trademark
The tension is continuing to rise between Morrissey and his former The Smiths bandmate Johnny Marr.
Marr’s management took to Instagram on Tuesday (Sept. 17) to refute a series of claims made by Morrissey over the past few weeks, including that Marr “ignored” an offer to tour as the Smiths next year, that he blocked an upcoming greatest hits album and that he acquired the trademark of the band’s name.
“Recent statements made by Morrissey on his website regarding the trademark of the Smiths’ name are incorrect,” the statement begins, before revealing that Marr reached out to Morrissey in 2018 after a “third party” attempted to use the band’s name “to work together in protecting The Smiths’ name.” The statement claims that Morrissey didn’t respond, leading Marr to register the trademark on his own. In January 2024, Marr reportedly “signed an assignment of joint ownership to Morrissey. Execution of this document still requires Morrissey to sign.”
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The statement also includes a direct quote from Marr, which reads, “To prevent third parties from profiting from the band’s name, it was left to me to protect the legacy. This I have done on behalf of both myself and my former bandmates. As for the offer to tour, I didn’t ignore the offer – I said no.”
Trending on Billboard
The post concluded by claiming that Marr was not planning to tour with another vocalist, and that he did decline the greatest hits album, “given the number already in existence.”
Marr’s response comes a day after Morrissey shared a message on his website titled “The Plot Thickens,” where he claimed that Marr “successfully applied for 100% trademark rights / Intellectual Property ownership of The Smiths name,” which he alleges “was done without any consultation to Morrissey, and without allowing Morrissey the standard opportunity of ‘objection’.”
Morrissey added that due to the trademark rights, Marr can “now tour as The Smiths using the vocalist of his choice, and it also prohibits Morrissey from using the name whilst also denying Morrissey considerable financial livelihood,” before concluding, “Morrissey alone created the musical unit name ‘The Smiths’ in May 1982.”
The legendary British rockers broke up acrimoniously in 1987, after releasing four studio albums together.
Pharrell Williams and Louis Vuitton are facing a lawsuit over their launch of a high-end line of “Pocket Socks,” filed by a California company that says it’s been using that same name for more than a decade on a similar product.
In a case filed last week in Los Angeles federal court, Pocket Socks Inc. says the luxury brand’s product — a literal sock-with-a-pocket that launched at Paris Fashion Week last year and sells for the whopping price of $530 — infringes its existing trademark rights to the name.
“Much attention and publicity has been generated for Louis Vuitton’s ‘Pocket Socks,’ including defendants, the press, and consumers using the name ‘Pocket Socks’ for their product which irreparably injures Pocket Socks’ longstanding brand and trademark rights,” the company’s lawyers write in the June 20 complaint.
Trending on Billboard
Louis Vuitton announced in February 2023 that Williams would serve as the company’s men’s creative director, and he debuted his first line for the company later that year at Men’s Fashion Week in Paris.
One of the items apparently rolled out at last year’s event was the Pocket Socks — a pair of knitted socks that feature a pocket adorned with a pearl. The socks received some notoriety in January when Jermaine Dupri was razzed on social media for wearing them during his Super Bowl halftime performance. Though currently unavailable for purchase, the socks are listed on Louis Vuitton’s UK website for £420 — roughly $530 in U.S. dollars.
Louis Vuitton’s new product didn’t sit well with Pocket Socks Inc., which says it’s been using that exact same name since 2012 for its own line of socks that feature a zippered pocket sewn into each pair. In its lawsuit, the company says it owns several federal trademark registrations for the brand and that the new product clearly infringes those rights.
In a statement announcing the new lawsuit, Pocket Socks Inc. claims Louis Vuitton’s new line “threatens to undermine the hard work and dedication” that has gone into building the brand: “This massive luxury brand and their designer Pharrell Williams should know better and behave within the law,” said CEO Evan Papel.
In technical terms, the lawsuit accuses Williams and Louis Vuitton of infringing both the trademark to the name as well as the so-called “trade dress” — meaning the actual look of the product. The sale of similar-looking socks under the same name is “likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive consumers,” the lawsuit claims.
As the case moves forward, one possible defense argument from Williams and Louis Vuitton could be that the name Pocket Socks is too “descriptive” to serve as a trademark. Under U.S. trademark law, terms that merely describe the goods or services being sold cannot be locked up as an exclusive brand name.
Neither a rep Williams nor Louis Vuitton immediately returned requests for comment.
Drake’s production company is facing a lawsuit from the apparel brand Members Only for allegedly selling tour merch that infringed the company’s trademarks.
The case, filed Tuesday (June 12) in New York federal court, claims that Drake’s company (Away From Home Touring Inc.) has been selling t-shirts, including on his recently-wrapped It’s All a Blur Tour, that are emblazoned with the words “Members Only.”
To be clear, the lawsuit doesn’t claim Drake is selling counterfeit Members Only jackets — the iconic 1980s fad the company made famous. Drake’s shirts feature that phrase (written in large script across the front) simply because it’s the name of a track on his 2023 album For All the Dogs.
But in its complaint filed in federal court, the current owner of the Members Only brand (JR Apparel World LLC) says it doesn’t matter why Drake’s company opted to put their name on a shirt — only that he did so.
Trending on Billboard
“The fact that ‘Members Only’ is a song on Drake’s album ‘For All the Dogs’ does not obviate the likelihood of confusion or give [him] a license to use our client’s ‘Members Only’ marks in such a confusing manner, particularly on or in connection with apparel items,” the company’s lawyers write.
Calling “Members Only” a “famous household name,” the lawsuit claims that Drake’s shirts are going to confuse fans into thinking the real Members Only brand is somehow involved: “Away From Home’s use of ‘Members Only’ … is likely to cause confusion, mistake, and deception among consumers as to the origin of Away From Home’s infringing T-shirts.”
Under U.S. trademark law, the context of how a brand name is used is crucial. Two companies can use the exact same name for different products and peacefully co-exist — think Delta Airlines and Delta Faucet, or Dove soap and Dove chocolate. But when used on the same types of products, a similar name can become trademark infringement.
In Drake’s case, his use of the “Members Only” name as a song title almost certainly would not have infringed JR Apparel World rights — both because they’re different products and because the First Amendment gives added protection to use trademarks in creative works like songs. But by using that same name on apparel, the lawsuit says, the legal calculus has changed.
“Away From Home sold … goods bearing the mark ‘Members Only’ that are identical, overlapping, and/or highly similar to the goods that JR Apparel sells bearing its MEMBERS ONLY Marks,” the company’s attorneys write.
A rep for Drake did not immediately return a request for comment.
An Earth, Wind & Fire tribute act will pay the legendary R&B group $750,000 in damages for using its trademarked name in ways that a federal judge called “deceptive and misleading.”
The payment, announced in a court filing Tuesday, will effectively end a year-long lawsuit in which the band alleged that the tribute act — “Earth, Wind & Fire Legacy Reunion” – infringed the trademark rights to the famous name by suggesting it was the real thing.
Earlier this year, the federal judge overseeing the case sided with Earth, Wind & Fire, ruling that the tribute act’s conduct had been “deceptive and misleading.” A trial had been scheduled to figure out how much Legacy Reunion would need to pay, but the two sides reached an undisclosed settlement on that question last week.
In Tuesday’s filing, the judge disclosed the total that Legacy Reunion had agreed to pay – $750,000, plus interest — a rare step following settlements, which are typically kept private. Neither side immediately returned requests for comment.
Trending on Billboard
Earth, Wind & Fire has continued to tour since founder Maurice White died in 2016, led by longtime members Philip Bailey, Ralph Johnson and White’s brother, Verdine White. The band operates under a license from an entity called Earth Wind & Fire IP, a holding company controlled by Maurice White’s sons that formally owns the rights to the name.
Last year, that company filed the current lawsuit, accusing Legacy Reunion of trying to trick consumers into thinking it was the real Earth, Wind & Fire. Though it called itself a “Reunion,” the lawsuit said the tribute band contained only a few “side musicians” who had briefly played with Earth, Wind & Fire many years ago.
“Defendants did this to benefit from the commercial magnetism and immense goodwill the public has for plaintiff’s ‘Earth, Wind & Fire’ marks and logos, thereby misleading consumers and selling more tickets at higher prices,” the group’s lawyers wrote at the time.
Tribute acts — groups that exclusively cover the music of a particular band — are legally allowed to operate, and they often adopt names that allude to the original. But they must make clear that they are only a tribute band, and they can get into legal hot water if they make it appear that they are affiliated with or endorsed by the original.
Ruling on the case last month, Judge Federico A. Moreno said the evidence pointed “overwhelmingly” in the band’s favor. In particular, the judge cited angry social media posts and emails from fans who attended the “Reunion” shows because they thought it was the original band — proof of the kind of “actual confusion” that’s crucial evidence in a trademark lawsuit.
“It is not a far cry to think that an average consumer looking for an Earth, Wind & Fire concert would believe that they could acquire that experience from either plaintiff or defendants,” the judge wrote.
Following Tuesday’s order, the only remaining issue in the case is an injuction permanently banning Legacy Reunion from infringing the name. That issue will be subject to future rulings clarifying exactly what it will cover.
Pink has filed a legal action against Pharrell Williams over his efforts to secure a trademark on the term “P.Inc” – a case that comes just weeks after Pharrell was hit with a similar branding dispute case by a longtime friend.
In an action filed Thursday at a federal tribunal, lawyers for Pink (real name Alecia Moore) claim that the trademark Pharrell is trying to register is so similar to her stage name that it’s “likely to cause confusion, mistake and/or deception” among consumers who see it.
The case was filed by Pink’s company, Lefty Paw Print, which owns numerous trademark registrations to her name, against Pharrell’s company, PW IP Holdings. Reps for Pharrell did not immediately return a request for comment.
Trending on Billboard
The new legal battle comes less than a month after Pharrell was hit with the same type of trademark action by Chad Hugo, his longtime producing partner and childhood friend. Hugo claims that Pharrell is “fraudulently” seeking sole control over the trademarks to “The Neptunes” – the name of their prolific 2000s songwriting partnership – even though they have always split the group’s assets.
At the time, Pharrell’s reps said he had been “surprised” by Hugo’s accusations, and that his “Neptunes” trademark applications had been solely designed to “make sure a third party doesn’t get a hold of the trademark.” Hugo’s lawyers rejected that explanation, calling the trademark applications “a land grab in a long simmering dispute.”
At issue in the new case is an application to register “P.Inc” as a federal trademark, which his lawyers say he intends to use for a wide range of services, including “promotional marketing services in the field of music.” A trademark registration is what allows brands to place the (R) symbol next to their name, and makes it easier to sue people who use it without permission.
The application was filed last year by PW IP Holdings LLC, Pharrell’s company that also owns such trademark registrations for his band N.E.R.D., his Miami-based Goodtime Hotel, and numerous other brand names connected to the superstar.
Pink’s attorneys did not immediately return a request for comment on the dispute.
Even before Pink filed her case on Thursday, Pharrell’s application for the “P. Inc” trademark had already drawn legal opposition from another entity that has prominently used the name “Pink” for its goods.
That would be Victoria’s Secret, which since 2002 has sold a line of PINK lingerie and apparel. The retail giant filed its own case against Pharrell’s company last month, making similar arguments that Pharrell’s trademark would be confusingly similar to its own name.
“Opposer’s use of its ‘Victoria’s Secret PINK’ and ‘PINK’ marks predates applicant’s filing date,” the company’s lawyers wrote in a March 21 filing. “Applicant’s mark is highly similar to, and is the phonetic equivalent of, opposer’s ‘PINK’ marks.”
Pharrell Williams and producer Chad Hugo – who together formed the prolific songwriting duo The Neptunes – are now battling each other in a legal dispute over the group’s name, after Hugo accused Williams of “fraudulently” seeking sole control over the trademarks.
Before Williams was a solo star, The Neptunes produced a slew of radio hits in the early 2000s, including Nelly’s “Hot in Herre,” Snoop Dogg’s “Drop It Like It’s Hot,” Gwen Stefani’s “Hollaback Girl” and Justin Timberlake’s “Rock Your Body.” The legendary duo, who have been friends since childhood, were inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame in 2022.
But in a legal action filed last week at a federal tribunal, attorneys for Hugo accused Pharrell and his company of attempting to unilaterally register trademarks for the Neptunes name – a move they say violates their longstanding agreement that saw the pair split everything equally.
Trending on Billboard
“Throughout their over thirty year history, [Hugo] and Williams agreed to, and in fact, have divided all assets,” wrote Hugo’s attorney Kenneth D. Freundlich, a prominent music industry litigator. “By ignoring and excluding [Hugo] from the any and all applications filed by applicant for the mark ‘The Neptunes,’ applicant has committed fraud in securing the trademarks and acted in bad faith.”
In a statement to Billboard on Monday, a rep for Pharrell said there had been no ill-intent behind the disputed trademark filings: “Pharrell is surprised by this. We have reached out on multiple occasions to share in the ownership and administration of the trademark and will continue to make that offer. The goal here was to make sure a third party doesn’t get a hold of the trademark and to guarantee Chad and Pharrell share in ownership and administration.”
Hugo’s attorney did not immediately return a request for comment on Monday.
At issue in the dispute are three separate applications to register “The Neptunes” as a trademark – one covering the use of the name on streaming music, another for music videos and other content, and a third covering live performances. They were filed in 2022 by PW IP Holdings LLC, Pharrell’s company that also owns such registrations for his band N.E.R.D., his Miami-based Goodtime Hotel, and numerous other brand names connected to the superstar.
In his legal filings last week, Hugo’s attorneys argued that Pharrell had “knowingly and intentionally” filed those applications without required input from Hugo, even though he was “fully aware” that either Hugo or their partnership entity should have been listed as a co-owner: “Nothing, either written or oral, provided Williams or [PW IP Holdings] with the unilateral authority to register the trademarks.”
Hugo’s attorneys said they’ve “repeatedly” contacted Pharrell’s team about the problem, and that the star’s lawyers had “admitted that [Hugo] is equal co-owner of the trademarks” and promised to include him — a claim that lines up with Williams’ statement on Monday.
But the case claims that sharing never actually happened, partly because Pharrell’s company has insisted on “onerous business terms” that would deprive Hugo of proper control and compensation. The petition did not specify what exactly those “onerous” terms included.
Last week’s filings targeted only with the three recent trademark applications, but Hugo’s case could potentially expand beyond them. That’s because Pharrell’s company already successfully registered The Neptunes name as a trademark for musical sound recordings, and has another pending application to register the name for clothing and other merch.
In his filing last week, Hugo’s lawyers said that the trademark registrations covering sound recordings “and possibly others” would be subject to a future legal action aimed at having them voided.
Earth, Wind & Fire has won its trademark lawsuit against a tribute act that used the legendary R&B group’s name without permission, with a federal judge ruling that the evidence pointed “overwhelmingly” in the band’s favor.
In a decision released on Monday, a Miami federal judge ruled that the tribute group infringed Earth, Wind & Fire’s intellectual property rights by calling themselves “Earth, Wind & Fire Legacy Reunion.” He called the band’s marketing “deceptive and misleading.”
In particular, the judge cited angry social media posts and emails from fans who attended the “Reunion” shows because they thought it was the original band – proof of the kind of “actual confusion” that’s crucial evidence in a trademark lawsuit.
Trending on Billboard
“It is not a far cry to think that an average consumer looking for an Earth, Wind & Fire concert would believe that they could acquire that experience from either plaintiff or defendants,” Judge Federico A. Moreno wrote.
Earth, Wind & Fire has continued to tour since founder Maurice White died in 2016, led by longtime members Philip Bailey, Ralph Johnson and White’s brother, Verdine White. The band operates under a license from an entity called Earth Wind & Fire IP, a holding company controlled by Maurice White’s sons that formally owns the rights to the name.
Last year, that company filed the current lawsuit, accusing Legacy Reunion of trying to trick consumers into thinking it was the real Earth, Wind & Fire. Though it called itself a “Reunion,” the lawsuit said the tribute band contained only a few “side musicians” who had briefly played with Earth, Wind & Fire many years ago.
“Defendants did this to benefit from the commercial magnetism and immense goodwill the public has for plaintiff’s ‘Earth, Wind & Fire’ marks and logos, thereby misleading consumers and selling more tickets at higher prices,” the group’s lawyers wrote at the time.
Tribute acts — groups that exclusively cover the music of a particular band — are legally allowed to operate, and they often adopt names that allude to the original. But they must make clear that they are only a tribute band, and they can get into legal hot water if they make it appear that they are affiliated with or endorsed by the original.
In Monday’s decision, Judge Moreno ruled that Legacy Reunion had done exactly that – particularly with its references to a “Reunion” and claims that the performers were former members of Earth, Wind & Fire. The judge said the later addition of “Alumni” and other reformulations of the name were not enough.
“While the court understands there is dispute on how prominent of a role the musicians performing in [Legacy Reunion] played in the Earth, Wind & Fire group, defendants advertisements draw a close, unmistakable association with Earth, Wind & Fire to a degree unwarranted by the historical record,” the judge wrote.
“Regardless of if defendants’ musicians were technically sidemen or members, the advertisement and marketing were still deceptive and misleading as to whether the main (or most prominently known) members of the band would be performing,” Judge Moreno wrote.
The judge cited numerous complaints from Earth, Wind & Fire fans who had allegedly been confused by Legacy Reunion’s name. In one email, a fan said the name was “misleading” because they had attended the show “in the hopes of seeing Philip Bailey, Verdine White and others from the original band.” Another email complained that the tribute band was a ‘bait and switch.’ In a Facebook post, another fan said: “If the three remaining original members are not in this tour, this is basically a rip-off!”
In technical terms, Monday’s ruling decided that Legacy Reunion had violated Earth, Wind & Fire’s trademarks, but did not decide how much they must now pay in damages. That issue will be left for a future trial, which is currently scheduled for May. In the meantime, Judge Moreno said that Legacy Reunion would be barred from doing anything that would infringe Earth, Wind & Fire’s trademarks.
Neither side’s attorneys immediately returned request for comment on Monday.
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Edward Berthelot / Getty
Ye aka Kanye West has launched a new website dedicated to giving you all the news about himself, beginning with a recap of his upcoming album.
The platform, called Yews.News appeared to launch on Tuesday (December 12). It coincided with West being reinstated on X, formerly Twitter. Clicking on the platform on a desktop or laptop computer will take a person to a landing page that informs them which simply says, “Yews is designed for mobile.”
The site is broken up into three sections that are timestamped at 10 A.M., 3 P.M., and 8 P.M. The 10 A.M. and 8 P.M. sections cover the news, ranging from cultural and political topics like Donald Trump and the Israel-Hamas conflict in Gaza. Each page carries religious illustrations and has a varied amount of sources which include The Washington Post and Trump’s Truth Social website. Each post looks to be written in third-person, without any indication that Kanye West is penning any of them.
The 3 P.M. section contains a recap of the live listening event for Kanye and Ty Dolla $ign’s album Vultures, which is slated to be released on Friday (December 15) according to reports. The event featured the two showcasing songs from the new album, as they were joined on stage by Lil Durk, Offset, Chris Brown, and Kodak Black. Freddie Gibbs was also on hand and did his verse from the song “Back To Me”. The performance was captured by his manager Ben “Lambo” Lambert, who shared it in a post on X with the caption: “Verse of the year.”
The new site clears up the speculation that ensued when news of the “YEWS” trademark was first reported a couple of months ago. It was noted then that the trademark could be applied to many other things including merchandise, so it remains to be seen what will debut next.
Mobb Deep is facing a lawsuit over a recent collaboration with streetwear brand Supreme. Filed by a New York City hardcore punk band Sick of It All, the suit claims that Mobb Deep members Havoc and the late Prodigy stole their dragon-shaped logo.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In a lawsuit filed Friday, the band accused both Supreme and Mobb Deep of infringing its trademarks with a line of T-shirts launched this summer. The case claims that Mobb Deep’s emblem, featured on the shirts, is “virtually identical” to a logo that Sick of It All has used since 1987.
“This case arises out of defendants’ improper and illegal use of a nearly identical logo mark to plaintiff’s inherently distinctive, incontestable, and famous logo,” wrote lawyers for Bush Baby Zamagate Inc., the company that owns Sick of It All’s intellectual property. “Defendants’ adoption and use of their knockoff logo … is not just reckless and inexplicable — it is willful infringement and unfair competition.”
As defendants, the lawsuit named Chapter 4 Corp., the owner of Supreme; Kejuan Muchita Inc., a corporate entity owned by Havoc; and the estate of Prodigy (Albert Jackson Johnson), who died in 2017.
Back in June, when Supreme launched the Mobb Deep shirts, the website Hypebeast tried to explain the origins of the duo’s logo. The “tribal tattoo-style dragon,” the site claimed, had been “borrowed” from Sick of It All — “who, like Mobb Deep, is from Queens, New York.”
Turns out, Sick of It All doesn’t see the story quite the same way.
In Friday’s lawsuit, their lawyers say that, over the course of three decades, they have repeatedly demanded that Mobb Deep stop using the dragon design, first in 1997 and again in 2003. The new complaint included a copy of a cease-and-desist that the band sent in 2003, after a version of the dragon logo was used in an insert included in Mobb Deep’s Free Agents: The Murda Mixtape.
“This is not the first time that plaintiff has objected to Mobb Deep’s use of a logo substantially identical to plaintiff’s mark,” the new complaint reads. “Immediately prior to the institution of this lawsuit, plaintiff demanded that defendants cease use of their infringing logo and provide an accounting to plaintiff of sales of the infringing goods. Defendants refused to comply with those demands.”
In 2011, Mobb Deep spoke about the logo in an interview with clothing brand Mishka NYC. In it, Prodigy explained he basically picked the image off of a tattoo parlor wall when he was a teenager and got it inked to his hand.
“Basically, when I was 14 or 15, there was this tattoo parlor in Elmart off Hemstead turnpike and I had walked in there to get my first tattoo,” he said. “There was this dragon on the wall and I didn’t know what it was, I just thought it looked ill, I was mad young and I had always wanted something on my hand. I prolly seen it on some of those L.A. gang movies like Colors. I thought’d be cool, it’d look like some tough shit. So I told the dude put that on my hand. When me and Hav started Mobb Deep, we turned it into the lil clique thing.”
Prodigy went on to say, “We wanted to turn it into the logo for Mobb Deep, but, then we got a cease and desist letter in the mail…. That was just some random sh–! We didn’t even know, we was just young kids.”
Representatives for Supreme and Mobb Deep did not immediately return requests for comment.
Read the entire complaint here:
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: MEGA / Getty
Ye aka Kanye West has reportedly filed to trademark an eyebrow-raising phrase, “YEWS,” for a new slate of business ventures.
TMZ reportsr the filings—26 of them—were reportedly made on October 2 with the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to trademark the phrase “YEWS”. While Ye is not explicitly named in these filings, the Ox Paha Inc. company that submitted the documents shares the same address as the rapper’s office in Los Angeles.
Intellectual property firm Gerben Law has compiled a listing of all of the trademark filings. The desired purpose of these filings reportedly is to use the “YEWS” phrase for multiple purposes including clothing, music, restaurants, real estate businesses, entertainment, financial services, and more.
The filings were made by Weeks Nelson, a company that Ye hired after his former legal team dropped him after his spree of making antisemitic remarks which began last October with a now-removed post on X, formerly known as Twitter which said “going death con 3 on JEWISH PEOPLE.” That and subsequent antisemitic remarks would lead Ye to see his business partnerships with Adidas, Balenciaga, and The Gap severed in addition to being blocked from his social media accounts. When contacted, the firm did not comment.
The news of the intent to trademark a phrase that combines his name and the word “Jews” comes at a highly awkward time for Ye. The rapper has been spending the last few months in Europe with his wife, Bianca Censori, keeping somewhat of a low profile after his remarks (which culminated in him praising Hitler while appearing on the right-wing media host Alex Jones’ InfoWars podcast). West is reportedly working on a new album during this downtime. He made a surprise appearance at Travis Scott’s Circus Maximus show in Rome in August, and apart from that has come up in news items concerning leaks of previous work including audio from 2018 where he claimed Cardi B was an “industry plant.”