Apollonia Pushes Back Against Prince’s Estate In Los Angeles Federal Court Over Who Owns Her Name

The estate, for its part, has publicly labeled her lawsuit “frivolous” and points to early-1980s agreements and its stewardship of Prince-related IP as reasons it—not Kotero—controls the name. Those competing storylines preview a records-heavy fight over who used what, when, and how the public understood the name over time. 

From a trademark-law lens, two things jump out to me. First, TTAB cancellations and district-court declaratory actions often run in parallel; the TTAB decides registerability, while a federal judge can decide real-world ownership and infringement. Second, equitable defenses matter in celebrity-name disputes. If a rights holder sleeps on objections while the performer builds a brand, doctrines like acquiescence and laches can blunt late-stage enforcement—especially where fans have long associated the mark with the performer as a source. That’s exactly the frame Kotero is asking the court to adopt. 

Procedurally, the case sits in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California as Kotero v. Paisley Park Enterprises LLC et al., No. 2:25-cv-07769. Expect early motions aimed at staying or coordinating with the TTAB proceedings, along with a fight over the evidentiary weight of historical contracts and prior registration records. The estate has not yet filed a detailed response on the merits in the federal action. PacerMonitor