This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Intellectual Property
Trademark Infringement
Lanham Act

Raul Caiz v. William Leonard Roberts II aka Mastermind aka Rick Ross, Universal Music Group Inc., Def Jam Records Inc., Maybach Music Group Inc.

Published: Jul. 12, 2019 | Result Date: Apr. 17, 2019 | Filing Date: Nov. 20, 2015 |

Case number: 2:15-cv-09044-RSWL-AGRx Summary Judgment –  Defense

Judge

Ronald S.W. Lew

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Heleni E. Suydam
(Sands & Associates PLC)

Kris Demirjian
(Sands & Associates PLC)

Sevag Demirjian
(Demirjian Law Offices APLC)


Defendant

Craig E. Holden
(Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith LLP)

Joshua S. Hodas
(Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith LLP)


Facts

Plaintiff Raul Caiz filed suit against William Roberts aka Mastermind aka Rick Ross in relation to the trademark term "Mastermind".

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff alleged defendant infringed on plaintiff's registered trademark, Mastermind. Plaintiff contended that he applied for registration of the mark Mastermind with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Additionally, plaintiff alleged that he has used the name Mastermind in the music industry since 1999 and defendants have willfully infringed on plaintiff's registered trademark rights by releasing an album entitled Mastermind, titling Roberts' tour Mastermind and by Roberts taking on the persona of Mastermind.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant asserted a first amendment defense and contended non-infringement.

Result

The court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant. The court found for defense, who applied the First Amendment Rogers defense, determining that plaintiff failed to offer any evidence demonstrating that defendant's use of the mark had no artistic relevance to the underlying work, and consequently, failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact.

Other Information

Plaintiff has appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.


#131998

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390