trademark
Page: 3
Eminem has picked a legal fight with two “Real Housewives” over their efforts to register the name of their Reasonably Shady podcast as a trademark.
Citing his Slim Shady nickname, lawyers for the superstar (real name Marshall B. Mathers) last week quietly launched a case aimed at blocking Gizelle Bryant and Robyn Dixon (stars of the Real Housewives of Potomac) from securing a federal trademark registration on their podcast’s name.
In a petition filed on Dec. 14 at the U.S. trademark office, Eminem’s attorneys said American consumers view the term “Shady” as a “unique and distinctive” term that’s linked to the rapper – meaning they would likely think that “Reasonably Shady” was somehow connected to Eminem.
“Confusion is unavoidable,” the rapper’s lawyers wrote. “Applicant’s mark ‘Reasonably Shady’ simply looks and sounds like ‘Shady’ and suggests that it represents the services of Mathers.”
In a statement to Billboard on Tuesday (Feb. 21), Dixon and Bryant’s attorney Andrea H. Evans said the duo “intend to defend their trademark application” in the face of Eminem’s accusations. “The trademarks are not confusingly similar and the services are not related,” Evans said.
Bryant and Dixon launched “Reasonably Shady” in 2021, describing it a series of “conversations about being fearless women as they recount stories from their exciting lives.” They’ve released 80 episodes since, covering dating, relationships, motherhood, style, current events and other topics.
Last year, the duo applied at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to secure a trademark registration on the name for a wide range of offerings, including not just producing a podcast but also selling cosmetics, candles and apparel. If granted, the registration would make it easier for Bryant and Dixon to sue someone who used the term “Shady” for similar goods or services.
But last week, Eminem’s attorneys filed their case at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, a court-like body within the USPTO where rival trademark owners can battle over who has better rights to a disputed name.
The rapper, who has “Slim Shady” and “Shady” for decades as the name of a dark alter ego, already owns a number of such trademark registrations on those names, covering music services and merchandise. Giving the similarity of the names, his lawyers say consumers will associate Bryant and Dixon’s proposed trademark with Eminem.
“Applicants use and registration of the mark ‘Reasonably Shady’ is likely to cause confusion in the minds of consumers,” his attorneys wrote, saying the star would be “damaged” by the registration of Bryant and Dixon’s trademark.
A rep for Eminem did not immediately return a request for comment on the case. Dixon and Bryant have until March 26 to file a formal response at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
Read Eminem’s entire petition here:
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 show’s 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 Dixon’s podcast launched in 2021 and they recently filed for the trademark for Reasonably Shady at the top of the year, hence Eminem’s 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.
—
Photo: VALERIE MACON / Getty
The organizers of Coachella are suing the creator of a Washington D.C.-based music event called “Moechella,” 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, Coachella’s lawsuit says he’s continued to use the allegedly infringing name unabated — even announcing last month that he’s planning 10 new events in the coming year.
“Despite plaintiffs’ 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,” 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 he’d been surprised to learn of Coachella’s lawsuit because he said he’d already agreed with the company’s lawyers that he would “pivot away” from the “Moechella” name and had been continuing to do so.
“These 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,” Johnson said. “It’s surprising that a multi-billion dollar company is approaching a non-profit organization like this.”
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 “Coachella Day One 22.” Last year, Coachella sued a West African company over an event called “Afrochella,” then later sued a California business park that has been using the name “Coachillin.”
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 “moe” — D.C.-area slang for a friend — 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 “not going to stop using the name” even after Coachella’s complaints.
In the new lawsuit, Coachella’s attorneys said the company had no problem with the Moechella event itself — only with the use of a title that seems to clearly play on the better-known festival’s name.
“Plaintiffs have no objection to Defendants’ lawful activities, including the hosting of live music and entertainment events,” the company wrote. “Plaintiffs’ only objection is to the Defendants’ infringing and confusing use of the term ‘Moechella.’”
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 doesn’t want to be confused with the smaller event, the festival’s 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 “did not have any proper planning for the number of people who were here and with guns involved.”
In Tuesday’s lawsuit, Coachella said the shooting was an example of the kind of “reputational harm” that can be caused if consumers think the bigger festival has somehow approved of Moechella.
“Plaintiffs contend that incidents such as the shooting death and melee cause harm to Plaintiffs, particularly given Defendants’ infringing use of similar looking and sounding ‘Moechella’ marks,” Coachella’s lawyers wrote.
In speaking with Billboard on Friday, Johnson said he viewed the linking of the shooting directly to Moechella as “unfair,” arguing it had actually occurred after the event ended. But he reiterated that he would adopt a new name, which he says he’ll use in the future to continue drawing attention to gentrification, gun violence and other issues facing D.C.
“This name was something that was chosen by the people, so we’re going to do a call to action to change the name, just like a sports team would do,” Johnson said, alluding to the recent high-profile name change for Washington D.C.’s professional football team.
“They named it once, so they can name it again,” Johnson said.
Lizzo is now — legally speaking — 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 “100% That B-tch” as a federal trademark for clothing — meaning Lizzo now has exclusive rights to use the phrase on apparel.
Last year, the agency rejected Lizzo’s application for the trademark on the grounds that it was merely a commonplace “motivational phrase” aimed at “female empowerment,” not the kind of unique brand name that’s eligible for trademark protection.
But the USPTO’s 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.
“Consumers encountering ‘100% That B-tch’ on the specific types of clothing identified in the application ― even when offered by third parties ― associate the term with Lizzo and her music,” the appeals board wrote in its ruling.
Lizzo included the famed lyric — “I just took a DNA test, turns out I’m 100% that b-tch” — in her breakout smash hit “Truth Hurts,” but she didn’t actually didn’t come up with it herself. Instead, the singer pulled it from a popular internet meme, and she has since given its creator — Mina Lioness — 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 “popularized” the phrase, she was still not entitled to legally “appropriate” it for her own exclusive use on consumer goods.
But in Thursday’s decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board disagreed — ruling that Lizzo had clearly “popularized the lyric” and elevated “a lesser known phrase” into “more memorable status.”
“Lizzo did not originate the expression she encountered as a Twitter meme,” the board wrote. “Nonetheless, lyrics from songs are more likely to be attributed to the artists who sing, rap or otherwise utter them, rather than the songwriters.”
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 “OK Go!” 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 “Here It Goes Again.”
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 band’s name by launching the new on-the-go packages earlier this month.
“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.
Post is seeking what’s known as a “declaratory judgment,” 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 don’t extend to an unrelated product like cereal, and that the new cups of Fruity Pebbles and other cereals are clearly marked with Post’s own branding to avoid any confusion.
In a statement to Billboard, 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 dispute with OK Go goes back many months — 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 “surprised and alarmed” to see Post’s use of its name on the new products. He claimed the new brand name would “suggest to consumers that OK Go is endorsing Post’s products,” or falsely imply that the cereal company had received permission to use the band’s name on its products.
Citing advertising collaborations with brands like Sony, Mercedes Benz, Google and Chevrolet, the band’s attorney argued that consumers had come to associate the “OK Go” 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.
“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. He also flatly rejected the band’s arguments about its previous work promoting Honey Bunches of Oats.
“Given 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 public’s rather short attention span, it will also have absolutely no bearing on consumer perception of Post’s mark OK GO! used with cereal or cereal-based snacks, and will not lead to any mistaken association with OK Go,” Post’s attorney wrote in the response.
According to Post’s complaint on Friday, the company 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 total figure that Post offered for such a “branding collaboration/co-marketing arrangement” 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 “clear threat of potential litigation,” Post wrote that the judge must rule that the company is “free to use the OK GO! Mark.”
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 Manhattan’s 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 “confusingly similar iterations” 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 “quality and reputation” of their company.
Thom Browne responded to the filing with their own countersuit saying the two brands play in “entirely separate markets, at vastly different price points, and are not competitors.” Additionally, Rodrigo Bazan, Browne’s CEO, further detailed their stance in an exclusive interview with WWD. “We 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,” he said. His latter comment points to when the two labels put their differences aside and agreed to act in “good faith.”
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 N’ Roses has an appetite for litigation.
The iconic ’80s rock band is suing a gun retailer that’s using the name “Texas Guns and Roses,” arguing that the name infringes the band’s trademark rights — and that they especially don’t want to be associated with firearms or “polarizing” political views.
In a complaint filed Thursday (Dec. 1) in Los Angeles federal court, GNR said the Houston-based retailer — operating under the corporate name Jersey Village Florists LLC — 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 GNR’s lawyers said it was “particularly damaging” to the band “given the nature of Defendant’s business.”
“GNR, quite reasonably, does not want to be associated with defendant, a firearms and weapons retailer,” wrote the band’s lawyers, hailing from the law firm Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. “Furthermore, 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.”
According to GNR’s lawsuit, Texas Guns and Roses claims to sell actual roses on its website, but the band says it’s all a ruse: “This is a contrivance to purportedly justify defendant’s wholesale appropriation of the ‘Guns N’ Roses.”
In addition to trademark infringement, the band accused Texas Guns and Roses of so-called trademark dilution — a form of legal wrongdoing where someone uses your trademark in such a way that can “tarnish” 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.
It’s not the first time Guns N’ 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 “Guns ‘N’ Rosé” 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 “Sweet Cheddar of Mine” as a trademark for cheese.