C+C Music Factory Co-Founder Sues Freedom Williams for $30 Million Over Trademark

C+C Music Factory co-founder Robert Clivillés is suing rapper Freedom Williams for at least $30 million, alleging Williams improperly claimed trademark rights to the group’s name and has spent years using it for performances and new music without authorization.

Clivillés filed the lawsuit Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Williams, Freedom Williams Entertainment and Big Mac Entertainment. The complaint includes claims for trademark infringement, fraud, unfair competition and defamation and seeks an order restricting Williams’ continued use of the C+C Music Factory name.

At the center of the case is a dispute over who has the legal right to control a name associated with one of the biggest dance acts of the early 1990s. Clivillés says he and his late production partner David Cole created C+C Music Factory in 1990, with the two C’s representing their surnames. Cole died in 1995.

Williams provided rap vocals on some of the group’s best-known songs, including “Gonna Make You Sweat (Everybody Dance Now)” and “Things That Make You Go Hmmm…” Clivillés claims Williams was hired as a featured performer rather than made a founder or owner of C+C Music Factory and that their working relationship ended in 1992.

Williams later began performing under variations of the C+C Music Factory name. His company currently holds a federal registration for “C & C MUSIC FACTORY,” issued in 2015 after an application filed the previous year. Clivillés alleges Williams obtained the registration by falsely representing that he had the right to claim ownership of the mark.

A federal trademark registration generally gives its holder a legal presumption of ownership and the exclusive right to use the mark for the goods or services covered by the registration. That presumption can be challenged, however, leaving the court to consider the history of the mark, the parties’ competing rights, and other defenses raised in the case.

Clivillés previously challenged Williams’ registration before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in 2016. That proceeding was dismissed with prejudice in 2018 after Clivillés failed to file a required trial brief. The board did not issue a substantive ruling deciding which man originally owned the C+C Music Factory name.

The history could become important in the new lawsuit. Clivillés argues that the earlier proceeding ended because of an error by his former attorneys and never resolved the underlying ownership dispute. Williams’ attorney, Charles Schmitt, has rejected the new claims, arguing that Williams lawfully owns the trademark and that the previous dismissal prevents Clivillés from relitigating the issue.

Clivillés alleges Williams has nevertheless profited from a brand he did not create, performing internationally under the C+C Music Factory name and earning thousands of dollars per show. The complaint also challenges the June release of “Into the Future,” which Williams promoted under the group’s name through Big Mac Entertainment.

Tensions between the two musicians resurfaced publicly in May after Williams was announced in connection with the Freedom 250 concert series in Washington, D.C. Williams posted a video defending his planned participation while making a series of inflammatory comments. Clivillés publicly distanced himself and C+C Music Factory from Williams’ statements and renewed his objections to Williams’ use of the name.

The lawsuit claims Williams’ continued use of C+C Music Factory has damaged the brand and created the false impression that he speaks for the act Clivillés and Cole created. Williams’ attorney has said there is no merit to the lawsuit and maintains that his client holds valid rights to the name.

Clivillés is seeking at least $30 million in damages and has demanded a jury trial. He has also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunctionpreliminary injunctionA preliminary injunction is a temporary court order issued before a case is finally decided that requires a party to take or stop an action while the litigation continues. Federal courts generally consider the likelihood of success, irreparable harm, the balance of equities, and the public interest before granting one.Read more → as the trademark case proceeds in federal court.