The Moscow Murders and More

Charles Kenyatta And His Lawsuit Filed Against Diddy (1/2/24)

In January 2024, Sean "Diddy" Combs faced a $10 million lawsuit filed by Charles Kenyatta Jr., also known as Charlie Cee, an inmate at New York's Collins Correctional Facility. Kenyatta accused Diddy of trademark infringement and breach of contract, alleging unauthorized use of the phrase "Act Bad," which Kenyatta claimed to have trademarked. He asserted that Diddy released a single titled "Act Bad" in 2023 and sold related merchandise without his consent. Kenyatta further claimed that his attorney's attempts to address the issue with Diddy's legal team were ignored, leading to the lawsuit seeking substantial damages.

Kenyatta contended that, due to his incarceration, he was unable to sign any agreements and expected contracts to be managed through his Power of Attorney. He alleged that Diddy, along with an unidentified associate referred to as John Doe, conspired to exclude him from potential profits associated with the "Act Bad" brand. Kenyatta also expressed concern that Diddy's involvement in various controversies, including sexual assault allegations, had tarnished the "Act Bad" trademark. Representing himself in the lawsuit, Kenyatta sought $10 million in damages for the alleged unauthorized use and the subsequent impact on his brand.

(commercial at 9:42)

to contact me:

bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.628369.1.0.pdf

Duration:: 15m
Broadcast on:: 02 Jan 2025
Audio Format:: other

Welcome to where the five to nine more than makes up for the nine to five. Where you check your worries the moment you walk in. Where every day feels lucky, even at night, welcome to the chance to savor every moment every time you're here. For 50 years in counting, we've delivered legendary void hospitality. So join us for our 50th anniversary with special celebrations all year long. Welcome to Void Casino's. Welcome to where you want to be. What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the Diddy Diaries. In this episode, we're going to take a look at a lawsuit filed against Diddy by a man named Charles Kenyatta Jr. So let's just dive right in and see what Mr. Kenyatta Jr. has to say. Case number 1-24-CV-06923-UA. Charles Kenyatta Jr. plaintiff. For Sean Combs, Bad Boy Entertainment, defendants. The complaint. Charles, Charles Kenyatta Jr., appearing pro se, files this complaint against defendant Sean Combs, and Bad Boy Entertainment, and alleges as follows. The parties. One, plaintiff Charles Kenyatta Jr. is the sole owner of ACT Bad Entertainment LLC, and its associated trademarks, ACT Bad Entertainment, and ACT Bad, currently, incarcerated at Collins Correctional Facility. Defendant Sean Combs is an individual and owner of Bad Boy Entertainment with an address here who entered into the disputed contract, jurisdiction and venue. This court has jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to US Code 28, Section 1331, and US Code 15, Section 1121, as this action involves claims under the Lanham Act, including trademark infringement, unfair competition, and breach a contract under state and federal law. Then you is proper in this district under US Code 28, Section 1391, because the substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this district, and the defendants conduct business in this district. Statement of Facts. plaintiff Charles Kenyatta Jr. is the registered owner of two trademarks, with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, ACT Bad Entertainment, and ACT Bad. These trademarks are essential to plaintiffs' business operations, and form the core of plaintiffs' brand, identity, marketing, and commercial activities. Entertainment are about June 1, 2023, defendant Sean Combs, through his entertainment lawyer Pamela Gurley, presented a contract to plaintiffs' entertainment lawyer Andrew Covington, for a plaintiff's signature regarding the use of plaintiffs' ACT Bad Entertainment trademark for merchandise and music projects. plaintiff Charles Kenyatta Jr. was incarcerated at the time and did not sign the contract, nor did his power of attorney. Despite the lack of consent or signature, defendants moved forward, as though the contract was validly executed, engaging in the sale of merchandise and public performance of the song ACT Bad. plaintiffs' lawyer raised concerns regarding several terms, including the absence of an upfront payment, the inclusion of provisions that were unfavorable to plaintiffs, and the need for changes to the contract. defendants ignored these concerns and shortly after Sean Combs performed the song ACT Bad publicly, and began promoting and selling ACT Bad Entertainment merchandise, using plaintiff's trademarks without consent. defendants unauthorized use of the ACT Bad Entertainment and ACT Bad trademarks has caused confusion among the public, as to the affiliation and ownership of the marks leading the financial harm and reputational damage to plaintiffs' business. In a separate case involving defendant Sean Combs and Cassie Ventura, Combs was accused of sexual abuse and other misconduct, which resulted in a widely publicized settlement. The public's association of ACT Bad merchandise with defendants' tarnished reputation has caused significant consumer aversion leading to decreased sales of plaintiffs' merchandise. defendant Sean Combs also posted on social media platforms promoting the ACT Bad brand and merchandise, using hashtags and images associated with the brand, including plaintiff's registered trademarks, without plaintiff's consent. defendants have profited from the unauthorized use of plaintiff's trademarks and continue to sell merchandise bearing the ACT Bad Mark all without plaintiff's authorization. claims count 1, trademark infringement under US Code 15, Section 1114. plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations and paragraphs 1-14. plaintiff owns two valid trademarks, ACT Bad Entertainment and ACT Bad, which are entitled to protection under the Lanham Act. defendant Sean Combs knowingly and without plaintiff's consent, used plaintiff's registered trademarks in commerce including the promotion of merchandise and public performance of the song ACT Bad. This unauthorized use of the ACT Bad Entertainment and ACT Bad trademarks is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception among consumers as to the source, affiliation, or sponsorship of the goods and services offered under these marks, in violation of the Lanham Act. In Morningside Group LTD vs. Morningside Capital Group LLC, Second Circuit 1999, the court emphasized that the likelihood of confusion can exist even when the marks are not identical. Here are the use of the ACT Bad by defendant Sean Combs is sufficiently similar to plaintiff's ACT Bad Entertainment and ACT Bad to cause confusion. count 1 continued, the protection of ACT Bad Entertainment. plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations and paragraphs 1-19. plaintiff owns both the trademarks ACT Bad Entertainment and ACT Bad. The fact that the word entertainment is added to the latter does not negate or significantly alter the core of the trademark ACT Bad, which remains dominant and distinctive. In Mighty Leaf T-601-F.3D-1342, Federal Circuit 2010, the court held that adding generic or descriptive terms to a trademark does not necessarily create a distinct commercial impression. The dominant portion of the trademark remains the key focus for determining infringement. Here the addition of entertainment does not alter the distinctiveness of enforceability of ACT Bad. Similarly, in ANH Sportsware, vs. Victoria's Secret Stores Incorporated, the court found that the minor variations in a trademark such as the addition of descriptive terms do not avoid liability for trademark infringement if the core of the mark remains similar and is likely to cause confusion. In this case, both ACT Bad Entertainment and ACT Bad are sufficiently similar that consumers would associate both with the same source. Furthermore, in Brookfield Communications vs. West Coast Entertainment, Ninth Circuit 1999, the court ruled that adding a generic term such as entertainment to a well-known mark does not significantly distinguish it from the original mark. Here the inclusion of entertainment is merely descriptive and does not detract from the fact that the dominant portion ACT Bad remains protected. Plaintiff's rights to both trademarks are further supported by go-to.com Incorporated vs. Walt Disney, 202-F.3D-1199, Ninth Circuit 2000, where the court found that small changes to a trademark do not avoid infringement if the overall commercial impression of the marks remains the same. The dominant portion ACT Bad continues to form the primary impression in both trademarks and therefore retains its full protection under the Lanham Act. Thus, Plaintiff's trademark rights and ACT Bad Entertainment are not diminished by the addition of entertainment and any use of the ACT Bad Mark, even if it appears as ACT Bad Entertainment infringes upon Plaintiff's trademark rights. Count 2 Unfair Competition Under US Code Section 1125A Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-26. Defendant Sean Combs engaged in unfair competition by misrepresenting his affiliation with Plaintiff's ACT Bad Entertainment and ACT Bad trademarks and using them in a manner that caused confusion among the public. The negative publicity surrounding Defendant Sean Combs' misconduct has led to consumer reluctance to associate with or purchase merchandise bearing the ACT Bad Mark, further damaging Plaintiff's business and reputation. This negative association has diluted the distinctiveness of Plaintiff's trademarks, aligning with the principles and Starbucks vs. Wolfboro Coffee Inc., 2nd Circuit 2009, which recognize that unauthorized use of a mark can cause harm to its distinctiveness. Count 3 Trademark Dilution Under US Code 15-1125C Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations and paragraphs 1-30. These trademarks, ACT Bad Entertainment and ACT Bad are well known in their respective markets and their association with Defendant Sean Combs, especially in light of the negative publicity surrounding the Cassie Ventura case, has diluted the reputation and value of Plaintiff's marks. Defendant's misconduct has caused consumers to avoid purchasing products under the ACT Bad brand due to its association with Defendant Scandal, which has caused long-term harm to the value of Plaintiff's trademarks. Count 4, reach a contract under New York Law. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations and paragraphs 1-33. No valid contract was executed by Plaintiff due to his incarceration and the contract required Plaintiff's consent, which was not provided. Under Williams vs. Walker, Thomas Furniture vs. Furniture Company, DC Circuit 1965, a valid contract requires mutual assent, which was absent here. Defendant's proceeded as though a valid contract existed, caused financial harm to Plaintiff, and the existence of a valid and enforceable written contract, governing a particular subject matter ordinarily concludes recovery and contract under New York Law. Defendant's failure to secure plaintiff's consent prevents the enforceability of the reported contract. Number 5, Conversion and Civil Theft Under New York Law. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations and paragraphs 1-38. Defendant's exercised unauthorized control over Plaintiff's trademarks by profiting from the sale of merchandise and public performances associated with ACT Bad Entertainment and ACT Bad. A conversion claim under New York Law may succeed if the alleged wrong is distinct from any contractual obligation. Defendant's unauthorized use of Plaintiff's trademarks constitutes conversions and civil theft. Defendant's actions have caused financial harm to Plaintiff by unlawfully appropriating the value and goodwill associated with Plaintiff's intellectual property. Count Number 6, Voidable Contracts Under Principal and Agent Doctrine. Fifth free alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations and paragraphs 1-42. Under New York Law a contract entered through an agent for both parties is voidable at the option of either party where the parties have no knowledge of the dual agency and the agent has a discretionary role. Defendant's failed to properly execute a valid contract rendering the purported contract voidable under the Principal Agent Doctrine. Method 7, Void Contracts Under the Statute of Frauds New York Law. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations and paragraphs 1-44. Under New York's Statute of Frauds, any contract that fails to meet the necessary formalities is void. Defendant's failure to secure plaintiff's consent renders the purported agreement void under the Statute of Frauds. As a result of Defendant's Sean Combs infringement and misconduct, Plaintiff has suffered financial harm, including but not limited to, lost revenue from diminished sales of merchandise associated with the act-bad brand, decreased market value of the act-bad entertainment and act-bad trademarks due to their association with Defendant's Sean Combs' tarnished public image, emotional distress and reputational harm, additional costs associated with mitigating the damage to plaintiff's brand, plaintiff's estimate the total compensatory damages for lost revenue and reputational harm at $5 million. Plaintiff seeks punitive damages of $3 million for defendant's willful and bad-faith infringement. Plaintiff seeks damages for trademark dilution at $2 million and additional damages for emotional distress at $1 million. Care for relief, therefore, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows. One a declaratory judgment that Defendant's actions constitute a trademark infringement, unfair competition and trademark dilution under federal law. Two, an order in joining defendants from further use of Plaintiff's act-bad entertainment and act-bad trademarks without authorization. Three, compensatory damages in the amount of $5 million for punitive damages in the amount of $3 million. Five, damages for trademark dilution in the amount of $2 million. Six, additional damages in the amount of $1 million for emotional distress. Seven, prejudgment and post-judgment interest. Eight, attorney fees and costs. And nine, four such other and further relief as the court made deemed just improper. This was signed by Charles Kenyatta Jr. and it was dated September 6, 2024. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.