Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Bit Parts
Rick Ross Defeats Trademark Suit over Mastermind Album
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'.”
*****
TV Host's Course of Conduct During Life Bars Estate From Getting His IP and Publicity Rights
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.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
A Lawyer's System for Active Reading
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.