trademark
Page: 3
HipHopWired Featured Video
Eminem recently filed legal opposition to the name of a podcast that uses a portion of his famous nickname. In the filing, the Real Slim Shady believes that a burgeoning podcast, Reasonably Shady, will cause confusion as it pertains to his likeness and brands.
Page Six exclusively reports that on Feb. 14, Eminem, real name Marshall Mathers, filed the objection to the name Reasonably Shady, a podcast series hosted by Real Housewives of Potomac stars, Gizelle Bryant and Robyn Dixon. The pair filed for a trademark to sell merch with the title of their series emblazoned upon the gear.
The outlet adds that Eminem believes the showâs title would confuse many of his consumers who know him as Shady, and it was reported that he also owns the trademark to Shady for use on merchandise.
Bryant and Dixonâs podcast launched in 2021 and they recently filed for the trademark for Reasonably Shady at the top of the year, hence Eminemâs filing this earlier this month in response. The hosts intend to sell hoodies, socks, water bottles, and other merchandise.
As Page Six shared in their report, a reply from Bryant and Dixon has yet to occur.
â
Photo: VALERIE MACON / Getty
The organizers of Coachella are suing the creator of a Washington D.C.-based music event called âMoechella,â accusing the smaller group of violating the trademark rights to the giant yearly festival.
Filed after months of public dispute with Justin Johnson over the name of his go-go music events, Coachellaâs lawsuit says heâs continued to use the allegedly infringing name unabated â even announcing last month that heâs planning 10 new events in the coming year.
âDespite plaintiffsâ repeated efforts to avoid litigation, defendants have made clear that they have no intent of ceasing their infringing activities, forcing Plaintiffs to file this action,â wrote lawyers for Goldenvoice LLC, the AEG subsidiary that operates the California festival, in a complaint filed Tuesday (Jan. 31) in D.C. federal court.
In an interview with Billboard on Friday, Johnson said heâd been surprised to learn of Coachellaâs lawsuit because he said heâd already agreed with the companyâs lawyers that he would âpivot awayâ from the âMoechellaâ name and had been continuing to do so.
âThese events are protests that have spawned out of the gentrification of D.C. and the erasure of the culture in this city, not festivals for monetary gain,â Johnson said. âItâs surprising that a multi-billion dollar company is approaching a non-profit organization like this.â
The new case is just the latest trademark clash for Coachella. In 2021, the festival sued Live Nation for selling tickets to an event called âCoachella Day One 22.â Last year, Coachella sued a West African company over an event called âAfrochella,â then later sued a California business park that has been using the name âCoachillin.â
An attorney for Coachella did not immediately return a request for comment on the new case.
According to Washington City Paper, Moechella started in 2019 as musical protests organized by Johnson and others after residents of a luxury apartment building complained about go-go music that was being played outside. The name, according to that article, is a portmanteau of âmoeâ â D.C.-area slang for a friend â and Coachella.
The dispute with Coachella first became public last summer, when the festival filed legal documents seeking to block Johnson from registering the name as a federal trademark. In response, Johnson quickly dropped his trademark application, but publicly vowed that he was ânot going to stop using the nameâ even after Coachellaâs complaints.
In the new lawsuit, Coachellaâs attorneys said the company had no problem with the Moechella event itself â only with the use of a title that seems to clearly play on the better-known festivalâs name.
âPlaintiffs have no objection to Defendantsâ lawful activities, including the hosting of live music and entertainment events,â the company wrote. âPlaintiffsâ only objection is to the Defendantsâ infringing and confusing use of the term âMoechella.’â
The new case also named Kelsye Adams, a woman who appears to be the executive director of the group that organizes Moechella. She could not immediately be located for comment on Friday.
In an effort to underscore the argument that Coachella doesnât want to be confused with the smaller event, the festivalâs lawyers took the notable step of citing a recent tragedy.
In June, a 15-year-old boy was killed and three others shot when gunfire erupted at Moechella. In a statement to the media at the time, D.C. mayor Muriel Bowser criticized the fact that the event âdid not have any proper planning for the number of people who were here and with guns involved.â
In Tuesdayâs lawsuit, Coachella said the shooting was an example of the kind of âreputational harmâ that can be caused if consumers think the bigger festival has somehow approved of Moechella.
âPlaintiffs contend that incidents such as the shooting death and melee cause harm to Plaintiffs, particularly given Defendantsâ infringing use of similar looking and sounding âMoechellaâ marks,â Coachellaâs lawyers wrote.
In speaking with Billboard on Friday, Johnson said he viewed the linking of the shooting directly to Moechella as âunfair,â arguing it had actually occurred after the event ended. But he reiterated that he would adopt a new name, which he says heâll use in the future to continue drawing attention to gentrification, gun violence and other issues facing D.C.
âThis name was something that was chosen by the people, so weâre going to do a call to action to change the name, just like a sports team would do,â Johnson said, alluding to the recent high-profile name change for Washington D.C.âs professional football team.
âThey named it once, so they can name it again,â Johnson said.
Lizzo is now â legally speaking â 100% that b-tch.
In a decision issued Thursday (Feb. 2), a tribunal at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ruled that the superstar could register â100% That B-tchâ as a federal trademark for clothing â meaning Lizzo now has exclusive rights to use the phrase on apparel.
Last year, the agency rejected Lizzoâs application for the trademark on the grounds that it was merely a commonplace âmotivational phraseâ aimed at âfemale empowerment,â not the kind of unique brand name thatâs eligible for trademark protection.
But the USPTOâs Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) overturned that ruling Thursday, saying that people who see the phrase on a t-shirt would immediately think of Lizzo.
 âConsumers encountering â100% That B-tchâ on the specific types of clothing identified in the application â even when offered by third parties â associate the term with Lizzo and her music,â the appeals board wrote in its ruling.
Lizzo included the famed lyric â âI just took a DNA test, turns out Iâm 100% that b-tchâ â in her breakout smash hit âTruth Hurts,â but she didnât actually didnât come up with it herself. Instead, the singer pulled it from a popular internet meme, and she has since given its creator â Mina Lioness â songwriting credit on the hit track.
In refusing to give Lizzo the trademark, the USPTO had pointed out that backstory, arguing that even if the singer âpopularizedâ the phrase, she was still not entitled to legally âappropriateâ it for her own exclusive use on consumer goods.
But in Thursdayâs decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board disagreed â ruling that Lizzo had clearly âpopularized the lyricâ and elevated âa lesser known phraseâ into âmore memorable status.â
âLizzo did not originate the expression she encountered as a Twitter meme,â the board wrote. âNonetheless, lyrics from songs are more likely to be attributed to the artists who sing, rap or otherwise utter them, rather than the songwriters.â
An attorney for Lizzo did not immediately return a request for comment. The USPTO does not comment on rulings by the TTAB.
Read the entire decision here:
If you saw a portable snack package of Fruity Pebbles or Honey Bunches of Oats under the brand name âOK Go!â on a supermarket shelf, would you think that the rock band OK Go was somehow involved?
That bizarre question is at the center of a new lawsuit filed by cereal giant Post Foods against the power pop band, which is best known for its viral music videos, including a Grammy-winning video for the song âHere It Goes Again.â
In a complaint filed Friday (Jan. 13) in Minnesota federal court, Post said OK Go had been quietly threatening to sue for months, claiming that the company had infringed the trademark rights to the bandâs name by launching the new on-the-go packages earlier this month.
âWithout 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,â the cereal company wrote in its lawsuit.
Post is seeking whatâs known as a âdeclaratory judgment,â meaning a ruling by a judge that says the company did nothing wrong. Post says the trademark rights of a rock band like OK Go donât extend to an unrelated product like cereal, and that the new cups of Fruity Pebbles and other cereals are clearly marked with Postâs own branding to avoid any confusion.
In a statement to Billboard, the members of OK Go said theyâd been surprised to learn of Postâs lawsuit.
âA 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,â the band wrote. âBut 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 thatâs often how it works, but hopefully, weâll be the exception.â
According to Postâs lawsuit, the dispute with OK Go goes back many months â and court records reveal the kind of legal back-and-forth that often precedes such litigation.
Back in September, an attorney for the band sent a cease-and-desist letter to Post, saying that OK Go had been âsurprised and alarmedâ to see Postâs use of its name on the new products. He claimed the new brand name would âsuggest to consumers that OK Go is endorsing Postâs products,â or falsely imply that the cereal company had received permission to use the bandâs name on its products.
Citing advertising collaborations with brands like Sony, Mercedes Benz, Google and Chevrolet, the bandâs attorney argued that consumers had come to associate the âOK Goâ name with consumer products across an array of industries. And he made particular mention that the band had even previously worked with Post itself, releasing a series of promotional videos for Honey Bunches of Oats back in 2011.
âOur client regards this matter with the utmost seriousness and has authorized us to take all steps necessary in any venue to protect its rights,â OK Goâs attorney wrote in the September letter. âIf 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.â
A week later, an attorney representing Post responded, saying that the company must ârespectfully disagreeâ with the bandâs accusations. The attorney argued that rock music and breakfast cereal were âclearly unrelatedâ products and that the phrase âOK Goâ was merely a common term that had previously been used by many other companies on their products. He also flatly rejected the bandâs arguments about its previous work promoting Honey Bunches of Oats.
âGiven the length of time that has passed since that limited collaboration over a decade ago, the very small number of views indicated on the YouTube videos you referenced, and the general consuming publicâs rather short attention span, it will also have absolutely no bearing on consumer perception of Postâs mark OK GO! used with cereal or cereal-based snacks, and will not lead to any mistaken association with OK Go,â Postâs attorney wrote in the response.
According to Postâs complaint on Friday, the company offered to pay the band as part of a âgood faith effortâ to resolve the dispute without resorting to litigation, despite its belief that the accusations lacked legal merit. The total figure that Post offered for such a âbranding collaboration/co-marketing arrangementâ was not disclosed in court documents.
But the food company says OK Go rejected that offer last week and made no counter-proposal, leaving Post with no choice but to file a lawsuit. Citing a âclear threat of potential litigation,â Post wrote that the judge must rule that the company is âfree to use the OK GO! Mark.â
The case was filed in federal court in Minnesota, where Post is headquartered. An attorney for Post did not immediately return a request for comment on the lawsuit.
Read the entire lawsuit here:
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Michael M. Santiago / Getty
The war over horizontal lines has officially commenced. The trademark infringement trial between adidas and Thom Browne is underway.
As per Hypebeast, the two apparel companies will fight it out over who can rightfully use stripes throughout the product universe. This week, the two labels presented their opening arguments in Manhattanâs Southern District Court.
Back in June 2021 the sneaker brand served the Allentown, Pennsylvania native and his team with a lawsuit claiming that their four stripe motifs are âconfusingly similar iterationsâ of the adidas marks. In the original complaint, adidas says their signature three-stripe trademark, which is synonymous with their most iconic footwear releases, signify the âquality and reputationâ of their company.
Thom Browne responded to the filing with their own countersuit saying the two brands play in âentirely separate markets, at vastly different price points, and are not competitors.â Additionally, Rodrigo Bazan, Browneâs CEO, further detailed their stance in an exclusive interview with WWD. âWe believe we are right and we are confident in the outcome of the case, as we have acted honorably for all this time. They [Adidas] consented for 12 years and now they are changing their mind,â he said. His latter comment points to when the two labels put their differences aside and agreed to act in âgood faith.â
adidas is seeking $867,225 in damages as well as more than seven million in what they estimated Thom Browne in profiting from selling pieces with similar stripes. Previously adidas has sued Payless Shoesource, Skechers, Forever 21, Nike and Tesla for similar infringement.
Guns Nâ Roses has an appetite for litigation.
The iconic â80s rock band is suing a gun retailer thatâs using the name âTexas Guns and Roses,â arguing that the name infringes the bandâs trademark rights â and that they especially donât want to be associated with firearms or âpolarizingâ political views.
In a complaint filed Thursday (Dec. 1) in Los Angeles federal court, GNR said the Houston-based retailer â operating under the corporate name Jersey Village Florists LLC â is clearly using the name to dupe consumers into thinking the band had somehow endorsed the business.
That would be bad no matter what the company was selling, but GNRâs lawyers said it was âparticularly damagingâ to the band âgiven the nature of Defendantâs business.â
âGNR, quite reasonably, does not want to be associated with defendant, a firearms and weapons retailer,â wrote the bandâs lawyers, hailing from the law firm Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. âFurthermore, defendant espouses political views related to the regulation and control of firearms and weapons on the website that may be polarizing to many U.S. consumers.â
According to GNRâs lawsuit, Texas Guns and Roses claims to sell actual roses on its website, but the band says itâs all a ruse: âThis is a contrivance to purportedly justify defendantâs wholesale appropriation of the âGuns Nâ Roses.â
In addition to trademark infringement, the band accused Texas Guns and Roses of so-called trademark dilution â a form of legal wrongdoing where someone uses your trademark in such a way that can âtarnishâ its value. Linking a brand name to undesirable associations like a dangerous product or offensive views can form the basis for such claims.
Jersey Village Florists could not immediately be reached for comment on Monday.
Itâs not the first time Guns Nâ Roses has taken legal action over its name. Back in 2019, the band filed a similar trademark infringement lawsuit against Colorado craft brewery Oskar Blues after it launched a âGuns âNâ RosĂ©â ale. (The case quickly settled.) And in 2020, the band successfully petitioned the U.S. trademark office to block the grocery chain Aldi from registering âSweet Cheddar of Mineâ as a trademark for cheese.