Snoop Dogg Sues Teenage Inventor of Wireless MP3 Transmitting Device in Trademark Dispute

The following is an excerpt of an article from InnovativeEconomy.com:

Shane Lashley
InnovativeEconomy.com
August 5, 2008

While 18-year-olds across the country prepare for their first semester as college freshmen, Kristyn Heath has a couple of extra items on her list: prepare for deposition and defeat rapper Snoop Dogg in court.

The Product and The Problem

When she was 14, Kristyn wanted to share music on her iPod with her friends and there was no good option available. Kristyn believed a device could be made that would allow her to invite her friends to listen to her songs or allow her to listen to their songs without transferring the song across the iPod. It’s the kind of thing you do in the moment; share the experience, not the song. You listen together and then move on, without the unlawful transfer of the song.

Her invention simply plugs into any type of iPod or mp3 player by plugging into the headphone jack of each person’s iPod and transmitting wirelessly across an FM channel. This small, lightweight device works on just one AAA battery and can transmit and receive. You plug your headphones into the device and use your iPod as usual.

You see, Kristyn’s product is called NoeStringAttached by SnoopTunes™, and Snoop Dogg is fighting the trademark application by claiming it infringes his own trademark of Snoop Dogg. She reports that he is attempting to just overwhelm her and her family by driving up legal costs. For example, Kristyn said Mr. Dogg submitted over 500 pages of discovery documents, most of which completely unrelated to the dispute, but all of it requiring an attorney to review, and that activity alone can create a five figure legal bill. According to the Heaths, his approach is one of outspending them, not the merits of the case. Kristyn learned to review the litigation practices of her opponent and observed this is not the first time he has intimidated trademark applicants through economic pressure, but it may be the first time such tactics don’t work. She is determined to see the case through to a venue where it can be measured based on its merits, not legal thuggery.

My Take On The Dispute

I am not an attorney, I don’t play one on TV and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. However, I have led many valuations of intellectual property, have helped more than a few clients work with attorneys to obtain trademarks, and have served as a consulting expert in litigation cases reaching into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Based on that experience, I see the following:

Mr. Dogg is trying to extend his personal trademark to be a trademark on the word “snoop.” That won’t fly, or as a Texas judge might word it, “That dog don’t hunt.”

Mr. Dogg has nothing to gain from this. When Spike Lee sued TNN for coming out with Spike TV, he was able to hold TNN hostage until the lost revenue made it worth their while to pay him to settle. It wasn’t about the merits of the case, it was about the economics and picking where and how much money a company can afford to lose. That is the case with many intellectual property disputes. Fairness and facts have much less to do with the outcome than the general public realizes. Economics of fighting versus paying off the plaintiff often impact the strategy more than the facts. Spike knew that. TNN knew that. They settled. Kristyn isn’t TNN. Since there’s no hostage-taking opportunity, this case will have to be tried based on legal merits, and Mr. Dogg isn’t in the position of power here.

This is not like Disney, who occasionally must come down heavy on a daycare for painting Mickey Mouse on an indoor mural. Disney gets no joy from hammering a day care and they don’t benefit from the press it creates. That action is driven by Federal law that requires them to enforce their rights or lose them.

Kristyn did not name her device after Snoop Dogg. Her mom came up with the name. Kristyn very diplomatically understates just how much her mother is NOT a fan of rap music in general and never associated Mr. Dogg with the invention when she named it. It’s about snooping your friend’s songs. Kristyn is not trying to conjure up the image of Snoop Dogg in this electronic device, and his image is in no way, shape or form associated with its design, promotion or sale. This may be a blow to Mr. Dogg’s ego, but she just isn’t that into you, and this isn’t about you. I don’t mean to add insult to injury but you did not trademark the word ’snoop’ and you are not owed money or rights because someone had an idea that involved another meaning and use of the word.

Mr. Dogg is abusing the legal system to oppress an innocent person who should be held up as an example for teens everywhere.

Mr. Dogg doesn’t want this to go to court for at least three reasons over and above the lack of legal merit. (1) Jurors will see his arrogance in trying to trademark the word ’snoop’; (2) Jurors could easily conclude that Mr. Dogg is just feeding retainer dollars to out-of-control attorneys; and (3) Neither (1) or (2) sit well with most jurors, especially when the other side is an 18 year old struggling yet award-winning entrepreneur.

Mr. Dogg is not known for his altruistic contribution to society, but one would think that he would pick a worthy adversary if he wanted to pick a fight. Where is the honor in picking a teenage girl for a business dispute? Like I said, it is either extreme arrogance on his part or his lawyers are getting too much in monthly retainers, and the client, Mr. Dogg, needs to step up, rein-in the attorneys, be a man about the situation and direct his resources towards worthy matters that advance his business...

Click here for complete story on innovativeeconomy.com.

Photo of Snoop Dogg placed online under a creative commons license by hooverdust.