Bono, Madonna, Beyoncé, Rihanna, Eminem, Drake, Cher, Sting, Lorde, Flea, Adele, Bjork, Seal, Pink: these celebrities all share the same elite status of fame to be known by a single name. But the standalone celebrity name Apollonia has gained recent fame for other reasons, as the subject of an ongoing dispute between the estate of the late musician Prince, and his muse, Patricia Apollonia Kotero. This conflict escalated August 19, when Kotero filed a complaint against Prince’s estate seeking a declaratory judgment from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California regarding legal ownership to the rights of the name.
Kotero co-starred with Prince as his love interest “Apollonia” in the 1984 film “Purple Rain,” and co-wrote the Bangles hit “Manic Monday” with him. She and Prince also sang together in his song “Take Me With You” from the Purple Rain soundtrack, which spent 24 weeks atop the Billboard 200 and sold more than 25 million copies worldwide. She also regularly played a character named Apollonia on the television series Falcon Crest in 1985. Riding on these achievements, Kotero released her first self-titled album “Apollonia” with Warner Brothers in 1988, performed her music under the same name, has a podcast entitled Apollonia Studio 6, sells Apollonia-themed merchandise online, and registered several Apollonia-containing trademarks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).
Prince’s estate also filed U.S. trademark applications for two Apollonia-containing marks, which were rejected by the PTO over the earlier-filed registrations owned by Kotero. In response, Prince’s estate filed cancellation proceedings against Kotero’s registrations. His estate claimed that Kotero’s initial contract for her performance in Purple Rain waived all rights to the name, and that his estate has always been the rightful owner.
While not admitting that a valid contract existed, Kotero’s complaint states if a contract did exist, that the four-year statute of limitations for any alleged breach expired long ago, and “neither Prince nor anyone on his behalf ever requested [her to] cease using her name…on a personal or professional level.” Her complaint asserts that through its inaction, Prince’s estate relinquished its rights to the name, if any, and that Prince consented to her use of the name before his death. She also claims that laches applies, due to the delay by Prince’s estate in enforcing its alleged rights, and that permitting such belated enforcement would cause her serious harm. For these reasons, Kotero contends “that her use and registration of APOLLONIA in connection with entertainment services and/or related goods and services does not infringe any valid, enforceable trademark rights of [Prince’s estate], and she is the rightful owner of the APOLLONIA Marks.” In addition to the ownership question, Kotero also seeks relief from the Court to cancel the estate’s Apollonia-derived applications, and to prevent them from challenging her trademarks.
This case highlights the complex interplay between trademark rights, contractual obligations, and the passage of time in the entertainment industry. Kotero’s complaint raises critical questions about implied consent, laches, and the enforceability of decades-old agreements. With both parties asserting ownership over the Apollonia mark—one through longstanding public use and registration, the other through legacy claims tied to a seminal film—the case will likely hinge on whether the estate’s delay in enforcement constitutes a forfeiture of rights. This will be an important case to watch for guidance on how courts balance fame, identity, and intellectual property in legacy artist disputes.
The case is Kotero v. Paisley Park Enter. LLC, C.D. Cal., No. 25-cv-07769, complaint filed 8/19/25.
Subscribe for News and Updates
