Lady Gaga Protects Her Trademark and Sues Knockoff Merchandisers

Lady Gaga started her 2010 “Monster Ball” tour with a pre-emptive trademark infringement lawsuit. In the past, non-licensed merchandise vendors were tolerated outside large concerts, so long as they didn’t interfere too much with legitimate merchandise sales. But lately, the music industry is taking greater measures to remain profitable. These cases, known as “John Doe” cases (because of the hundreds of “John Doe’s” named as defendants), are becoming more and more frequent.
Lady Gaga’s merchandise company is Bravado International, a division of Universal Music Group. The case was filed under trademark infringement, citing the Lanham Act, unfair competition, and right to publicity (Bravado International Group Merchandising Services Inc., v. John Does 1-100, 1:10-cv-04942-RJH, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York).

The Monster Ball tour is running from July 1 until sometime next April. Bravado International is asking the court to grant permission for law enforcement to confiscate any unauthorized merchandise at any show during the tour.

Playboy Sues Drake for Copyright Infringement

Hip hop artist Aubrey Drake Graham, aka “Drake” had a hit last year with the song “Best I Ever Had.” But, like many other commercially-successful songs these days, “Best I Ever Had” sampled a previous song. The original song, called “Fallin in Love,” is by 1970’s soft rockers Hamilton, Joe Frank & Reynolds. And interestingly, it’s Playboy Enterprises, Inc. that owns the copyright to “Fallin In Love.” Apparently Drake didn’t get permission to use the song, which for samplers isn’t always necessary. But Playboy just filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Drake.

The case is 2:2010-cv-04750

A major question is going to be whether the song is a copy for commercial gain, or an artistic interpretation with a different and new meaning.

Rick Ross Trademark Infringement Suit Against Def Jam and Jay-Z

Ricky Donnell Ross (or ‘Freeway’ Ricky Ross) was an L.A. drug kingpin who was arrested in 1996, and released from federal prison in May 2009. But most people know Rick Ross (sometimes Rick Ro$$) as a rapper from Miami who’s sold millions of records over the past five years or so. Both men have made fortunes, but ‘Freeway’ Ricky’s fortune was short lived – and now he wants it back. He is suing Rick Ro$$ for trademark infringement in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California (case no. 2:10-cv-04528).

Rapper Rick Ro$$’s real name is William Leonard Roberts II. He adopted his stage name after learning about Freeway Ricky’s drug empire in the eighties. According to some reports, Freeway Ricky was making as much as $3 million a day, selling cocaine in L.A. and across the country. He got his nickname after purchasing several properties along the Harbor Freeway. Freeway Ricky was arrested after he was turned in by his cocaine source, Danilo Blandon. Blandon, incidentally, was also the CIA’s contact to the contras in the Iran-Contra scandal. This connection is referenced in several contemporary rap lyrics.

Freeway Ricky is going after the whole Def Jam records group, not just William Roberts (Ro$$). The complaint names Sean Carter (Jay-Z) as former president of Def Jam, Maybach Music Group (Ro$$’s label), UMG Recordings, Inc., and Slip-n-Slide Records, among others. Adding to the spectacle, a reality TV production company, Sacred Cow Productions, Inc. (Deadliest Catch, Ice Road Truckers, etc…) announced a new 2010 show “A Year with Freeway Ricky Ross.” The show will chronicle Ricky’s attempts to regain some of his former fortune through legal means.

Freeway Ricky doesn’t actually have any registered trademarks on his name, but he claims that William Roberts’ moniker capitalized on his fame, and now he has a hard time distinguishing himself as the “real” Ricky Ross.

Foo Fighters Copyright Infringement In Australia

The Foo Fighters recently sued an Australian advertising company for Copyright Infringement for using a re-recorded version of “Learn To Fly” in one of their TV commercials. The lawsuit was filed in Australian federal court last week, and alleges that the RE/MAX company made commercials that "incorporate a musical composition... that reproduces a substantial part" of the Foo Fighters' hit.

Nicholas Thiele, regional director of RE/MAX, told TheAge.com.au, ''It's certainly not the position of this company to intentionally infringe on anyone's copyright. We've got very strong trademark and copyright issues regarding our own brand that we feel are very important.''

The band became aware of the commercials from a message posted on their internet fan bulletin board last week.

Dr. Dre's Trademark Cause of Action Gets Dismissed

When hip-hop label Death Row was acquired by WIDEawake in 2009, they promptly decided to re-issue some Death Row greats, most notably Dr. Dre’s 1992 album ‘The Chronic’ in the 'Re-Lit' album/DVD set. Dr. Dre was not part of the re-issue process, and quickly sued WIDEawake Entertainment Group, Inc.

In the United States District Court for the Central District of California (case no. 10cv01019), Dr. Dre sued for royalties owed, but also for trademark infringement, trademark dilution and false advertising, citing the Lanham Act, among other statutes.

But a federal judge threw out the trademark-related portions of the claim last week (with leave to amend). Judge Christina A. Snyder decided that since the original picture of Dr. Dre from the 1992 album was also used on the re-issue, no affiliation was implied. More specifically, the Order states the following:

"As to plaintiff’s allegation that defendants have used his name and likeness, including the original photograph from the jacket cover of “The Chronic,” the Court finds that these allegations fail to state a claim that defendants have over-represented plaintiff’s contribution to “Re-Lit,” given that defendants accurately identify plaintiff as the author of the original masters and that defendant used a substantially same photograph from the original album jacket cover, and did not use a current picture so to imply that plaintiff recently contributed to the re-issued album."

Dr. Dre will continue pursuing the claim for royalties owed.