Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/33497167/52/Defendants%E2%80%9F-intentionally-engaged-in-unlawful-and-tortious-conduct
Timestamp: 2014-12-20 02:25:01
Document Index: 485102227

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art-1', 'art 3', 'art 2', 'art 1']

56. Defendants‟ intentionally engaged in unlawful and tortious conduct, for Carter Complaint Part 1 (061810)
Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See moreDownloadStandard viewFull view of .Add to collectionMark as finishedMarked as finished. UndoRemove from libraryLook up keyword or sectionLike thisShare on social networks2Activity×Share to your social networks.TweetEmbedTable Of Contents1. Plaintiff RICKY D. ROSS, born Ricky Donnell Ross also known as2. Defendant WILLIAM LEONARD ROBERTS II, also known as,4. Defendant DEF JAM RECORDINGS, INC. is a Delaware5. Defendant SHAWN CARTER, also known as hip hop music artist6. Defendant UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP (referred to herein as7. Defendant SLIP-N-SLIDE RECORDS is a rap music company or8. JANE or JOHN DOE Defendants are individuals, companies and/or10. This Court has original jurisdiction of the subject matter under 2811. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. Section12. Venue before this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) as13. The applicable statutes of limitations have not expired, and claims14. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants were not authorized by15. In 1995, Defendant Roberts was a college freshman at Albany State16. In 2006, and all times relevant hereto, Def Jam was controlled by17. In 2006, Defendant Roberts was signed to a major record deal by18. Roberts is now known as rapper and businessman RICK ROSS19. Plaintiff Ricky D. Ross, a/k/a “Rick Ross”, was the reputedly20. Plaintiff Ricky D. Ross, a/k/a “Rick Ross” continuously and openly21. Defendants wrongfully appropriated and exploited Plaintiff‟s name22. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Shawn Carter represented24. Def Jam and Universal‟s major commercial investment in25. Defendants Def Jam/UMG knew, or should‟ve known the name26. Defendants Def Jam Recordings and UMG knew, or should‟ve27. Defendants DEF JAM and UMG Recordings, Inc. intentionally28. Defendants branded Roberts Rick Ross anyway misusing Plaintiff‟s29. Defendants dominated the use of Plaintiff‟s name while he was in30. Plaintiff‟s attorney sent Def Jam and UMG his May 19, 201031. Plaintiff Ricky D. Ross a/k/a “RICK ROSS” incorporates by32. Plaintiff Ricky D. Ross a/k/a “Rick Ross” is the original and lawful33. Under US federal trademark law at 15 U.S.C. Section 1051 et seq.,34. A trade name is defined in common law and 15 U.S.C. 1127 as35. Plaintiff Ricky D. Ross a/k/a ”Rick Ross” is sole owner of his trade36. A personal name may be protected as a trademark if it acquires a37. Plaintiff established his RICK ROSS trademark and trade name by38. Plaintiff was reportedly known in Los Angeles law enforcement39. Use of a mark in interstate commerce, in a manner which is likely40. A trademark owner can prevent others from using his mark in41. At some time after 1995, when Defendant Roberts was a college42. Plaintiff‟s common law, federal trademark and “Rick Ross” trade43. Defendants William Leonard Roberts, II individually and45. Defendant Roberts and the named Defendants who signed46. Defendants have continued their unlawful actions and they must be47. Plaintiff Rick Ross didn‟t register his common law or federal48. Plaintiff establishes that he was known by his real name, Rick Ross,49. By filing a trademark application, Defendant Roberts had direct50. Plaintiff Ricky D. Ross a/k/a “RICK ROSS” incorporates by51. Trademarks, protected under 28 U.S.C. 1338(a), when duly used in52. Trademark protection arises under the federal Lanham Act, 1553. The distinctiveness of a trademark determines the level of54. Section 43A of the Lanham Act provides, in relevant part, that “any55. Section 43A of the Lanham Act does not require the registration nor56. Defendants‟ intentionally engaged in unlawful and tortious conduct,57. Defendants intentionally deceived the public, and they58. A likelihood of confusion existed concerning Roberts‟ uses of59. Defendants‟ use of Plaintiff‟s name created the substantial60. Defendants Def Jam, UMG and Slip-n-Slide Records knew or61. Plaintiff, by virtue of his criminal reputation, was considered a62. Personal name marks only acquire secondary meaning, and get63. Defendants carried out a large scale scheme of deceptive64. Under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) of the Lanham Act Plaintiff is entitled to65. Plaintiff has met his burden of proving that he has probable cause to66. Plaintiff Ricky D. Ross a/k/a “RICK ROSS” incorporates by67. Plaintiff established an unregistered trademark in his “RICK ROSS‟69. Defendant Roberts and the other Defendants diluted the Plaintiff‟s70. Plaintiff‟s name was diluted by Defendants based on the Federal71. Defendants falsely advertised Defendant Roberts as RICK ROSS72. Plaintiff Ricky D. Ross a/k/a “RICK ROSS” incorporates by73. Unfair competition arises under the federal Lanham Act‟s 1574. Under 28 U.S.C. 1338(b) federal statutes, unfair competition is75. Defendants Roberts and Carter, knowing who the real RICK ROSS76. Defendants‟ use of false and misleading advertising to brand the77. Defendants initiated wrongful violations of Plaintiff‟s rights, while78. Under “unfair competition” law, at 15 U.S.C. Section 1125,79. Defendants Carter, DEF JAM & UMG/Universal took Defendant Roberts‟80. By the sheer force of Defendant Carter, Def Jam & UMG81. Defendants acted intentionally and with willful disregard for82. Each Defendant on their own and in their own way engaged in acts83. As stated above, Defendants had written notice from the attorney84. The named Defendants and Doe Defendants‟ exploitation of85. Plaintiff Ricky D. Ross a/k/a “RICK ROSS” incorporates by86. The right of publicity is a state-created intellectual property right87. The elements of a right to publicity cause of action are, that88. Defendant Roberts individually, prior to 2006 with Defendant Slip-89. Defendant Roberts was signed to a major recording agreement by90. Defendants Def Jam and UMG, after signing Roberts to the big91. Defendants intentionally, and maliciously, violated Plaintiff‟s right92. Rights of publicity, under California common law, preclude the use93. Defendants violated Plaintiff‟s rights to publicity, and took0 of .Results for: No results containing your search query{{& result_text }}
P. 1Carter Complaint Part 1 (061810)Carter Complaint Part 1 (061810)Ratings: (0)|Views: 8
|Likes: 0Published by jose_duran4969More info:Published by: jose_duran4969 on Jun 24, 2010Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/33497167/Carter-Complaint-Part-1-06181002/04/2014pdftextoriginal Case 2:10-cv-04528-PA -RZ Document 1 Filed 06/18/10 Page 1 of 43
Carter Complaint Part 3
jose_duran4969
Carter Complaint Part 2
Carter Complaint Part 1 (061810)