Here’s a new one.
My name is my trademark. You infringed it, because I’m an ex-drug dealing rapper. You? You’re no criminal. You even went to college! By adopting my name as your rap persona, you deceive the public into believing that you’re a criminal when you’re not. That’s infringement!
From plaintiff Ricky D. Ross’ complaint: “Plaintiff’s common law, federal trademark and ‘Rick Ross’ trade name, was infringed upon and violated by Defendant William Leonard Roberts II, who trades as, did business as and performed as the ex-drug dealing rapper named Rick Ross, fraudulently with intent to knowingly deceive the public about his true non-drug correctional and law enforcement background, and Defendants joined the scheme by bankrolling him using Roberts’ false Rick Ross name and image in commerce, which was well known in criminal, drug and law enforcement circles that Defendant Roberts either knew of, worked in, or could have learned about while in college, in the rap music culture that emulates and idolizes urban criminals and dealers, in the Black community, or from his correctional officer employment in 1996, or any time thereafter when Plaintiff was in prison, but his name was in the news.”
The Central District of California granted defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Here’s the Ninth Circuit’s July 11 holding: “Ricky D. Ross appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice his federal trademark causes of action under the Lanham Act for failure to state a claim, and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ross’s various state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Ross’s trademark claims because Ross failed to state viable grounds for relief. Further, the district court properly decided the motion to dismiss without oral argument. Ross’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.”
Ross v. Roberts, No. 10-56874, 2012 WL 2832477 (9th Cir. July 11, 2012).