Back in September 2006 Andrew posted a story "No more P Diddy in the UK" which obviously will have come as a source of much angst to all you Sean Combs fans out there.
Anyway, the interesting thing now is that the settlement agreement referred to in Andrew's story went pear shaped and P Diddy's name sake, plain old "Diddy", went to the High Court to sort it out (Richard Dearlove (t/a Diddy) v Sean Combs (t/a Sean Puffy Combs, Puffy & P Diddy 2007 EWHC 375 (Ch)).
It's an interesting and totally bizarre case on a number of levels.
First, because it reminds us how totally bonkers the whole celebrity scene is and the hang ups they have - I can see why Sean Combs is perhaps a bit dull as a name for a rapper, but frankly having more than one alias is pushing it in my view.
Second, because it demonstrates how important it is to "think outside the box" when putting fingers to the keyboard and drafting settlement agreements or indeed any form of agreement. Essentially, the settlement agreement said that P Diddy would no longer "advertise" himself or his music under the name "Diddy", which the 'original' "Diddy" claimed prior rights to. The judge held that using the term "Diddy" on websites and blogs was naughty because the use was clearly advertising Mr Combs's wares but that making reference to himself as "Diddy" in his song lyrics didn't necessarily constitute advertising, though in some songs it did. So poor old Diddy went away thinking he'd put the issue to rest once and for all, that P Diddy wouldn't refer to himself as "Diddy" anymore, only to find that he can - in his song lyrics.
Reading the case makes me chuckle - it's takes us into an utterly bizarre Alice-in-Wonderland type world with a High Court judge, in all seriousness, trying to assess whether lyrics like "Hard top six-four, I'm Diddy no tint. I can't hide in New York City" constitutes a breach of a Tomlin Order.
If you're interested in more of the legal background/points to note, read on...
The key wording in dispute was as follows:
"Mr Combs undertakes, whether acting by himself, his employees, his agents, or otherwise however, from doing the following acts or any of them within the United Kingdom, that is to say
1.1 advertising, offering or providing, or causing/procuring others to advertise, offer or provide any goods and services not being the Claimant's goods and services as a remixer, producer, songwriter, recording artist and DJ under or with reference to the word "Diddy""
The question about whether what P Diddy was doing on websites in the US were directed at UK users
brought a predictable analysis and application of the 800 Flowers case and those that followed it. Nothing new there.
I suppose the interesting point of law - albeit perhaps a rather specific one - at issue in this case is whether or not selling albums with song lyrics referring to Mr Combs as "Diddy" constituted the provision or advertisement in the UK of his goods and services under the name "Diddy". Which, in essence, also asks whether referring to yourself by reference to someone else's brand name in a song lyric is capable of amounting to trade mark use or use which constitutes a misrepresentation for passing off. To get the full Alice-in-Wonderland feel of this judgment, you really need to read it at paras 46 to 60. The Honourable Mister Justice Kitchin spends time dissecting the lyrics to 5 P Diddy songs, does a forensic analysis of each and concludes that some of the lyrics do breach the agreement but some don't. For example, the second verse of the song "The Future" (per Kitchin J): "invites the listener to "mainline this new Diddy heroin". Mr Combs expressly refers to itunes and asks the listener to "download me in every resident". He refers to his CD as "my CD's in 3-D holograms" and finally refers to his shows with the words "the live show's a hard act to follow man". I see this as straightforward advertisement by Mr Combs of his CD, his songs which can be downloaded from itunes and his live shows, all under and by reference to the word "Diddy". But other songs fall under a different category. For example, the song "We Gon' Make it" contains the words "Hard top six-four, I'm Diddy no tint. I can't hide in New York City". This provokes Judge Kitchin to ask: "would the average listener understand this song to be an advertisement of goods or services in the UK under the name "Diddy"? I do not think so". Judge Kitchin goes on... "I am sympathetic to the argument that references to Mr Combs to himself as "Diddy" in the lyrics of a song may serve to dilute or diminish the goodwill that Mr Dearlove enjoys. But on this application I am simply dealing with the terms of para 1.1 of the Settlement Agreement."
Bizarre, certainly - intriguing legally? Maybe.
Comments