Actress Apollonia Kotero Battles Prince’s Estate for Rights to Her Name in Legal Dispute

apollonia, prince’s ‘purple Rain’ Co-Star, Sues Estate Over Name Ownership

Los Angeles, CA – actress and Singer Patricia Apollonia Kotero, widely recognized as Apollonia for her prominent role alongside Prince in the iconic film ‘Purple Rain,’ has filed a lawsuit against Paisley Park Enterprises, prince’s estate. The legal action, lodged in federal court on Tuesday, asserts that the estate is attempting to unlawfully claim ownership of her professional name.

the Core of the Dispute

Kotero, 66, contends that she has consistently used the name “Apollonia” throughout her four-decade career, beginning with her breakthrough performance in ‘Purple Rain’ in 1984. The lawsuit maintains that Prince himself not only permitted but actively encouraged her use of the name during their collaborative work, including her subsequent musical endeavors and television appearances. According to the complaint, Prince never expressed any objections to her using the moniker, nor did he lay claim to it as his own.

The dispute arose when Prince’s estate filed an “intent-to-use” application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in June,seeking to trademark “Apollonia” for clothing and entertainment services. kotero alleges this action constitutes an attempt to undermine her existing trademark rights and create public confusion. She states the estate has already moved to cancel her trademark registrations.

A History of Collaboration

Kotero’s career reached new heights following ‘Purple Rain.’ she embarked on a world tour to promote the film and her hit single, “Sex shooter.” Beyond her acting and singing, she is also credited with co-writing the Bangles’ celebrated hit, “Manic Monday,” alongside Prince. Kotero also contributed vocals to Prince’s track “Take Me With You” under her stage name and secured a recurring role on the television series ‘falcon Crest’ in 1985, continuing to perform as Apollonia.

The actress released her self-titled debut album,Apollonia,in 1988,solidifying her identity as a solo artist under the name she has long employed.

The Estate’s Claim and Kotero’s Rebuttal

The estate reportedly argued that Kotero relinquished her rights to the name “Apollonia” through a contract she signed in 1983 for her role in ‘Purple Rain.’ However, Kotero’s legal team argues that even if such a contract existed, its terms were never enforced, effectively rendering any claim of ownership invalid due to the legal principle of laches – the failure to assert a right for an unreasonable period.

Point of Contention	Kotero’s Position	Prince Estate’s Claim
Ownership of “Apollonia”	She has used it for 40 years with Prince’s consent.	She waived rights in a 1983 contract.
Trademark Rights	She holds existing trademark registrations.	They filed an intent-to-use application.
Enforcement of Rights	The estate never enforced any claim to the name.	(Not explicitly stated, but implied through the trademark filing)

“Our client fully expects to prevail in protecting her name,” stated Daniel M. Cislo, Kotero’s attorney, in an email.

Prince, who died in 2016 from an accidental fentanyl overdose at the age of 57 without a will or children, had his estate divided equally among his six siblings.

Understanding Trademark Law and Celebrity Names

Disputes over celebrity names and likenesses are increasingly common, especially following an artist’s death. Trademark law aims to protect brand identity and prevent consumer confusion. Establishing ownership involves demonstrating consistent use and preventing others from benefiting unfairly from a recognized name or image. According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, “A trademark can be a word, phrase, symbol, design, or a combination of these elements that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods.” ( https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks)

Did You Know?

Many artists proactively trademark their names and key elements of their brand to safeguard their intellectual property.

pro Tip:

If you are building a personal brand, consider consulting with a legal professional about trademarking your name and logo to protect your interests.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Apollonia Lawsuit

What are your thoughts on celebrity name ownership rights? Do you think estates should have more control over an artist’s legacy, or should the individual artist’s wishes and prior usage take precedence?

Share your opinions and join the conversation in the comments below!

To what extent can a record label or film studio control an artist’s stage name after a project concludes?

The Core of the Dispute: Apollonia vs. Prince’s Legacy

for decades, actress Apollonia Kotero has been recognized professionally as simply “Apollonia,” a name inextricably linked to her iconic role in Prince’s 1984 film Purple Rain. Now, she’s locked in a legal battle with Prince’s estate, Paisley Park Enterprises, over the exclusive rights to use her mononymous stage name. The dispute centers around trademark claims and the estate’s alleged attempts to control her use of “Apollonia” for future projects, including acting roles, music, and personal appearances. This isn’t a case of Kotero attempting to profit from Prince’s fame; rather, it’s about her right to continue using a name she’s built her career around.

timeline of Events & Legal Filings

The legal conflict escalated in recent months, following years of informal negotiations. Key events include:

Early 2023: Kotero reportedly received a cease-and-desist letter from Paisley Park Enterprises,claiming trademark infringement and demanding she stop using the name “Apollonia” professionally.

Mid-2023: Kotero filed a petition with the U.S.Patent and Trademark office (USPTO) to trademark “Apollonia” for entertainment services, directly challenging the estate’s claims.

Late 2023 – Early 2024: Legal maneuvering and revelation phases commenced, with both sides presenting arguments regarding the origin and ownership of the name.

current (August 2025): The case remains ongoing, with a court date tentatively scheduled for late 2025. kotero is seeking a declaratory judgment affirming her right to use her name.

Understanding the Trademark Arguments

Paisley Park Enterprises argues that the name “Apollonia” became synonymous with Prince’s work through Purple Rain and that the estate has a legitimate interest in protecting that association. They contend that allowing Kotero unrestricted use of the name could dilute the brand and create confusion among fans.

Kotero’s legal team counters that she used the name before her involvement with Prince,and that the name itself isn’t unique enough to warrant exclusive trademark protection,especially concerning an individual’s personal name. They emphasize that she established her professional identity as Apollonia independently of the film. The core argument revolves around whether the name was a pre-existing identifier for Kotero or solely a creation of the Purple Rain project. Trademark law, intellectual property rights, and name rights are central to this case.

apollonia kotero’s Career Before Purple Rain

Before landing the role of Apollonia in Purple Rain, Kotero was already a working actress and model. She appeared in several films and television shows,including Millionaire’s Wife (1984) and episodes of Diff’rent Strokes. She actively used the name “Apollonia” during this period, demonstrating a pre-existing professional identity. This history is crucial to her legal defense, proving she didn’t simply adopt the name for the film. researching her early filmography highlights her commitment to the name long before her association with Prince.

The Impact on Artists and Name Ownership

This case has broader implications for artists and the ownership of their names. It raises questions about:

Stage Names: How much control does a record label or film studio have over an artist’s stage name after a project concludes?

Personal Branding: Can an artist be prevented from using their own name if it becomes associated with a famous work?

Trademark Squatting: The potential for estates to aggressively pursue trademarks to control an artist’s legacy, even impacting the original artist’s ability to work.

Right of Publicity: The legal right of individuals to control the commercial use of their name, image, and likeness.

Related cases & Legal Precedents

While this case is unique, it draws parallels to other disputes involving artists and their names. The landmark case of Vanna White v. Samsung electronics America, Inc. (1992) established the right of publicity,protecting celebrities from the unauthorized commercial use of their likeness. Though, the specifics of name ownership versus likeness are distinct, making this case particularly complex. Legal experts are closely watching the proceedings, anticipating a potential precedent-setting ruling. Entertainment law and celebrity rights are key areas of focus.

The role of Purple Rain and Prince’s Legacy

Purple Rain remains a cultural touchstone, and Prince’s estate is understandably protective of his legacy. Though,the estate’s actions have drawn criticism from some fans and legal observers who argue that restricting Kotero’s use of her name is overly aggressive and possibly harmful to her career. The estate’s primary goal is to preserve the integrity of Prince’s brand and prevent any perceived exploitation of his work. Balancing these concerns with