C+C Music Factory Founder Hits Freedom Williams With $30 Million Trademark and Fraud Lawsuit
Robert Clivillés alleges that Williams was only a "subordinate contributor" on 1990s hits like “Gonna Make You Sweat (Everybody Dance Now)."
Black News 
Robert Clivillés, one of the co-founders of C+C Music Factory, is suing rapper Freedom Williams over control of the 1990s dance group’s name.
The lawsuit, filed on Friday (Aug. 14) and obtained by Billboard, seeks $30 million in damages for claims including trademark infringement, fraud and defamation against Williams and indie label Big Mac Entertainment. An attorney for Williams says there is not “any merit to the lawsuit whatsoever.”
Clivillés co-founded C+C Music Factory alongside David Cole in 1990. Williams rapped as a featured artist on a number of the group’s biggest hits, including the 1991 chart-topper “Gonna Make You Sweat (Everybody Dance Now),” as well as “Here We Go” and “Things That Make You Go Hmmmm,” which hit No. 3 and No. 4 on the Billboard Hot 100 the same year.
Williams now performs solo under the C+C moniker, which he’s legally owned since registering it as a trademark in 2005. This has long frustrated Clivillés, who first petitioned the U.S. federal trademark tribunal to cancel Williams’ trademark in 2016. That case was dismissed due to a missed deadline by Clivillés’ then-lawyer. Now he’s taking the matter into his own hands by filing a new federal lawsuit pro se, meaning without an attorney, that seeks to claw back the trademark from Williams.
In the Friday lawsuit, Clivillés alleges he became the sole owner of the C+C name after Cole died in 1995. He claims that Williams fraudulently obtained his trademark by falsely claiming on application paperwork that the name belonged to him. “These statements were materially false,” writes Clivillés in the complaint. “Williams knew at the time of filing that Plaintiff Clivillés had created the mark in 1990 and had continuously used it in commerce.”
Clivillés argues in the complaint that C+C, which stands for Clivillés and Cole, was always a creative project controlled by the two co-founders. He says Williams held a “subordinate contributor role” as a featured artist and was not part of the group’s “core brand.” He notes that this “producer-driven model” is common in the music industry, citing modern hits like David Guetta’s “Titanium” featuring Sia and Calvin Harris’ “This Is What You Came For” featuring Rihanna.
“In every one of those cases, no featured artist has ever claimed ownership of the producer’s brand by virtue of appearing on a single or album,” writes Clivillés. “The featured artist credit has always meant exactly one thing in the music industry: a guest performer on that particular recording. It has never conveyed membership, ownership or any legal right in the primary brand.”
Clivillés alleges that Williams has unfairly profited off the C+C intellectual property by collecting performance fees since the late 1990s. He says this wrongdoing recently escalated with Williams’ release of a new song under the C+C name called “Into the Future,” which dropped in June via Big Mac Entertainment.
The lawsuit also takes issue with a seven-minute video Williams posted to the official C+C Instagram account in May. This clip, filmed while sitting on the toilet, focused on Williams’ inclusion in the lineup for President Donald Trump’s controversial Great American State Fair concert.
“[The video], broadcast globally under the C+C Music Factory brand, contained statements invoking Adolf Hitler, racial slurs and sexually degrading language that were false, defamatory and injurious to the reputation of the C+C Music Factory brand and to Plaintiff personally,” reads the lawsuit.
In addition to seeking financial damages, Clivillés’ lawsuit asks a judge to cancel Williams’ ownership of the C+C trademark and order him to stop using the name going forward. Clivillés also wants “Into the Future” removed from streaming platforms.
Williams’ attorney, Charlie Schmitt, told Billboard on Thursday (Aug. 18) that the claims are meritless. Schmitt said Williams is the legal owner of the C+C trademark, and that the entire case is barred by the dismissal of Clivillés’ prior trademark challenge.
“Whether he chooses to believe it or not, generally courts view a dismissal with prejudice as a full adjudication, and you don’t get a second bite at the apple,” Schmitt said. “He’s clearly angry, but I don’t think there’s any merit to the lawsuit.”
A rep for Big Mac Entertainment did not immediately return a request for comment.
