Bit Parts

Recording Artist's Attorney Prevails in Lawsuit Brought Against Her by Client's Record Label

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied a record label's motion to alter or amend a judgment the court had issued in favor of an attorney for an artist signed to the record label. Big Ligas LLC v. Yu, 20-23719. Argentinian rapper Paulo Londra co-founded the Big Ligas record label with Daniel Echavarria and Christian Andres Salazar. According to court documents, in February 2018 Londra signed a deal memo that gave Big Ligas the "exclusive right to enter into recording agreements with third party record labels respecting [Paulo's] exclusive recording services" and "to authorize others to, sell, license, or otherwise exploit [Paulo's] Works." In December 2018, Big Ligas entered into a recording license contract with Warner Music Latina. After Londra's first album was a success, Big Ligas signed a contract with Warner for a second Londra album and began negotiating with Kobalt Music Publishing. Meanwhile, Londra hired attorney Helen Yu, who started discussions on his behalf with Warner Music and Kobalt. Big Ligas responded by filing a lawsuit against Yu for tortious interference with business or contractual relations, and false advertising and trademark infringement in violation of the federal Lanham Act. In April 2021, though, the district court granted Yu's motion to dismiss the complaint. Big Ligas filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, but Southern District of Florida Judge Robert N. Scola Jr. found: "[W]here an attorney takes actions to further their client's best interest regarding a contract in which the client holds 'any beneficial or economic interest,' a claim of tortious interference does not lie." District Judge Scola then noted about the false advertising claim: "Ms. Yu did not violate the Lanham Act and commit false advertising when she truthfully represented herself as a lawyer for her client and proceeded to negotiate with a third party, for the benefit of her client. To the extent that Big Ligas is concerned that this holding will empower attorneys and their clients to sell property that their clients do not own, the Plaintiff did not cite to any case where that fact pattern constituted a violation of the Lanham Act. There very well may be other causes of action for such conduct, but the Lanham Act is not a catch-all for every purported misrepresentation, particularly those made by a lawyer representing a client in a commercial negotiation." Finally, as to the trademark infringement claim, District Judge Scola explained: "Big Ligas alleged that Ms. Yu used the name 'Paulo Londra' to 'promote [Paulo Londra's] recording services' — such an allegation is unsurprising given that Londra was Ms. Yu's client, who hired Ms. Yu to act on his behalf and for his benefit." The district judge concluded: "In any event, the use of the mark 'Paulo Londra' here was protected under the fair-use doctrine. The fair-use doctrine provides a defense to infringement if the term is used '(1) other than as a mark, (2) in a descriptive sense, and (3) in good faith.'"