One Name, Two Claims—And a Settlement: Prince Estate and ’Purple Rain’ Co-Star Resolve Trademark Dispute

In an earlier post, we discussed the high-profile dispute between the estate of the late artist Prince and Patty Apollonia Kotero, over trademark rights derived from the name Apollonia, made famous in the 1984 film “Purple Rain.” The parties have now settled the dispute, dismissing both the federal court litigation and parallel TTAB proceedings.

Earlier this month, the parties filed a joint notice of dismissal, agreeing to dismiss the case without prejudice, with each side bearing its own costs. The settlement ends both the federal court litigation and the parallel proceedings pending before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). As is typical in celebrity trademark disputes, the specific terms of the settlement were not disclosed.

Background: The Dispute Over the APOLLONIA Trademark

To recap, after Prince’s death in 2016, Kotero registered trademarks for APOLLONIA and APOLLONIA 6, names she had used professionally for decades. The Prince estate filed its own trademark applications for the marks and sought to cancel Kotero’s registrations through the TTAB, based upon a contractual waiver she signed prior to her performance in Purple Rain. Prince’s estate argued that any dispute should be resolved administratively rather than in federal court. Nonetheless, Kotero filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, asserting that the estate was attempting to claim ownership of trademarks that had historically been associated with her personal brand and career.

Settlement Outcome

Court filings confirm that the parties jointly agreed to dismiss the action without prejudice, leaving neither side with a judicial declaration of trademark ownership. The Prince estate withdrew the cancellation proceedings against Kotero’s registrations with the TTAB, and Kotero dismissed her claims against the estate. The estate also abandoned its pending APOLLONIA trademark application with the PTO immediately after the settlement was reached. This abandonment and the court dismissal effectively bring the dispute to a close. Statements reportedly from Kotero’s counsel emphasized a forward-looking resolution that allows both sides to honor Prince’s legacy while avoiding further conflict.

Key Takeaways

This resolution underscores several practical takeaways for trademark disputes involving personal names and entertainment brands:

1. Long-standing use in commerce, particularly where a name functions as a personal brand, can carry significant weight in establishing trademark rights;
2. Trademark disputes may proceed simultaneously in federal court and before the TTAB, creating strategic considerations about forum and timing; and
3. Settlement, rather than adjudication, is often the ultimate endpoint in disputes involving legacy brands and reputational interests.

While the dismissal without prejudice leaves open the theoretical possibility of future disputes, the settlement appears to mark the end of an unusually personal celebrity trademark battle, with an entanglement of identity, legacy, and brand ownership.