Jay-Z succeeds in fight to diversify trademark arbitration panel
Shawn Carter, more commonly known as Jay-Z, has agreed to proceed with arbitration of a trademark and contract dispute with clothing company, Iconix Brand Group Inc., once the arbitration panel better reflects the diversity of the American population.
As reported by Page Six, Jay-Z sued last year to prevent the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) from proceeding with resolution of his dispute with Iconix, which arose following the 2007 sale to Iconix of his Rocawear clothing brand for approximately $204 million.
According to Yahoo!, Jay-Z had concerns about the fairness of the arbitration since only two of the more than two hundred proposed arbitrators had identified as African-American and had no conflicts of interest. Jay-Z claimed the lack of candidates constituted racial discrimination under New York law, effectively leaving him with “no choice at all” but to raise his concerns, and rendered void his earlier agreement to proceed with arbitration of the matter.
Page Six reports that Jay-Z argued for minority business owners to be given the opportunity to select from a group of candidates that better reflects the diversity of the population, noting that failure to do so would be a continued denial of the equal protection of the law for litigants of colour.
Jay-Z’s lawyer, Alex Spiro, told the Manhattan Supreme Court in late January that, since the AAA has agreed to allow a three-arbitrator panel instead of a single arbitrator, has offered five additional African-American candidates as options and has agreed to consider the rapper’s proposed list of eleven African-American candidates for qualification on its “Large and Complex Cases” roster (of which there were previously no black members), Jay-Z is now content to proceed with the arbitration.
Author: Anna Condon, 2018/2019 Articling Student-at-law
Photo Credit: https://unsplash.com/@swapnilbhagwat
Expertise
Insights
-
Intellectual Property Litigation
Trademarks Opposition Board Moves to Digital-Only Submission of Confidential Information
As of June 1, 2026, the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) requires all confidential evidence and documentation in proceedings under sections 11.13, 38, or 45 of the Trademarks Act (the “Act”) to be… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Kansas City Chiefs Stars Sued for Trademark Infringement Over Steakhouse
The sneaker company, 1587 Sneakers, is reportedly suing Kansas City Chiefs players, Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce, along with their restaurant partners, for trademark infringement.1587 Sneakers… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Pecking Order Problem: Pudgy Penguins Faces Penguin Trademark Lawsuit
As reported by Bloomberg Law News, PEI Licensing (“PEI”), the owner of the Penguin apparel brand, has sued Pudgy Penguins NFT (“Pudgy Penguins”) for trademark infringement.Pudgy Penguins started as a… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Old Brand, New Problems? Nike’s Attempt to Revive “Total 90” Soccer Cleats
Nike is reportedly attempting to revive its classic “Total 90” soccer cleat line, but has encountered an unexpected setback. Total90, LLC has reportedly asserted that Nike is infringing its… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Swing and a Miss: The “All Rise” Trademark Attempt
As reported by Bloomberg, attempts to register marks covering the phrases “All Rise” and “Here Comes the Judge” were rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Hershey’s Kisses Go to Court – Federal Court of Appeal Decision in PIM Brands Inc. v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC
The Federal Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Promotion in Motion, Inc. (PIM Brands, Inc.) v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC offers fresh guidance on how courts evaluate survey evidence…