Celebs
What’s in a Name? Famous Celebrity Trademarks
Several celebs have tried to trademark their name or, in Beyonce and Jay-Z’s situation, in addition to their own names, that of their children. What is a trademark and why do celebs want them? A trademark, that little ™ we see next to a word, phrase, symbol, or design, helps us identify and distinguish brands or services from others. Whoever has that trademark registered is the person/company/brand who can use that word, symbol, phrase, etc and can legally prevent others from doing so. Why do celebs (or anyone for that matter) seek a trademark? Bottom line? It’s very valuable from a brand perspective. Beyonce and Jay Z haven’t garnered a combined net worth of approximately 875 million by being lazy with their business decisions– they are careful and protective with their brand(s). So, they are making a second attempt at trademarking daughter Blue Ivy’s name.
Back in 2012, when their daughter was born, the celeb parents filed a trademark request for “Blue Ivy.” They were thwarted when Veronica Alexandra of Boston’s Blue Ivy Events filed her own trademark request, claiming her business had been using the name since 2009 — three years before Blue Ivy became the apple of her parents’ eye. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) sided with Alexandra, allowing her to continue using the name in the event and wedding planning space.
In January 2016, the Carters tried again, this time filing a trademark based on their daughter’s full name — “Blue Ivy Carter.” Blue Ivy Events is once again trying to block that. In a recent filing, the company stated that the Carters have no intention of using the name to market products but rather want to stop others from doing so. (One of the legal requirements for filing a trademark is that you have to prove that you are using, or intending to use, the trademarked name or phrase. You can’t get a trademark simply to prevent others from using the “mark.”)
Don’t feel too bad for the Carters. They own tons of trademarks. Beyonce has registrations on “Beyonce” “Sasha Fierce” “Yonce” and “Beyhive, among others. Hubby owns Jay Z and Shawn Carter, and like his wife, many, many others as well.
Kylie Jenner is another celeb who attempted to trademark a name and failed. The youngest Kardashian-Jenner sibling attempted to trademark the name “Kylie” but Grammy winning songstress Kylie Minogue wasn’t having it. Minogue claimed in a legal filing that if Jenner owned the trademark it would confuse audiences and dilute Minogue’s brand. Remember, trademarks are all about brand protection and Minogue fought hard to protect hers even referring to Jenner as a “secondary reality television personality.” We at PROOF know that many of our readers may not have even heard of Kylie Minogue and consider Kylie Jenner the bigger of the two celebs but Minogue has been nominated for several Grammys and, as stated above, won one when Jenner was barely six years old! Minogue is respected talent and has been in the entertainment industry for many years. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office was correct when they sided with Minogue and rejected Jenner’s bid; and, despite the fact that Jenner has filed an appeal on the matter, at PROOF we do not think the USPTO is going to reverse that decision.
Jersey Shore alum, Nicole Polizzi aka Snooki, tried to trademark her name and was also shot down by the USPTO. Apparently there’s a character, actually it’s a cat, in children’s books, named Snooky, who beat the Jersey Girl to the name and owns the Snooky (spelling not relevant here) trademark. Not sure where the brand confusion would come from but it does show how “by the book” the USPTO is with the issuance of trademarks.
Though regular folks cannot generally trademark a name, as noted above with Jay Z and Beyonce, several celebs have been successful in doing so. Singer Curtis Jackson, aka 50 Cent, is a great example. He trademarked his stage name early in his career, and it turned out to be a smart move. In fact, he had to invoke the power of that trademark when in 2008, Taco Bell sent an “open letter” over PR wires asking Jackson to change his stage name to 79, 89 or 99 Cent (the prices of some of their menu items) in exchange for a $10,000 donation to the charity of his choice. Charity offer or not, Jackson did not appreciate the use of his name in what he claimed amounted to implied advertising. Jackson’s lawyer has this to say about the matter, “He gets substantial sums of money when he chooses to endorse something, and he controls it pretty closely.” Apparently Taco Bell wasn’t a brand Fifty wanted to be associated with (at least without prior approval). Jackson ultimately settled with Taco Bell’s parent company Yum Brands for an undisclosed amount.
Looking up who owns a mark is super easy and kinda fun. Just go to the USPTO website, click on the “Trademark” tab and then go to the Trademark electronic Search System (TESS) and put in whatever name you might be interested in learning about. Try Beyonce or Jay Z–they’re right there! And you thought trademarks were boring stuff?! We don’t know about you but we could talk about celebs and trademarks all day long!
Kanye, Gaga, Beiber: Who is Financially Responsible When an Artist Cancels a Tour?
When a music artist cancels a tour for medical reasons, as Lady Gaga had to do in 2013 after suffering a labral tear on her hip, the tour is usually insured and the artist would not be responsible for the losses incurred for the cancellation. It makes sense in cases such as hers — Gaga’s shows feature heavy dancing, the experience wouldn’t be nearly as good if she sang while lying in traction, right? (Actually, note to Gaga, you can use that idea, I don’t think it has been done yet.) Touring insurance protects everyone, including the artist, from suffering huge financial losses when the reason for the cancellation is beyond the artist’s control.
But what about when an artist cancels a tour just… because? Justin Bieber recently announced that he would be canceling the remaining 14 dates of his Purpose tour, with one source saying the Biebs was just “over it.” In that case, an artist may face penalties due to the massive financial losses incurred from ticket refunds, plus all costs for promotion, marketing and advertising.
Kanye West is currently in the middle of a lawsuit that, to some, might seem to straddle these situations. Back in November, 2016, West canceled the final 21 dates of his Saint Pablo tour in 2016 and the cost of ticket refunds alone were upwards of $24 million. Two days after he canceled the tour, he checked himself into a psychiatric facility after suffering a breakdown which his own doctor called “a debilitating medical condition” that prohibited him from performing, yet West’s insurer, Lloyd’s of London, has not paid any claims out to West’s company, Very Good Touring, Inc. West is suing Lloyd’s for breach of contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing for upwards of $10 million.
West’s suit accuses Lloyd’s of London of not providing “anything approaching a coherent explanation about why they have not paid, or any indication if they will ever pay or even make a coverage decision, implying that Kanye’s use of marijuana may provide them with a basis to deny the claim and retain the hundreds of thousands of dollars in insurance premiums.” West also claims in his suit that Lloyd’s sought an independent physician to examine West to verify the claims of his mental health, and despite the fact that their doctor agreed with West’s primary physician, they continued to deny the claims. The suit essentially alleges that Lloyd’s continues to find provisions that will allow them to stall or deny payment.
As we all know, West is known for his controversial behavior onstage (and, sometimes, off) and in fact, just days before he cancelled his tour, he had been making erratic statements to the press and performing abbreviated shows, all of which ultimately led him to seek help. Who determines the cause of his behavior and whether or not he should have continued performing his tour are two issues this case is sure to address. For an update on the case, click here. One thing for sure is that we are glad Ye is better.
Under the Gun: Appeals Court Sides with Katie Couric
The documentary film, Under the Gun, narrated and executively produced by Katie Couric premiered at Sundance in 2016 and is still being talked about 2 years later. The film tackled the the issue of gun control so naturally, not everyone was happy with the movie. The seemingly most unhappy were The Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), a gun rights group (along with two of its members) who sued the filmmakers for defamation claiming $13 million in damages.
Sit in Silence for Nine Seconds
The lawsuit stems from a twelve second clip out of three minute interview in which Couric asks members of the VCDL the following question: “If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?” Rather than playing the members’ responses to the question, in the final film version nine seconds of silence followed (note to readers: nine seconds may not seem like a long time but may we suggest right now you stop reading and sit in quiet for nine straight seconds? We think you may feel differently.) During those nine seconds of silence, the VCDL members shift uncomfortably in their seats and avert their eyes. VCDL argued that those nine seconds of silence made it seem as they were ignorant about firearm ownership and policies surrounding background checks.
Couric’s Admission
VCDL contended that the film damaged the reputations of the group as well as some of its members. And, the truth is, the interview did not go the way it was portrayed in the film. In the unedited footage VCDL members respond to the question promptly and speak for six minutes. The silence footage was actually b-roll (a film term used to describe supplemental or alternative footage intercut with the main shot) footage which occurred prior to the interview during which Couric asked the members to sit quietly while sound guys worked on the recording equipment. Feels kinda bad, even if you don’t agree with VCDL’s position about gun control, right? Well, it seems as if it felt kinda bad to Couric too who issued a statement admitting that the edited version of the film did not “accurately represent [the VCDL members’] response” and the segment was “misleading”
Still, it’s a no, VCDL
Despite the not-so-kosher editing practices and Couric’s statement, the trial court dismissed the case saying that the film was neither false nor defamatory. Naturally, VCDL appealed.
VCDL did not fare any better on appeal. The appeals court agreed that the filmmakers’ editing choices were questionable but on December 13, 2018 decided that the edited footage did not rise to the level of defamation under applicable state law. Thus, the lower court decision stands.
Case Dismissed.
On Friday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirms a decision rejecting the lawsuit.
“To be sure, the film gives the impression that Couric’s final question stumped the panelists,” writes circuit judge Diana Gribbon Motz. “But at worst, the plain, ordinary meaning of this edit conveys that these particular members of the VCDL, after answering a series of related questions, did not have a ready-made answer to a nuanced policy question. Even with the benefit of every inference, the edited footage is not reasonably capable of suggesting that the VCDL and its members are, as they contend on appeal, ‘ignorant and incompetent on the subject to which they have dedicated their organizational mission.’”
The appeals court also dispenses with the claim that the film was defamatory per se to Daniel Hawes, an attorney and member of the VCDL.
He argued that the edited footage was reasonably capable of being understood as suggesting a lack of competency in his profession, including oral advocacy skills.
Motz responds that “the questions posed to Hawes had nothing to do with his legal practice or expertise” and to find otherwise would “extend mere silence into professional ineptitude.”
The appeals court also doesn’t think much of the claim from Patricia Webb that the film suggested she was unfit to own a gun store.
Motz writes that “no part of Webb’s job as a gun store owner requires her to have nuanced views on gun policy. Had the film suggested that Webb did not know, for instance, whether a gun store owner must perform a background check, this might be a different case. But as the district court explained, ‘[n]ot having an answer to a specific question about effective alternatives to background checks does not imply anything about fitness to own a gun store and to sell guns.'”
Finally, the Fourth Circuit rejects the contention there is any defamatory implication that VCDL is unfit as a pro-Second Amendment advocacy organization.
The opinion (read here) states, “At most, the film suggests that a handful of VCDL members, none of whom are identified as leaders within the organization, could not immediately answer a difficult gun policy question.”
An Insider View of Eastwood’s New Film, The Mule. Jill Chats with one of the Drug Courier’s Real Life Lawyers
Today I had the chance to chat with a favorite lawyer friend of mine—Ray Richards. He’s one of Detroit’s best and if you find yourself in trouble in the Motor City there’s no one better to help get you out of it. And though I could talk to Ray all day long about the kinds of matters he works on, today we’re talking about one of his most interesting cases, a case so interesting that on December 12 a film starring Clint Eastwood is being released about it. It’s called The Mule and follows the arrest of Earl Stone (real name Leo Sharp), an octogenarian drug courier. Here’s an excerpt from my interview with Ray. Nothing like an insider view!
Jill: What’s The Mule about, Ray?
Ray: The Mule, as one might imagine is about a drug courier. Mule is street jargon for someone who transports drugs for distribution across county, state, and often country lines.
Jill: What’s so special about this mule that Hollywood would make a movie about him?
Ray: Oh, definitely his age. Leo Sharp—the subject of this film—was the oldest criminal defendant to be charged and convicted of a major drug crime in the history of the US. I represented him in the initial stages post arrest.
Jill: That’s quite a client to sign up. How’d you get him?
Ray: I’m a member of the Criminal Justice Act panel for the Eastern District of Michigan. It’s a panel made up of very experienced, skilled lawyers tasked to represent indigent defendants who are charged and/or indicted with major crimes under the federal criminal statutes. Essentially Leo was assigned to me to represent.
Jill: So he wasn’t paying you? I was wondering how he could afford you! So many drug dealers have their assets frozen and it prevents them from hiring the best of the best.
Ray: I’m not that expensive, Jill. And you know me, if it’s a case I believe in, I figure something out. The right to competent, zealous representation is something I don’t believe anyone should have to compromise on. But, you’re right that’s a problem with out system, assets are frozen before a defendant is proven guilty. It’s a pretty troubling scenario because it prevents access for some defendants.
Jill: Tell us about Leo. I’ve seen the trailer for The Mule and I have to say, he doesn’t come across as that sympathetic of a guy.
Ray: Well, he was no teddy bear that’s for sure. He was certainly outspoken, colorful strong-minded and very strong willed but he was also kind. I’d describe him as epitome of the old school “man’s man.”
Jill: Seems they certainly got the casting right it . . .
Ray: Oh yes, can’t picture anyone but Clint Eastwood playing this role. But in my dealings with Leo he had levity to him that he brought to a pretty tough situation. We had the opportunity to have some deep professional and personal discussions.
Jill: Can you share some details about the case, without violating the attorney client privilege of course?
Ray: Even you Jill, aren’t going to get me to violate the privilege but what I can tell you is that Leo faced very serious federal charges. He was initially charged with one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine as well as a forfeiture allegation. Conspiracy to distribute cocaine in the federal system carries a mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison upon plea or conviction. His sentencing guidelines even with him not having a criminal record, was calculated on the minimum side at 14 to 18 years. He was 89 years old at the time of his arrest so that’s a life sentence. But Leo wasn’t the only one implicated here. The indictment listed ten plus defendants from all over the United States and Mexico. It is rumored that the Detroit prosecution of Leo has a connection with the current Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman trial, currently underway in Brooklyn, NY.
Jill: All those people, definite hint that some type of conspiracy is afoot. What was Leo alleged to have really done? Not the Hollywood version, please. The real version.
Ray: Per the government, Leo was considered to be a courier of cocaine and cash for somewhere between 5 to 10 years, from Arizona to various Midwest cities.
Jill: That’s quite a late in life career.
Ray: Allegedly the amount of cocaine he couriered across the United States was thought to have been close to a ton. And I don’t mean a ton like a lot, I mean actually one ton. In some circles, Leo was revered, a near legend, if you will. His colleagues called him “Tata” which means grandfather in Spanish. It connotes a sign of respect.
Jill: My understanding is that his drug arrest stemmed from a routine traffic stop—that’s not uncommon in criminal matters.
Ray: Not uncommon at all. As in many cases, Leo being pulled over was the ruse that allowed the government to bring him in for more serious charges. In reality, Leo was being followed closely on that run through multiple states, by multiple local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies.
Jill: Do you know what he was pulled over for?
Ray: Can’t recall exactly but when he was pulled over 104 kilos of cocaine was found in the bed of his Lincoln pickup truck. He was arrested on the scene and then detained for about a day and a half before his detention hearing in the Federal District Court-Eastern District of Michigan.
Jill: So we have an 89 year old alleged drug dealer sitting in jail facing serious charges with the penalty potentially being life in prison?
Ray: Yes, but I was able to secure a $100,000.00 unsecured bond on his behalf. This meant that he was released without having to post any money.
Jill: Did he have any money?
Ray: No assets were frozen initially. However as a part of the forfeiture case against him he voluntarily forfeited his Florida property and was allowed to keep his property in Michigan City, Indiana which is not far from Chicago. Also he agreed and was ordered to pay $500,000.00 to the government as well.
Jill: How strong was the government’s case against Leo?
Ray: It was relatively strong. With the stop being carefully orchestrated by law enforcement and the other evidence and testimony against him, it was a formidable case. In my opinion Leo’s co conspirators exploited him initially and later into the conspiracy he and his family were threatened by them, per Leo. Like many people, Leo had fallen upon some extreme hard times and had made some bad choices, caved into an illegal, dangerous yet lucrative opportunity he thought that he could just walk away from. Clearly, that wasn’t the case.
Jill: We don’t generally see senior citizens delve into a life of a crime. Did he understand what he had gotten himself into?
Ray: It was it was a bit of a challenge trying to explain to an 89 year‑old former World War II, highly decorated veteran with no criminal record as to why the federal government was seeking to lock him up for up to 20 years, even with his stellar background of being a exemplary citizen. Also Leo had no idea he had been a courier for a well known Mexican drug cartel. He was honestly shocked when he learned that.
Jill: Sounding like the consummate criminal defense attorney, Ray. Did Leo really think he was delivering pecans as he told the cops when he was stopped?
Ray: The pecan “excuse” was a bit of Hollywood at work. At his plea and sentencing he took full responsibility for his actions and for what he was hauling. He represented at sentencing that unknown individuals had threatened him and his family saying that if he did not continue to transport cocaine and cash there would be serious consequences. He did not know of the cartel association until his arrest and detention hearing. In fact, throughout the initial stages of the case he was very concerned about the situation. But he remained true to himself, defiant at times even. He insisted that no matter what he was going to take responsibility for his own actions.
Jill: Couldn’t he have easily gotten a deal in exchange for information about the cartel. What good is an octogenarian drug dealer in prison? The government could have elicited insider information from Leo that would helped bring down the cartel. Isn’t’ that the bigger concern here?
Ray: That’s exactly what Leo refused to do. He even said to me he wasn’t going to live to 90 just to be a rat. He was a man of his word. He didn’t cooperate with the government directly or indirectly whatsoever during my representation.
Jill: Did he plea? What was his sentence?
Ray: Yes, Leo took a plea. A trial would have been catastrophic in my opinion. Leo was ultimately sentenced to 3 years (36 months) with the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Because of his age, failing health and dementia, he was ordered to serve his sentence at the Federal Medical Facility in Rochester, Minnesota. He resided there for about a little over a year before he was allowed to go home for the balance of his sentence. The Federal Medical Facility is a hospital type facility. It’s not a typical prison type environment. There’s confinement, yes, but he had access to 24 hour medical care and the rules are much more relaxed than in a traditional prison. Leo passed away in 2015. He was 92.
Jill: What was your involvement with the film?
Ray: I spoke with representatives from the production company, gave them some background and shared my experience with Leo. I was really hoping that Laurence Fishburne would be portraying my role but that didn’t quite come to pass!
Jill: Certainly as you mentioned this biggest issue with Leo is his age. Do we really need to be prosecuting elderly non violent defendants with the same intensity that we do younger defendants?
Ray: Sadly, I would say it has been trending for some time now and that has gone unrecognized by the criminal justice community. Elderly defendants in a similar situations as Leo, in my opinion, are more common than one would think. In fact, you are more likely to see someone age 50 plus couriering drugs because they go undetected or there’s reduced suspicion/profiling by law enforcement. It makes it a safer play for dealers. I am handling a drug conspiracy case right now in which an elderly man was being physically threatened, harassed, and exploited by his much younger co-defendants who literally took over his house to use it as a “trap house” and drug distribution center. It’s terrible.
Jill: That does sound terrible and a tad more sympathetic than Leo’s situation. Good luck with it. Keep fighting the good fight, my friend.
Ray: Every day, counselor.
More Tekashi 6ix9ine Legal News, Music Video Shooting, and East-West Feud Redux?
Lately the name Tekashi 6ix9ine has become synonymous with run-ins with the law and near misses of violence. This time the young rapper’s bad luck has affected big, money making names.
Kanye, 50Cent and Nicki Minaj
On Thursday, November 8th, 2018 a gunman fired multiple shots at a $500,000 video shoot where Kanye West and Tekashi 6ix9ine were filming. Shots were fired at around 10:25 pm and though thankfully no one was injured, 8 shots were fired and one even went through the window of the $80 million Beverly Hills home that the artist had rented for the shoot. 50 Cent, who was also to be part of the project, uploaded photos of a bullet hole in one of the windows of the mansion. Nicki Minaj was scheduled to be at the shoot but hadn’t yet arrived at the time of the shooting. Kanye tweeted on the morning of Friday November 9th that he was safe and with family (then of course the tragic SoCal fires began to rage and he and the rest of his famous family were forced to evacuate). Note that to date the video shoot has not resumed nor has it been rescheduled. Not a big surprise given the very real danger involved here.
You’ll recall that previously PROOF did a major breakdown of Tekashi 6ix 9ine’s legal woes, so it shouldn’t be a shock that while the young rapper has been experiencing some serious success, he has also been plagued with legal problems as well.
Arrest in NY pistol whip and robbery matter
In July 2018, the rapper was kidnapped, pistol-whipped and robbed of jewelry. He claimed two men got out, forced him into their car, and made him call another man to bring him some personal property from his Brooklyn home, which he did. The rapper said the men took an undisclosed amount of jewelry and left. He “became uncooperative” after filing the report, police reps said, and was then admitted into the hospital. A suspect was just arrested (November 2018) and it turns out that he was a “disgruntled employee.” The accused was allegedly part of Tekashi’s crew but felt he wasn’t being compensated sufficiently for his work. Other suspects involved in this incident remain at large.
Probation for Child Sexual Performance Case
The week before the music video shooting the 22-year-old rapper was sentenced to four years of probation in a Manhattan court and narrowly missed out on prison time for violating the terms of a plea agreement stemming from his 2015 arrest for the disturbing charge of use of a child in a sexual performance. The Manhattan D.A. had wanted the rapper to spend one to three years in prison and have him register as a sex offender, but thanks to a particularly generous plea deal the rapper was on the track to probation. Despite the fact that he got arrested twice in 2018–once for driving with an expired license and assaulting an officer in Brooklyn, and once for allegedly attacking a 16-year-old fan in Texas, the court kept to the terms of the deal: Tekashi got probation.
Tekashi 6ix9ine pleads guilty
And, on November 14, 2018, Tekashi was back in a NYC courtroom facing the expired license and police officer assault charges. As part of a plea deal, the rapper pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct and the other charges were dropped (don’t get too excited, the assault allegedly entailed Tekashi squeezing the police officer’s hand, so not too violent, really). So, no jail time again for the rapper but as part of the deal, he has to stay out of legal trouble for a year. If he fails to do so, then he could be tossed behind bars. If history shows us anything as it relates to Tekashi 6ix9ine that staying out of trouble requirement may prove to be problematic. We hope not because if he does violate this condition, we fear his his luck may in fact have run out and jail time could become a real possibility.
Tupac and Biggie Redux?
The entire situation is reminiscent of the days in the ‘90s when rappers like Tupac Shakur and Biggie Smalls were in the middle of their big East v. West feud. Unfortunately for both parties involved, the feud proved fatal with both men dying in drive-by shootings. So, because we hate violence and there is so much “bad stuff” going on in the world, we truly hope this young rapper can help put this feud to rest and stay on the straight and narrow as he has vowed to do.