Case 1:23-cv-08946-KPF Document 1 Filed 10/11/23 Page 1 of 15

Abigail J. Remore, Esq.

CHIESA SHAHINIAN & GIANTOMASI PC
11 Times Square, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: 973.325.1500
Facsimile: 973.325.1501
Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff Bush Baby Zamagate, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

BUSH BABY ZAMAGATE, INC., Civil Action No.:

Plaintiff, Document Electronically Filed
vs.
COMPLAINT
CHAPTER 4 CORP., D/B/A SUPREME,
KEJUAN MUCHITA INC. and THE Jury Trial Demanded
EXECUTORS OF THE ALBERT JACKSON
JOHNSON ESTATE

Defendants.

Plaintiff, Bush Baby Zamagate, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) by and through its attorneys, for its

complaint against defendants, Chapter 4 Corp., d/b/a Supreme (“Supreme”), Kejuan Muchita

Inc. (“KMI”) and The Executors of the Albert Jackson Johnson Estate (the “Johnson Estate,”

and, together with KMI, collectively, “Mobb Deep”),1 alleges as follows:

NATURE OF ACTION

1. This case arises out of Defendants’ improper and illegal use of a nearly identical

logo mark to Plaintiff’s inherently distinctive, incontestable, and famous logo, both of which

are depicted below.

1 Supreme, KMI, and the Johnson Estate shall be referred to herein collectively as
“Defendants” and each individually a “Defendant.”
 Case 1:23-cv-08946-KPF Document 1 Filed 10/11/23 Page 2 of 15

Plaintiff’s Mark Defendants’ Mark

Defendants’ adoption and use of their knockoff logo over thirty-five years after Plaintiff

commenced use, after Plaintiff’s repeated prior objections, and in the face of Plaintiff’s

incontestable federal trademark registration is not just reckless and inexplicable – it is willful

infringement and unfair competition.

2. Specifically, Plaintiff has used its logo since at least as early as 1987 in

connection with musical recording goods, live musical performances, and related goods and

services, including clothing goods such as shirts and hats. In June 2023, Supreme, a clothing

and skateboarding lifestyle brand, as part of a collaboration with Mobb Deep, began using its

logo on clothing goods, including t-shirts and hats. The similarities between the two marks,

particularly when used on clothing, have confused and are confusing the media and consumers

and are causing damage to Plaintiff’s senior mark and brand.

3. This is not the first time that Plaintiff has objected to Mobb Deep’s use of a logo

substantially identical to Plaintiff’s Mark. Twice, most recently in 2003, Plaintiff previously

demanded that Mobb Deep cease use of its infringing logo, and Mobb Deep and its affiliates

complied. In addition, immediately prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Plaintiff demanded

that Defendants cease use of their infringing logo and provide an accounting to Plaintiff of

sales of the infringing goods. Defendants refused to comply with those demands. Accordingly,

2
 Case 1:23-cv-08946-KPF Document 1 Filed 10/11/23 Page 3 of 15

Plaintiff brings this action for trademark infringement, unfair competition and other relief

arising under the trademark laws of the United States, specifically 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.

(hereinafter the “Lanham Act’) and the laws of the State of New York.

THE PARTIES

4. Plaintiff Bush Baby Zamagate, Inc. is an entity organized and existing under the

laws of New York with an address in Tarrytown, NY.

5. Plaintiff is the owner of all intellectual property rights associated with the

musical group Sick Of It All (“SOIA”) that has been in existence since 1987.

6. Chapter 4 Corp., d/b/a Supreme is an entity organized and existing under the

laws of New York with an address of 62 King Street, 3rd Floor, New York, NY 10014.

7. Kejuan Muchita Inc. is an entity organized and existing under the laws of New

York with an address of 418 Broadway, Ste. R, Albany, NY 12207. Upon information and

belief, the CEO of KMI, an individual by the name of Kejuan Muchita, resides in New York,

NY.

8. The Executors of the Albert Jackson Johnson Estate has an address of c/o The

Northstar Group, 240 West 35th Street, Suite 405, New York, NY 10001.

9. Kejuan Muchita (a/k/a Havoc) and Albert Jackson Johnson (a/k/a Prodigy) were

the two members of the hip hop duo by the name of Mobb Deep, which was formed in New

York City in 1991. Upon information and belief, KMI and the Jackson Estate are jointly

responsible for all business and legal activities relating to Mobb Deep, including the acts

complained of herein.

3
 Case 1:23-cv-08946-KPF Document 1 Filed 10/11/23 Page 4 of 15

JURISDICTION, VENUE AND STANDING

10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1331 and 1338 because Plaintiff’s claims arise under the trademark laws of the United

States, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s

claims that arise under the laws of the State of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338(b) and

1367.

11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because: (i) Plaintiff’s

claims arise in this judicial district; (ii) the Defendants are located within this judicial district;

and (iii) each party does business in this judicial district.

12. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because

Plaintiff’s claims arise in this judicial district, each party does business in this judicial district,

witnesses and evidence are located within this judicial district, and the acts complained of

herein have taken place in this judicial district.

13. Plaintiff has standing to bring this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and

1125(a) and the common laws of the State of New York.

PLAINTIFF’S MARK

14. Plaintiff is the owner of the well-known trademark and service mark

(“Plaintiff’s Mark”), which mark has been in use since 1987 in connection

with SOIA’s musical sound recordings, merchandise items (including clothing goods) and live

performances (“Plaintiff’s Goods and Services”).

4
 Case 1:23-cv-08946-KPF Document 1 Filed 10/11/23 Page 5 of 15

15. Plaintiff is the owner of incontestable United States Trademark Registration No.

2,866,578 (“Plaintiff’s Registration”) covering Plaintiff’s Mark in International Class 25 for t-

shirts, baseball hats, shorts, sweatshirts, wristbands. Printouts from the United States Patent

and Trademark Office’s (“USPTO”) online databases of Plaintiff’s Registration are attached

hereto as Exhibit A.

16. Plaintiff’s Mark is inherently distinctive for Plaintiff’s Goods and Services.

17. Because SOIA and Plaintiff have used Plaintiff’s Mark in commerce for

decades, Plaintiff’s Mark has also acquired secondary meaning.

18. By virtue of Plaintiff’s extensive and continuous use of Plaintiff’s Mark for

thirty-five years, Plaintiff’s Mark has come to be widely recognized by the public as identifying

Plaintiff, SOIA, and Plaintiff’s Goods and Services.

19. As a result of the foregoing, in addition to Federal trademark rights, Plaintiff has

common law rights in and to Plaintiff’s Mark in connection with Plaintiff’s Goods and Services

dating back at least as early as 1987.

20. Plaintiff, SOIA, and their predecessors-in-interest, affiliates, and licensees have

invested a substantial amount of time, money, and other resources advertising, promoting,

marketing, and publicizing Plaintiff’s Goods and Services provided under Plaintiff’s Mark. As

a result of these substantial advertising, marketing, and promotional efforts, Plaintiff’s Mark

has acquired substantial consumer recognition and goodwill. Plaintiff’s Mark has become an

important source indicator that identifies the quality of Plaintiff’s Goods and Services and

SOIA as a whole. For all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Mark is an exceedingly valuable

asset of Plaintiff.

5
 Case 1:23-cv-08946-KPF Document 1 Filed 10/11/23 Page 6 of 15

DEFENDANTS’ INFRINGEMENT

21. Over thirty-five years after Plaintiff’s commencement and substantial exclusive

use of Plaintiff’s Mark, subsequent to Plaintiff’s Mark acquiring public recognition as

identifying and distinguishing Plaintiff’s Goods and Services from those of others, following

the USPTO’s issuance of Plaintiff’s Registration, following Plaintiff’s Registration achieving

incontestable status, and following Plaintiff’s prior objections to Mobb Deep regarding use of

an infringing logo, in June 2023, Defendants began using the nearly identical mark

(the “Infringing Mark”) in the United States and internationally in

connection with numerous types of clothing goods as part of a collaboration between Supreme

and Mobb Deep.

22. The Infringing Mark is virtually identical to Plaintiff’s Mark. A side-by-side

comparison of the respective marks is set forth below.

Plaintiff’s Mark Infringing Mark

23. The Infringing Mark is displayed on clothing goods, including, but not limited

to, shirts and hats, sold by Supreme.

6
 Case 1:23-cv-08946-KPF Document 1 Filed 10/11/23 Page 7 of 15

24. The Infringing Mark is also displayed on Defendants’ websites and in social

media posts advertising the collaboration.

25. Upon information and belief, Defendants are also selling merchandise bearing

the Infringing Mark via third party retailers, including numerous third party retailers that are

affiliated with, authorized by, or controlled by Supreme.

26. Defendants’ merchandise bearing the Infringing Mark is highly related and, in

many cases, essentially identical to Plaintiff’s Goods. Examples of the parties’ respective

goods are depicted below:

Plaintiff’s Items Defendants’ Items

7
 Case 1:23-cv-08946-KPF Document 1 Filed 10/11/23 Page 8 of 15

27. Defendants’ goods and services provided under the Infringing Mark are directed

toward the same class of consumers as Plaintiff’s customers, such that Plaintiff and Defendants

are unquestionably in competition with respect to their respective goods and services.

28. Defendants’ use of the essentially identical Infringing Mark is likely to cause

confusion, mistake, or deception as to the source or origin of Defendants’ goods and services.

29. As a result of Defendants’ use of the Infringing Mark in connection with goods

that are identical to many of Plaintiff’s Goods, consumers are likely to believe that Defendants’

goods and services are provided by, sponsored by, endorsed by, approved by, licensed by, or in

some other way legitimately connected to Plaintiff, which they are not.

30. At least twice in the past, Mobb Deep has been advised that its adoption and use

of Defendants’ Mark infringed Plaintiff’s Mark. Upon information and belief, the first

objection was made in or prior to 1997. Most recently, in 2003, counsel for Plaintiff sent a

letter, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, objecting to Mobb Deep’s anticipated

use of Defendants’ Mark in connection with sound recordings that Mobb Deep produced.

Upon information and belief, Mobb Deep is still represented by one of the recipients of the

letter attached hereto as Exhibit B, L. Londell McMillan.

31. Third parties and media outlets have commented on the similarities between the

marks. By way of example, but not limitation, HypeBeast.com stated that Defendant’s Mark

was “borrowed from hardcore punk band Sick of It All – who, like Mobb Deep, is from

Queens, New York.” A copy of that article is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

32. Defendants’ acts complained of hereinabove are unlawful, willful, and

knowingly performed with the intent and result of injuring Plaintiff.

8
 Case 1:23-cv-08946-KPF Document 1 Filed 10/11/23 Page 9 of 15

33. Defendants’ continued use, marketing, and promotion of the Infringing Mark,

whether directly or through their third party affiliated sellers, is likely to cause confusion,

mistake, or deception as to the source of Defendants’ goods and services. As a result of

Defendants’ use of the essentially identical Infringing Mark in connection with goods and

services that are identical or nearly identical to the goods and services Plaintiff provides,

consumers are likely to believe that Defendants’ goods and services are provided by, or

sponsored by, or approved by, or licensed by, or affiliated with, or in some other way

legitimately connected to Plaintiff, which they are not.

34. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff and its brand has been seriously and

irreparably harmed, and, unless this Court enjoins Defendants’ wrongful acts, Plaintiff will

continue to suffer irreparable harm for which it has no adequate remedy at law.

COUNT I

FEDERAL TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

35. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the

preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if they were set forth in full herein.

36. Defendants, through the conduct described above, are providing in interstate

commerce goods and services under a mark that is a colorable imitation of Plaintiff’s registered

mark, which is likely to cause confusion or mistake and/or to deceive in violation of the

Lanham Act Section 32(1) (15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)).

37. Upon information and belief, Defendants have committed such acts of

infringement willfully and with full knowledge of Plaintiff’s prior use and registration of, and

rights in and to, Plaintiff’s Mark.

9
 Case 1:23-cv-08946-KPF Document 1 Filed 10/11/23 Page 10 of 15

38. As a result of Defendants’ acts of infringement, Plaintiff has suffered and will

continue to suffer serious and irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law.

COUNT II

UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER THE LANHAM ACT

39. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the

preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if they were set forth in full herein.

40. Defendants, through the conduct described above, are providing goods and

services under a mark that is a colorable imitation of Plaintiff’s protectable mark, which is

likely to cause confusion or mistake and/or to deceive in violation of the Lanham Act Section

43(a) (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)).

41. Upon information and belief, Defendants have committed such acts of false

designation of origin and false description and representation willfully and with full knowledge

of Plaintiff’s prior use and registration of, and common law rights in and to, Plaintiff’s Mark.

42. As a result of Defendants’ acts of unfair competition, Plaintiff has suffered and

will continue to suffer serious and irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at

law.

COUNT III

COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR COMPETITION

43. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the

preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if they were set forth in full herein.

44. Plaintiff owns all right, title and interest in Plaintiff’s Mark as described above,

including all common law rights therein.

10
 Case 1:23-cv-08946-KPF Document 1 Filed 10/11/23 Page 11 of 15

45. Defendants’ aforesaid acts constitute infringement of Plaintiff’s rights in

Plaintiff’s Mark and tend to falsely describe or represent that Defendants’ goods and services

are provided by, or sponsored by, or approved by, or endorsed by, or licensed by, or affiliated

with, or in some other way legitimately connected to Plaintiff and are of the same character,

nature, and quality as the goods provided by Plaintiff, thereby damaging Plaintiff’s reputation.

46. Defendants’ consumer-oriented conduct was and is directed at the public, was

and is materially misleading to the public, has affected the public interest of New York, and has

resulted in injury to consumers in New York.

47. Defendants’ aforesaid acts constitute acts of trademark infringement and unfair

competition against Plaintiff under the common law of the State of New York, which acts have

been committed knowingly and willfully and have injured Plaintiff in its trade and business.

48. By reason of the aforesaid acts, Defendants have caused damage to Plaintiff and

the goodwill associated with Plaintiff’s Mark, as well as injury to the public.

49. As a result of Defendants’ acts of unfair competition, Plaintiff has suffered and

will continue to suffer serious and irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at

law.

COUNT IV

DILUTION IN VIOLATION OF NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS LAW

50. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the

preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if they were set forth in full herein.

51. Plaintiff is the owner of Plaintiff’s Mark.

52. Defendants have used, are using, and have caused others to use the confusingly

similar Infringing Mark without Plaintiff’s authorization.

11
 Case 1:23-cv-08946-KPF Document 1 Filed 10/11/23 Page 12 of 15

53. Defendants’ unauthorized uses of the Infringing Mark have impaired and

damaged and are likely to impair and damage the distinctiveness of Plaintiff’s Mark by causing

the public to no longer associate the distinctive Plaintiff’s Mark exclusively with Plaintiff.

54. Defendants’ unauthorized use is also likely to tarnish the reputation of Plaintiff

and the goodwill Plaintiff has developed in Plaintiff’s Mark.

55. Defendants’ conduct was and is knowing, deliberate, willful, and in bad faith

and done with the intent to trade on the goodwill and reputation of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s

Mark, to impair the distinctiveness of Plaintiff’s Mark, and to deceive consumers into believing

that Plaintiff is connected with Defendants’ products.

56. Defendants’ actions, as stated above, have caused and will continue to cause a

likelihood of injury to Plaintiff’s business reputation in violation of New York General

Business Law § 360-l.

57. Unless enjoined by this Court, Defendants wrongful acts will continue and

Plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable harm for which it has no adequate remedy at law.

COUNT V

INJUNCTION

58. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the

preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if they were set forth in full herein.

59. Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed if Defendants are not enjoined from using

the Infringing Mark in connection with the provision of any goods and services.

60. Customers and potential customers of Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ goods and

services will be confused if Defendants are not enjoined from using the Infringing Mark.

12
 Case 1:23-cv-08946-KPF Document 1 Filed 10/11/23 Page 13 of 15

61. Plaintiff does not have an adequate remedy at law for Defendants’ ongoing

misconduct, and entry of an injunction will serve the public interest.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in its favor and against Defendants as

follows:

1. That Defendants and each of their officers, agents, servants, distributors, affiliates,

employees, attorneys, members, and representatives and all those in privity or acting in concert

with Defendants, and each of them, be permanently enjoined and restrained from, directly or

indirectly:

(a) Using the Infringing Mark or any other mark or marks confusingly similar

thereto, alone or in combination with other words, names, styles, titles, designs, or marks

in connection with the provision of any goods and services;

(b) Using in any other way any other marks or designations so similar to the

aforesaid Plaintiff’s Mark as to be likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception;

(c) Falsely designating the origin, sponsorship, or affiliation of the

Defendants’ goods or services in any manner;

(d) Otherwise competing unfairly with Plaintiff in any manner;

(e) Using any words, names, styles, designs, titles, designations, or marks

which create a likelihood of injury to the business reputation of Plaintiff and the goodwill

associated therewith;

(f) Using any trade practices whatsoever including those complained of herein,

which tend to unfairly compete with or injure Plaintiff’s business and goodwill pertaining

thereto;

13
 Case 1:23-cv-08946-KPF Document 1 Filed 10/11/23 Page 14 of 15

(g) Using any trade practices whatsoever including those complained of herein,

which tend to deceive their intended audience; and

(h) Continuing to perform in any manner whatsoever any of the acts

complained of in this Complaint.

2. That the Defendants be required to pay to Plaintiff compensatory damages for

the injuries sustained by Plaintiff in consequence of the unlawful acts alleged herein and that

such damages be trebled pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117 because of the willful and unlawful acts

as alleged herein.

3. That the Defendants be required to account for and pay over to Plaintiff all gains,

profits and advantages derived from the unlawful activities alleged herein.

4. That Defendants be required to deliver for destruction all merchandise,

stationery, signs, advertisements, promotional flyers, cards, brochures, promotional materials,

and any other hard copy or written materials which bear the Infringing Mark or any other mark

or marks confusingly similar thereto, alone or in combination with other words, names, styles,

titles, designs, or marks, together with all plates, molds, matrices and other means and materials

for making or reproducing the same.

5. That Defendants be required to remove any and all online use of the Infringing

Mark or any other mark or marks confusingly similar thereto, alone or in combination with

other words, names, styles, titles, designs or marks, including via any and all of their websites,

social media accounts or otherwise, and that Defendants be required to take steps necessary to

remove any use of the Infringing Mark, or any other mark or marks confusingly similar thereto,

alone or in combination with other words, names, styles, titles, designs or marks, that is

associated with any of Defendants’ advertised goods or services on any third party website or

online source.

14
 Case 1:23-cv-08946-KPF Document 1 Filed 10/11/23 Page 15 of 15

6. That the Defendants be required to pay to Plaintiff all of its litigation expenses,

including but not limited to reasonable attorneys’ fees and the costs of this action.

7. That Plaintiff be awarded such other and further relief as the Court may deem just

and proper.

CHIESA SHAHINIAN & GIANTOMASI PC

11 Times Square, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10036
973.325.1500
[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff Bush Baby Zamagate, Inc.

By: /s/ Abigail J. Remore /

ABIGAIL J. REMORE

Dated: October 11, 2023

New York, NY

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands trial by jury of all claims and defenses in this action so triable.

CHIESA SHAHINIAN & GIANTOMASI PC

11 Times Square, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10036
973.325.1500
[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff Bush Baby Zamagate, Inc.

By: /s/ Abigail J. Remore /

ABIGAIL J. REMORE

Dated: October 11, 2023

New York, NY

15