trademark infringement

50 Cent Shuts Down Jeweler Asking Him To Reconsider Lawsuit

by

Earlier this week, it was reported that 50 Cent filed a lawsuit against Maksud Agadjani and his corporation, TraxNYC. He accuses the jeweler of using his face and name to sell merchandise without permission. Fif alleges that Agadjani’s social media posts are misleading to customers, who may believe that he’s affiliated with him in some way. “Mr. Jackson takes the unauthorized use of his name and likeness for commercial purposes seriously,” a rep for 50 Cent told TMZ Hip Hop yesterday (October 10).

News of the lawsuit arrived just a few days after Agadjani showed off a cross resembling 50 Cent’s on Instagram. “50, thank you for the inspiration,” he said. “You’re a true gentleman. I’m sure you won’t mind.” At the time, the artist took to Agadjani’s comments section to issue a warning.

Read More: 50 Cent Sues Jeweler For Alleged Trademark Infringement

50 Cent Sues Jeweler For Alleged Trademark Infringement

“This was a bad idea,” he wrote. “You will regret doing this I promise.” Agadjani fired back, asking 50 Cent, “Yo don’t you got better things to worry about?” Following the lawsuit reports, Agadjani appeared to have a change of heart and hopped on his Instagram Story to ask the mogul for forgiveness. “The cross is meant for forgiveness, redemption, forgiveness of sins,” he explained. “Forgive, forget. Let it go, brother.”

Unfortunately for him, however, it doesn’t look like 50 Cent went for it. He later shared a clip of Agadjani asking him to reconsider, making it clear that he doesn’t plan to. “Let me think about it,” he captioned the clip. “Nah you tried to play with me ! You know the vibes by Monday.” What do you think of 50 Cent suing a jeweler earlier this week for allegedly using his face and name to sell chains? What about him then shutting down the jeweler after he asked him to reconsider? Share your thoughts in the comments section down below and keep an eye on HNHH for more updates.

Read More: Every Rap & R&B Star That Appeared In The “Power” Universe

[Via]

The post 50 Cent Shuts Down Jeweler Asking Him To Reconsider Lawsuit appeared first on HotNewHipHop.

50 Cent Sues Jeweler For Alleged Trademark Infringement 

by

50 Cent is certainly no stranger to legal battles, and recently, he started one more. According to new documents obtained by TMZ Hip Hop, the mogul is suing Maksud Agadjani and his corporation, TraxNYC. He alleges that Agadjani has been using his name and face to sell jewelry. He accuses him of trademark infringement and violating his right to publicity.

Fif argues that Agadjani’s TikToks are misleading to customers, and allegedly suggest that he’s in some way affiliated with the jeweler. Earlier this month, for example, TraxNYC posted a photo of 50 Cent and Drake. “Yo @50 Cent, you should be a jeweler. Hit traxnyc.com or call 212 traxnyc,” the post was captioned.

Read More: Every Rap & R&B Star That Appeared In The “Power” Universe

50 Cent Calls Out Jeweler For Alleged Trademark Infringement And More

50 Cent Calls Out Jeweler For Alleged Trademark Infringement
Curtis “50 Cent” Jackson attends the NFTE 2024 Entrepreneurial Spirits Award Gala at Guastavino’s on May 01, 2024 in New York City. (Photo by Theo Wargo/Getty Images)

In August, the jeweler showed off a cross that resembles 50 Cent’s. “We just jocked your style, I know you watch my videos and now I’m watching your s**t and jocking your s**t just like you jocked my s**t,” he said. In the past, 50 Cent has warned Agadjani that he could get himself into trouble. Now, it looks like that day has finally come. “This was a bad idea, you will regret doing this I promise,” he previously commented on Instagram. “Yo don’t you got better things to worry about,” Agadjani replied at the time.

In a statement to TMZ Hip Hop, a rep for 50 Cent made it clear that the artist is not messing around. “Mr. Jackson takes the unauthorized use of his name and likeness for commercial purposes seriously,” they told the outlet. What do you think of 50 Cent filing a lawsuit against a jeweler for allegedly using his name and face to sell chains? Share your thoughts in the comments section down below and keep an eye on HNHH for more updates.

Read More: 50 Cent Reacts To Ray J’s Bizarre Diddy Rant

[Via]

The post 50 Cent Sues Jeweler For Alleged Trademark Infringement  appeared first on HotNewHipHop.

Drake Sued For Trademark Infringement Over Tour Merch: Details

by

Drake’s “It’s All A Blur” tour is one of the most successful hip-hop treks ever, but it apparently also resulted in some headaches for the team. Moreover, JR Apparel -– the company behind the Members Only brand -– sued his Away From Home Touring company in New York on Tuesday (June 11), according to court documents reportedly obtained by AllHipHop and initial reports from Billboard. The owners of Members Only accused the Texas resident of unlawfully using “Members Only,” which is also the title of one of his For All The Dogs tracks, in a way that could confuse consumers and in which Live Nation and Away From Home failed to obtain the proper licensing.

“Away From Home sold, offered for sale and/or advertised a T-shirt bearing JR Apparel’s Members Only mark on the front of the t-shirt at Drake’s ‘It’s All A Blur Tour’ (the ‘Infringing T-shirt’), including in this judicial district,” JR Apparel’s attorneys expressed, accusing the Toronto superstar of trademark infringement, unfair competition, and trademark dilution. This followed a letter the company reportedly sent Live Nation on April 1 about the alleged infringement. “Between April 3, 2024, and June 6, 2024, JR Apparel and Away From Home attempted to resolve their differences amicably. However, [this achieved] no resolution,” the suit reads.

Read More: Drake’s Companies: Why Does The Rapper Reportedly Have So Many LLCs & What Are They?

Drake’s Tour Merch Leads To Trademark Infringement Lawsuit

“The fact that ‘Members Only’ is a song on Drake’s album ‘For All the Dogs’ does not obviate the likelihood of confusion or give Live Nation and/or Drake license to use our client’s MEMBERS ONLY Marks in such a confusing manner, particularly on or in connection with apparel items,” it went on. “Away From Home’s damage and/or injury to JR Apparel is exacerbated by the fact that, upon information and belief, counterfeits, intentionally confusing imitations and/or materially different garments of the Infringing T-shirts are being sold, offered for sale and/or advertised on eBay.”

Furthermore, JR Apparel seeks damages for this alleged trademark infringement and other supposed issues. It specifically asked the court to ban the sale of more merch with “Members Only” on it on Drake’s behalf. This comes at an interesting time in which fans are making their own merch of his beef with Kendrick Lamar and others in the form of a casette tape. Perhaps this will inspire a new merchandising strategy, one that avoids further hiccups in the trademark realm.

Read More: Drake Shares Condolences After Sotto Sotto’s Legendary Momma Laura Passes Away

[via]

The post Drake Sued For Trademark Infringement Over Tour Merch: Details appeared first on HotNewHipHop.

Lil Yachty Settles Infringement Lawsuit With NFT Company

by

Lil Yachty has settled an infringement lawsuit against an NFT company. The company allegedly used NFTs bearing the 25-year-old’s name to rake in millions of dollars. Moreover, the case is one of the more high-profile incidents surrounding the legality of NFTs. Indeed, the revolutionary nature of NFTs has created a legal grey area. Subsequently, Several legal cases have popped up that seek to establish what is and isn’t allowed.

Rolling Stone first reported in January that Yachty had filed a lawsuit alleging trademark infringement. Moreover, the lawsuit was filed against an NFT seller called Opulous. The company is accused of using Yachty’s name and image to raise more than $6 million in venture capital funds. The company allegedly advertised the “Lil Yachty NFT Collection.” Buyers were allegedly told that the collection would include access to the rapper’s music. However, Yachty says he has never been affiliated with the company. Additionally, the “Poland” rapper says he never received any of the money the company raised.

Lil Yachty Says He Made No Money From NFT Bearing His Name

Lil Yachty performs during Wicked (Spelhouse Homecoming Concert) (Photo by Prince Williams/Wireimage)

Subsequently, Rolling Stone now reports that Yachty has settled with the company. The exact dollar figures have not been released. However, the two parties have been given 45 days to finalize the settlement in writing. Additionally, the two camps will also need to file a motion formally dismissing the case. Meanwhile, this is not the only lawsuit Yachty has been involved with. Indeed, the Atlanta native was implicated in an alleged NFT pump-and-dump scandal last February.

That suit alleges that Yachty used his fame to artificially boost the value of the currency. Additionally, other famous names like Soulja Boy and Jake Paul were also implicated. Elsewhere, Yachty has been doing well musically. He released a new single, “Strike (Holster)” last week. Additionally, the rapper recently went live from New York on Saturday night. Yachty made his long-anticipated SNL debut in early April, During the performance, the rapper performed his hits “Black Seminole,” and “Drive Me Crazy!” Yachty will likely be eager to put the courtroom drama behind him so he can focus on upcoming work.

[Via]

Eminem Files Trademark Opposition Against Two “Real Housewives” Over “Relatively Shady” Podcast Name

by

Eminem filed a trademark opposition against two Real Housewives of Potomac stars for their “Relatively Shady” podcast trademark. Before going on, reports suggest they filed trademark for “Relatively Shady,” but their podcast is found online as “Reasonably Shady.” With that being said, the Detroit rapper already has a similar trademark in “Slim Shady” and filed a motion to block the Housewives‘s trademark. Moreover, Robyn Dixon and Gizelle Bryant host the Reasonably Shady relationship advice podcast, and filed for trademark of that name in February of 2022.

Furthermore, trademark infringement cases typically rest on the likelihood that a consumer would confuse two brands. For example, a small restaurant can’t file a trademark for their “McDonald’s Hot Dogs” because consumers will likely confuse them for the fast-food giant. Within his opposition request, Marshall Mathers states that consumers would be confused by the “Reasonably Shady” name. However, another important aspect in these cases is the similarities between each trademarked product. After all, who would believe that Slim Shady is starting a relationship advice podcast with two Real Housewives of Potomac?

Eminem’s Trademark Case Against The Real Housewives

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA – NOVEMBER 05: Eminem performs onstage during the 37th Annual Rock & Roll Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony at Microsoft Theater on November 05, 2022 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Amy Sussman/WireImage)

Still, multiple other trademarks exist with the term “Shady” in them. Moreover, trademarks like “Super Shady,” “Stay Shady,” and “Shady Baby” exist in active registration databases. Even with that in mind, trademark confusion isn’t all that the “Lose Yourself” MC hinges on. Also in his request is the claim that the new trademark could dilute Eminem’s existing “Slim Shady.” In this instance, the rapper believes that Dixon and Bryant’s registration hinders the “distinctive quality” of his “Slim Shady” trademark. In addition, the opposition request claimed that “Reasonably Shady” will inevitably remind people of Marshall’s artistry and brand.

Meanwhile, the Reasonably Shady podcast already has over 43,000 followers on Instagram, and the Real Housewives are clearly finding success. Furthermore, they must answer to Eminem’s opposition request by March 26 of this year. If they don’t, their request to trademark their “shady” podcast name may fall on deaf ears. However, if they fight back, it will be up to each party to make their case to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Regardless of what happens, stick around on HNHH for the latest updates on Eminem and this new trademark dispute.

[via]

Future Settles Lawsuit Over “High Off Life” Album Title

by

2022 turned out to be yet another wildly successful year for Future. Although he’s more than a decade into his career as a rapper, he continues to dominate the charts and be one of the most popular emcees in the game.

His latest album, last year’s I NEVER LIKED YOU, is no exception. It officially went gold only a few weeks after its release. However, he was also dealing with some legal troubles behind the scenes.

Future performs during day 1 of Wireless Festival 2021 at Crystal Palace on September 10, 2021 in London, England. (Photo by Burak Cingi/Redferns)

Over the course of the past year, the Atlanta native has been in litigation for a trademark lawsuit. High Off Life, LLC claims that the 39-year-old stole their company’s name for his 2020 album. The hip-hop production company was founded in 2004, 16 years prior to the release. High Off Life contains the smash hit, “Life Is Good” and the Travis Scott featuring “Solitaires.”

The “PUFFIN ON ZOOTIEZ” rapper and his legal team originally requested that the judge dismiss the case. They say it infringes on his First Amendment rights. However, the trial evidently went through anyways.

The lawsuit has now been settled, as reports from Bloomberg Law indicate that the production company and the Atlanta native have “reached a mutually agreeable resolution.”

They will not be disclosing the exact terms of the settlement. However, a court filing says that both parties will pay their own respective attorney’s fees.

Of course, High Off Life wasn’t the only album that Future released in 2020. He followed it up with Pluto x Baby Pluto, a full-length joint album with Lil Uzi Vert. Backed by the highly successful “Drankin N Smokin,” the project showcases the duo’s chemistry.

What are your thoughts on the settlement? Comment down below. Finally, be sure to stay tuned to HNHH for all of the latest updates in music and pop culture.

[via] [via]