Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment in favor of hip-hop artist Rick Ross in a trademark lawsuit against him over the title of his Mastermind album and related tour. Caiz v. Roberts, 15-9044. Hip-hop artist Raul Caiz obtained a federal trademark registration in 2013 for “Mastermind” — a name he has been using for himself since 1999 — for audio and video recordings. In 2015, he sued Rick Ross, Def Jam Records and Universal Music Group over Ross's Mastermind album. Analyzing the defendants' First Amendment defense under Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989), which considers whether the defendants' use is “artistically relevant” to their work or explicitly misleads consumers as to source, Central District Senior District Judge Ronald S.W. Lew noted that “the bar is set low” for artistic relevance, which only need be minimal. In the case at hand, Senior Judge Lew observed: “Here, six of the nineteen songs on the album make direct use of 'mastermind' in the lyrics, and one song, 'Thug Cry,' even directly references the overall album itself by its title — linking the title to its contents.” As to whether the title of Ross's album explicitly misled, Senior Judge Lew explained, “[T]he concern that consumers will not be 'misled as to the source of [a] product' is generally allayed when the mark is used as only one component of a junior user's [i.e., Rick Ross's] larger expressive creation …” On this, the district court emphasized: “[Ross] is using 'Mastermind' as one album title out of six albums throughout his career — a career which he has established as a renowned artist under the moniker 'Rick Ross'.”
*****
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia decided that neither the trust nor the estate of Bob Ross, who hosted the PBS TV series The Joy of Painting, owns rights to “Bob Ross” intellectual property and right of publicity, based in part on Ross's course of conduct during his life. RSR Art LLC v. Bob Ross Inc. (BRI), 1:17-cv-1077. Ross, who lived in Florida, formed BRI with his wife and two friends. Prior to his death in 1995, BRI registered several “Bob Ross” trademarks. Also during his lifetime, BRI entered into licensing agreements for Ross products. In 1994, a BRI agreement was drafted to provide the company had the “sole and exclusive” rights to Ross's intellectual property and right of publicity, though he never signed the document. Around the same time, Ross created the Bob Ross Trust and in writing assigned these rights to himself. In 1997, the trust, Ross's estate and BRI entered into a written settlement agreement confirming BRI owned Ross trademarks and art works. But RSR Art, whose founders include Ross's son Robert Stephen Ross, later filed suit challenging BRI's rights. Granting summary judgment for BRI, however, District Judge Liam O'Grady noted: “The record demonstrates that Bob Ross gave BRI the right to his intellectual property and right of publicity during his lifetime. While there is no formal written agreement assigning those rights to BRI, there is ample evidence in the record supporting that the unsigned written agreement would have merely formalized Bob Ross's oral grant of the exclusive rights to his intellectual property and right of publicity to BRI.” District Judge Grady explained that Ross had “acted as though and consented to documents stating that BRI held exclusive rights to his name, image and likeness.” (Florida's right-of-publicity statute recognizes verbal transfers of the right of publicity by a living individual. See, Fla. Stat. §540.08(1).) The district judge thus decided that Ross didn't have the rights to transfer via his trust or following his death. In any case, the court ruled, the 1997 settlement agreement ended any claim to the IP and publicity rights by any party other than BRI.
*****
Stan Soocher is Editor-in-Chief of Entertainment Law & Finance and Professor of Music & Entertainment Studies at the University of Colorado's Denver Campus. He is also an entertainment attorney, as well as author of the books Baby You're a Rich Man: Suing the Beatles for Fun & Profit and They Fought the Law: Rock Music Goes to Court, the latter which is available in an updated, expanded edition in Amazon's Kindle Store. For more information: www.stansoocher.com.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.