Nicki Minaj Sued for Wig Plagiarism to the Amount of $30 Million

Nicki Minaj is being sued by her former "wig master" Terrence Davidson to the amount of $30 million.

In his lawsuit, Davidson claims that Ms. Minaj stole, licensed and sold his personal designs without sharing the profits.

Davidson and Minaj started working together in 2010. At that time Minaj was making her mark in the hip hop music niche under the recording label Young Money Entertainment. To go mainstream and become a pop sensation, she wanted to restyle herself and turned to Davidson for funky wigs as part of her new brand image.

Davidson's wig creations are described in the lawsuit as "fresh, unique and highly distinguishable". They ranged from black to blonde to any kind of cotton-candy color and carry names such as "Pink Upper Bun Wig," the "SuperBass Wig" and the "Half Blonde-Half Pink Wig". According to the lawsuit, Davidson’s wig creations “significantly contributed to Minaj’s unsurpassed notoriety for her wigs.”

After hitting it big with her debut record album Pink Friday (which went platinum), their business relationship slowly deteriorated. Minaj went on to become a major sensation and was even an America Idol judge in 2013. Their business relationship dissolved in 2012.

According to Davidson, Minaj started selling her own wig line via her website MyPinkFriday.com. He also claims that her management discouraged him from signing a multi-million-dollar deal for a reality show, implying that it would harm their cooperation.

Davidson hired prominent lawyer Christopher Chestnut which does not bode well for Ms. Minaj. Chestnut stated: “Her lawyers may complicate it, but we don’t need to get into intellectual-property law. This is basic American morality. Nicki Minaj lied to this man and cheated him. . . It’s a classic David versus Goliath situation."

Read the full complaint below.

NM suit

(Image courtesy of Neil Mockford / FilmMagic / Getty Images)

How Finjan Monitizes Its Patents

Finjan, a web security company, has a long history of suing competitors for infringing on its patents. Since 2006, the company has sued Secure Computing, McAfee, Symantec, Webroot Software, Websense, and Sophos for the infringement of two of its patents.

When M86 Security took over Finjan in 2009, it wanted to distance itself from any legal entanglements. Finjan was split into two companies (“reverse merger”). The operations\al side was merged into M86 and the IP side ended up in a new company (FSI Inc.)

At the time, M86 issued the following statement to clarify matters:

“M86 Security acquired the technology, people and operating assets of Finjan. The ownership of the patents remained with FSI Inc. and M86 acquired a license to use the patents. The original suit against Secure Computing, now McAfee, we understand is still being pursued by FSI Inc. This recent action appears to be related to new infringement suits. M86 Security is issuing this statement to clarify that it is not affiliated in any way with the lawsuit recently filed by FSI.”

FSI is a patent monetizing company partly owned by Iroquois Capital LP and Hudson Bay Capital Management LP both known for equity financing of microcap companies. The two hedge fund companies released Finjan from all its debts, liabilities and other claims. FSI’s main revenue stream consists of going after companies for infringing of its patents, which makes it a patent roll – an intellectual property portfolio company making a living by going after anyone infringing on any of the patents it holds. The IP portfolio contains numerous patents and other intellectual property with expiration dates extending through 2030.

The company is not always successful in its legal pursuits. In December 2012, a jury decided that Symantec, Websense and Sophos did not infringe Finjan’s patents for protecting computers and networks from “hostile downloadables”.

FSI was more successful with Webroot, maker of SecureAnywhere, when it reached a settlement.

FSI’s most recent lawsuit is aimed at Proofpoint, Inc., and its subsidiary Armorize Technologies, Inc. The company accuses Proofpoint of infringing its patents relating to endpoint, web, and network security technologies.

Apart from owning Finjan’s portfolio of online security technology patents, FSI also owns Converted Organics Inc., which operated a small fertilizer processing plant in Gonzales, California.

FSI latest move is investing in a new $60 million cyberfund, which will specialize in investments in start-ups dealing with information security.

(Image courtesy of www.anp.nl)

Google’s French Faux Pas

Google got on the wrong side of the French authorities. The Commissions Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL) investigated Google’s privacy policy change from 2012. About two years ago, Google bundled all its services (Google+, Gmail, Blogger, YouTube etc.) into one. This also changed the privacy policies of the separate accounts that users managed separately.

The CNIL came to the conclusion that Google’s new privacy policy didn't give users enough control over their private information. Furthermore, the agency also found that Google did not explain properly what it would do with the user data.

The ruling of the CNIL is quite interesting. Google was forced to pay a fine of €150,000 which is peanuts for the multinational. That’s why the CNIL added some interesting conditions to its ruling.

Google was forced to post a notice about its misconduct on its homepage. Once accessing google.fr, the following message (translated into English, for the original text go to google.fr) features under the search field:

“Statement: The sanctions committee of the Commision Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés has ordered Google to pay a €150,000 fine for violations of the ‘Data-Processing and Freedoms’ law. Decision available at the following address: http:www.cnil.fr/linstitution/missions/sanctionner/Google/”.

Not underestimating the cleverness of Google, the CNIL also dictated the text of the notice. To avoid the age-old legal trick to use a small font and bury the text as much as possible in order to deter readers, the CNIL also dictated the size of the font and the colors to be used as well as the position of the notification on the Google.fr homepage.

Google was not happy to say the least. It promptly turned to a French court to petition suspension of the ruling. It argued that posting the CNIL’s notification would do "irreparable damage" to its reputation. The French court was not convinced and rejected the petition, ordering Google to comply with the order.

It’s not the first time Google ran into trouble in Europe; it recently came to an agreement with the European Commission to pay a $5 billion fine following a three-year-long antitrust investigation.

France is the first European country to order Google to post such a notice. It will be interesting to see if more European countries will follow suit.