
Lechmanik alleges that Ye then walked up to her car and “aggressively” said, “You all ain’t gonna run up on me like that,” and when she replied that she wasn’t, he became “enraged,” reached into her car and “ripped her phone out of her hands” before throwing it “onto the street towards oncoming traffic.”
According to the lawsuit, Lechmanik said the incident caused her “great mental, and emotional pain and suffering” and that she “anticipates incurring medical and related expenses.”
Lechmanik is requesting general and special damages, punitive and exemplary damages, civil penalties and costs of the suit. Additionally, she’s asking for an order enjoining West and “all persons acting in concert with him or acting on his behalf, from touching, striking, annoying, contacting, molesting, attacking, threatening, or otherwise interfering with…the Plaintiff, and all persons similarly situated, to pursue the occupation of photographer.”
West has a long history of legal scuffles with paparazzi that stem all the way back to 2008 when he was arrested at Los Angeles International Airport after breaking the flash of a paparazzo’s camera.
Three HYBE employees could be prosecuted for insider trading in South Korea for allegedly using non-public information about K-pop group BTS’ planned hiatus before the news was given to investors, according to multiple reports out of South Korea. South Korea’s Financial Supervisory Service (FSS), the equivalent of the Securities Exchange Commission in the U.S., […]
A former Playboy model who alleges Bill Cosby drugged and sexually assaulted her and another woman at his home in 1969 sued him Thursday under a new California law that suspends the statute of limitations on sex abuse claims.
In her lawsuit, Victoria Valentino, 80, says she was an actress and singer 54 years ago, when she met Cosby, now 85. The comedian and actor later approached her at a Los Angeles café, where he spotted her crying over the recent drowning death of her 6-year-old son.
The Associated Press does not identify people who say they have been sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly.
Cosby offered to pay for a spa treatment for Valentino and a friend, and then sent a chauffeured car to pick the women up for dinner. That evening at a steakhouse, Cosby gave them each a pill, she said in the court filing.
“Here! Take this!” the lawsuit alleges Cosby said to them. “It will make you feel better. It will make us ALL feel better.”
Cosby then drove the women to his house, where Valentino passed out on a couch, and later woke up and witnessed him sexually assaulting her unnamed friend, according to the lawsuit. The court documents allege Cosby then “engaged in forced sexual intercourse” with Valentino while she was incapacitated from the drug.
Valentino’s allegations come on the heels of lawsuits last year by six Cosby accusers in New York under a similar provision known as a “lookback” law that allows adults to file sexual abuse cases for allegations that had fallen outside the statute of limitations.
The former “Cosby Show” star, who has been accused of rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment by at least 60 women, has denied all allegations involving sex crimes. He was the first celebrity tried and convicted in the #MeToo era — and spent nearly three years at a state prison near Philadelphia before a higher court threw out the conviction and released him in 2021.
His spokesperson, Andrew Wyatt, said Thursday that Valentino’s lawsuit lacks “any proof or facts” and that so-called lookback laws violate constitutional rights aimed at protecting crime victims and “those that are accused of a crime.”
“What graveyard can Mr. Cosby visit, in order to dig up potential witnesses to testify on his behalf?” Wyatt asked in a statement. “America is continuing to see that this is a formula to make sure that no more Black Men in America accumulate the American Dream that was secured by Mr. Cosby.”
The lawsuit in LA County Superior Court was filed nearly two years after Cosby left prison when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned his 2018 sexual assault conviction. They found he gave incriminating testimony in a deposition about the encounter only after believing he had immunity from prosecution. The trial judge and an intermediate appeals court had found no evidence of such immunity.
Earlier this year, a Los Angeles jury awarded $500,000 to a woman who said Cosby sexually abused her at the Playboy Mansion when she was a teenager in 1975.
Seven other accusers received a settlement from Cosby’s insurers in the wake of the Pennsylvania conviction over a defamation lawsuit they had filed in Massachusetts. Their lawsuit said that Cosby and his agents disparaged them in denying their allegations of abuse.
Valentino’s lawsuit requests a jury trial and seeks unspecified punitive damages.
Federal prosecutors are formally moving to seize R. Kelly’s money held by Sony Music and Universal Music Publishing Group (UMPG), saying it will be used to pay victims and fulfill outstanding fines.
Two years after they won a jury verdict convicting the disgraced singer of sex trafficking and racketeering, prosecutors in Brooklyn have asked a federal judge for so-called writs of garnishment against the label and publisher — court orders that would compel the two companies to hand over funds tied to Kelly.
Sony Music and UMPG are believed to be “in possession of property” belonging to Kelly that could be used to pay down the $504,289 that he currently owes in victim restitutions and criminal fines, the feds argued.
It’s unclear how much of Kelly’s funds each company currently holds. A court ruling in March disclosed that Kelly’s royalty account with Sony held $1,544,333 as of 2020.
Neither Sony Music nor UMPG immediately returned requests for comment on the filings.
After he was sentenced last summer to 30 years in prison on the sex trafficking and racketeering charges, Kelly was ordered to pay more than $480,000 in fines and restitution. After he was sentenced again in February on separate child pornography convictions in Illinois, another $42,000 was tacked on.
Thursday’s filings are the latest efforts by the government to collect on those judgments. Last fall, prosecutors confiscated nearly $30,000 in Kelly’s prison commissary account. But the feds have competition for that money.
R. Kelly victim Heather Williams, who won a $4 million civil judgment against the singer, is also seeking to tap into the Sony Music account — as is Midwest Commercial Funding, a property management company that won a separate $3.5 million ruling against Kelly over unpaid rent at a Chicago studio.
In March, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that Williams had priority to the funds over Midwest Commercial Funding because she was the first to properly demand the money from Sony. But that ruling left unclear whether she’ll enjoy similar priority over a slew of additional monetary penalties that Kelly owes to victims as a result of his federal criminal convictions.
Federal prosecutors in both Illinois and New York declined to comment on that decision at the time.
In a statement Thursday (June 1), Kelly’s lead attorney, Jennifer Bonjean, told Billboard that she and her client believe that the restitution order against him is incorrect and will be overturned on appeal. But she said they have “no opinion” on prosecutors seeking to garnish funds held by Sony Music and UMPG.
A New York state appeals court has sided with Jay-Z in his long-legal battle against a fragrance company called Parlux over a cologne endorsement deal that went bad.
In a ruling issued Thursday, a panel of appeals judges upheld a 2021 jury verdict that cleared the superstar of wrongdoing and potentially $67 million in damages. It also affirmed a judge’s ruling last year that it was actually Jay-Z, and not Parlux, that was owed money — nearly $7 million in unpaid royalties.
“There were multiple rational bases for upholding the jury verdict, and plaintiffs have not set forth a sufficient basis … to overturn it,” a five-judge panel ruled unanimously.
Barring further appeals, the decision could finally mean the end for more than six years of litigation over “Gold Jay-Z,” a cologne brand that the superstar, whose real name is Shawn Carter, launched in 2013 through a partnership with Parlux.
In its 2016 lawsuit, the company accused the rapper and his S. Carter Enterprises of failing to properly promote the brand, breaching his contract and dooming the product to failure. Jay-Z quickly countersued, claiming he had fulfilled his obligations despite numerous missteps from Parlux – and that the company still owed him money.
After a three week trial in late 2021, featuring heated testimony from the star himself, jurors largely sided with Jay-Z and found that Parlux was entitled to nothing. Then in August, New York Supreme Court Justice Andrew Borrok ruled Parlux owes Jay-Z $6.78 million in unpaid royalties, including interest.
Seeking the overturn the verdict on appeal, attorneys for Parlux argued that the trial judge had improperly instructed the jury about requirements in the contract about Jay-Z’s personal appearances and the need for Parlux to provide a “product development plan.”
But in Thursday’s ruling, the appellate panel was unmoved: “The court correctly instructed the jury on the burdens of proof, and any error in characterizing the notice requirement for personal appearances and the PDP as ‘conditions precedent’ was harmless when considering the overall instructions.”
Parlux can still challenge the outcome once more, taking the case to the Court of Appeals, New York’s top appellate court. An attorney for the company did not immediately return a request for comment.
Broadcast radio’s trade group is doubling down on its effort to combine federal rate court proceedings that will determine how most of the country’s songwriters get paid for airplay.
After a judge on May 26 denied the Radio Music Licensing Committee’s petition to combine rate court proceedings with leading performance rights organizations BMI and ASCAP under a single judge last week, according to a statement from BMI, the RMLC filed an appeal on Wednesday (May 31) at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
According to BMI’s interpretation of Southern District of New York Judge Louis Stanton‘s ruling denying the petition, neither the BMI Consent Decree nor the Music Modernization Act of 2018 justified the RMLC’s joint rate petition. Judge Stanton ordered the RMLC’s rate petition against ASCAP to be assigned to another judge and tried separately.
Just Stanton’s ruling instructs the court clerk to “sever all portions of the RMLC petition which seek the setting by a rate court of an ASCAP reasonable license fee under the ASCAP consent decree and assign them by the standard electronic method of selection of a judge of this court.”
The RMLC’s petition to combine the ASCAP and BMI under one judge who would simultaneously set rates for both performance rights organizations in once proceeding was based on what publishing sources have told Billboard is a wrong interpretation of the Music Modernization Act, which included a provision to moving rate hearings to a rotating roster of Southern District judges.
Having a single judge, instead of bifurcated rate court proceedings, could benefit the RMLC because it would likely pit BMI and ASCAP against each other, vying for a higher rate than the other and arguing over market share. In the past, Judge Stanton has overseen BMI rate trials and Judge Denise Cote has overseen ASCAP rate trials. Music publishing executives say that the MMA intended to keep the two-pronged approach for the PRO rate setting, but with rotating judges, not just the two who have overseen the proceedings up to now.
“We are extremely pleased that the RMLC’s latest attempt to deny fair compensation to songwriters was dismissed, and that its end run around the clear language of the BMI consent decree and the MMA was properly rejected by the Court,” BMI president and CEO Mike O’Neill said in a statement. “This would have cleared the way for BMI to secure the appropriate value of our affiliates’ music without the distractions the RMLC was trying to create. Unfortunately, the RMLC is once again opting for litigation over negotiation, and we will continue to do what is needed to protect the essential contributions our affiliates make to the radio industry.”
“It is unfortunate that the RMLC refuses to negotiate to pay songwriters fairly,” added ASCAP CEO Elizabeth Matthews in her own statement. “ASCAP is focused on obtaining fair market rates from radio for our more than 900,000 songwriter, composer and music publisher members. ASCAP will vigorously defend the value of our members’ music and fight the RMLC’s harmful attempt to weaponize its cartel market power to pay songwriters less.”
The RLMC did not respond to a request for comment at time of publishing.
A South Korean law firm representing three members of K-pop boy band EXO says the singers are pursuing legal action against their longtime label and management agency SM Entertainment over contractual issues related to “slave contracts.”
In a press release, Lin Law Firm claims it has represented K-pop stars Baekhyun, Chen and Xiumin — who are members of EXO and also perform together in a splinter trio unit named EXO-CBX — since March over pay and contract disputes with SM Entertainment, who debuted EXO in 2012 and are home to acts like TVXQ!, Girls’ Generation, SHINee, NCT and aespa.
Baekhyun, Chen and Xiumin (whose full names are Byun Baekhyun, Kim Jongdae and Kim Minseok, respectively) claim SM has shown a lack of payment transparency and required unreasonably long contracts extending beyond 12 years, according to a five-page document reviewed by Billboard that was sent by Lin Law Firm attorney Lee Jaehak.
The firm alleges that despite the trio signing exclusive, long-term contracts with SM, the K-pop company has not provided full data about the artists’ payments as they recently requested. Lin Law adds that the artists have always trusted SM’s payments despite Korean law requiring entertainment companies to provide updates on payment settlements twice a year.
Lin Law Firm also claims that SM has used its position in the K-pop market to force artists to sign with the company for longer than the industry standard seven years — deals it calls “slave contracts.” The firm says that SM automatically extends artist contracts by three years if the artist works overseas, which applies to Chen and Xiumin, as the two were originally part of the China-focused group EXO-M. Meanwhile, Baekhyun has released solo music in Japan and was a part of the U.S.-focused, Billboard 200-topping “supergroup” SuperM.
The final point in Lin Law’s document includes an apologetic message to fans and a pledge to resolve the dispute.
SM Entertainment has not responded to Billboard‘s request for comment. Baekhyun, Chen and Xiumin have not publicly commented on the matter, either.
Alleged “slave contracts” are a historically sensitive spot for SM Entertainment. In 2009, three of the original five members of boy band TVXQ! asked Korean courts to examine their 13-year contracts, citing extreme length and worries about payment distribution. Over the course of three-plus years of legal battles, singers Kim Jaejoong, Park Yoochun and Kim Junsu won the right to work independent of their SM deals and formed a new boy band named JYJ. By November 2012, the two parties mutually agreed to terminate the SM contracts, which would have expired in 2016 at the earliest.
As a result, South Korea’s Fair Trade Commission created a rule in 2010 that did away with so-called “slave contracts,” requiring entertainment companies to sign individuals for a maximum of seven years initially. Lin Law does not explain how SM could legally surpass the rule.
As members of EXO, Baekhyun, Chen and Xiumin helped lead K-pop’s international expansion with the group’s dual focus on releasing music in both Korean and Chinese. In April 2015, EXO set a new record for the largest sales week for K-pop artists in America at the time when its Exodus album sold 6,000 copies, according to Luminate. It held that record until late 2016.
EXO has scored five No. 1s on Billboard‘s World Albums chart, while EXO-CBX also topped the chart with its debut record Hey Mama! from 2016. All three members have also released solo albums, with Chen releasing a new song, “Bloom,” on May 30 through SM Entertainment. After several EXO members fulfilled their South Korean military duties, the group reunited for the first time in years. SM has confirmed the group would release a new studio album together this year.
Sean “Diddy” Combs is suing alcohol giant Diageo for allegedly breaching their partnership deal for a brand of tequila, leveling accusations of racism at the company and claiming it has treated his product line “worse than others because he is Black.”
In a complaint filed Wednesday (May 31) in New York court, attorneys for the star’s Combs Wines and Spirits claimed that Diageo had “typecast” his DeLeon Tequila as a “Black brand” that could only be sold to “urban” consumers, harming its sales and potential for growth.
“Cloaking itself in the language of diversity and equality is good for Diageo’s business, but it is a lie,” Combs’ lawyers wrote. “While Diageo may conspicuously include images of its Black partners in advertising materials and press releases, its words only provide the illusion of inclusion.”
Combs claims the “unequal treatment” DeLeon has received from Diageo has left his brand lagging behind competing Diageo brands like Casamigos and Don Julio — and that the company then used those lower sales figures to offer even less support for the brand.
“Combs Wines seeks to finally put an end to Diageo’s longstanding misconduct,” the star’s lawyers wrote. “Diageo must be ordered by a court to give Combs Wines the same treatment it gives its other, successful tequila brands. It is time that Diageo’s actions match its words.”
In a statement to Billboard, a Diageo spokesperson said the company was “disappointed our efforts to resolve this business dispute amicably have been ignored, and that Mr. Combs has chosen to damage a productive and valued partnership.”
“This is a business dispute, and we are saddened that Mr. Combs has chosen to recast this matter as anything other than that,” the company said. “Our steadfast commitment to diversity within our company and the communities we serve is something we take very seriously. We categorically deny the allegations that have been made and will vigorously defend ourselves in the appropriate forum.“
In technical legal terms, the lawsuit claims that Diageo has violated a specific provision of the operating agreement that governs the Combs-Diageo joint venture that owns DeLeon. It’s not entirely clear what that provision requires — much of the legal complaint is heavily redacted — but the lawsuit claims it was included in the deal to ensure equal treatment.
“Because he knows that contracts matter more than press releases, Mr. Combs insisted that Diageo agree to certain terms to ensure his brands were not ignored or relegated to second-class status,” Combs’ lawyers wrote.
Among other alleged breaches, Combs claims Diageo violated that provision by placing DeLeon in “far fewer outlets than its other tequila brands” and failing to produce enough of it to keep store shelves stocked.
But Combs’ lawyers repeatedly stressed that their case was not simply a run-of-the-mill breach of contract lawsuit: “Similar to the realities experienced by many people of color in the United States, Diageo’s treatment of its business relationship with Mr. Combs was tainted by racial prejudices.”
At one point, Combs claims he was directly told that “things would be different if he were a white, not Black, celebrity.”
“Diageo, in other words, openly admitted that it viewed Mr. Combs merely as a Black man thatmight prove useful in marketing to Black consumers,” Combs said. “Nothing more.”
Read the entire complaint against Diageo here: