Yung Miami Fighting $10 Million Lawsuit Amid Ex Diddy’s Legal Issues
Yung Miami is firing back in federal court after being accused of thumbing her nose at the legal system as part of a $10 million battle, In Touch can exclusively report.
According to court documents obtained by In Touch, Charles Kenyatta Jr. filed an amended lawsuit accusing Yung Miami [real name: Caresha Brownlee] of trademark infringement.
In the suit, Charles said he is the sole owner of Act Bad Entertainment and owns the trademark for Act Bad Entertainment and Act Bad. In 2023, Yung Miami, 30, and her then-boyfriend Diddy released a song called “Act Bad.”
Charles said Yung Miami also sold a series of merchandise with the mark on it. Charles said he did not give Yung Miami consent to sell, make profits off of, or otherwise use the Act Bad trademark.
He said, “[Yung Miami’s] use of the trademark has caused and continues to cause confusion regarding the affiliation, connection, or association of the defendant with the plaintiff by wearing and selling Act Bad merchandise. The defendant knowingly and in bad faith marketed, distributed, and offered to sell or sold materially different products within the United States.”
He said Yung Miami repeatedly used the Act Bad phrase on her social media.
Charles added, “The defendant posted a picture and video wearing a bathing suit with the words ‘Act Bad’ and telling fans to buy [Act] Bad merchandise. She used numerous hashtags with Act Bad on her social media platform, such as Act Bad Starter Kit. The defendant posted on her Instagram an Act Bad starter kit showing people how to ‘Act bad’. She and her alleged boyfriend [Diddy] have a song called ‘Act Bad,’ and in a magazine, they are referred to as ‘Mr. and Mrs. Act Bad,’ causing further confusion with [Charles’] trademark.
Charles filed his initial lawsuit earlier this year but has now added new accusations.
In the amended complaint, he accused Yung Miami of selling additional products with the Act Bad name, despite his legal threats.
He said, “By introducing a new product with the infringing mark after the original complaint was filed, the defendant is effectively thumbing her nose at the legal proceedings and the plaintiff’s rights. This behavior not only compounds the confusion and dilution of the plaintiff’s brand but also underscores the defendant’s deliberate and willful intent to infringe upon the plaintiff’s trademark, irrespective of the legal ramifications.”
Yung Miami fired back at the amended lawsuit. Her lawyer said she did not consent to him filing an amended complaint and asked that the judge reject it.
In an answer to the initial complaint, Yung Miami argued that the phrase Act Bad could not be trademarked because it is too general.
Further, she said Act Bad has been used as the name of recording artists and third parties have used Act Bad to sell their products.
Her lawyer wrote, “A simple search of ‘Act Bad shirt’ on Google, Bing, or any search engine will return dozens, if not hundreds, of results for shirts and other wearing apparel bearing the phrase ‘ACT BAD’ in a manner similar to that in which it appears on Defendant’s merchandise. To the best of Defendant’s knowledge, [Charles] has never taken action against any other third-party user of ‘ACT BAD’ before bringing the instant action in which he seeks an astonishing $10 million in damages.”
The attorney added, “[Yung Miami’s] renown as a podcaster and recording artist with a hugely successful recent single release entitled ‘Act Bad’ makes it far more likely that consumers encountering the phrase as it is used on her “Best Dressed Wool Varsity” jacket, shot glasses and other merchandise timed to coincide with the single’s release would associate it with her successful sound recording of the same name, and not with [Charles] or any of the other myriad ‘Act Bad’ users in the crowded marketplace.”
Yung Miami denied all allegations of wrongdoing. She demanded the entire lawsuit be thrown out. A judge has yet to rule.
For his part, Diddy, 54, was arrested on Monday, September 16, by federal agents.
Conversation
All comments are subject to our Community Guidelines. In Touch Weekly does not endorse the opinions and views shared by our readers in our comment sections. Our comments section is a place where readers can engage in healthy, productive, lively, and respectful discussions. Offensive language, hate speech, personal attacks, and/or defamatory statements are not permitted. Advertising or spam is also prohibited.