Kenyatta v. Combs: Court Lets Trademark Claims Over 'Act Bad' Proceed, Dismisses the Rest

In the matter of Charles Kenyatta, Jr. v. Sean Combs and Bad Boy Entertainment, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-06923 (JGK) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge John G. Koeltl has granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss Kenyatta’s Second Amended Complaint. His two federal trademark-infringement claims survive; his trademark-counterfeiting, willful-infringement, unjust-enrichment and declaratory-judgment claims do not. (ECF No. 119.)

Background

Kenyatta, proceeding pro se, sued Combs and Bad Boy Entertainment in September 2024, alleging they infringed his registered trademarks “ACT BAD” and “ACT BAD ENTERTAINMENT,” used on clothing and entertainment promotion since at least 2020. (ECF No. 119 at 1, 2.) He alleges that after licensing talks with Combs’s lawyers broke down, Combs released a song titled “Act Bad” in May 2023 and sold merchandise bearing the phrase, while an Instagram post announcing the song acknowledged Kenyatta “as the original Mr. ACT BAD.” He further alleges that an associate of Combs’s, “BK Rube,” told him a man named Gourick executed a licensing contract on Kenyatta’s behalf without authorization, in exchange for cash and album credit, and that Combs and Gourick later performed “Act Bad” together on stage. (Id. at 2–3.) The USPTO registered “ACT BAD” on Sept. 26, 2023, and “ACT BAD ENTERTAINMENT” on Feb. 20, 2024. (Id.)

Judge Koeltl dismissed Kenyatta’s original complaint in September 2025, with the contract and conversion claims dismissed with prejudice and the rest with leave to replead. Kenyatta v. Combs, 2025 WL 2636610 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2025) (ECF No. 105). Kenyatta filed a Second Amended Complaint pleading six claims on Sept. 18, 2025 (Counts I, II, III, IV, VI and VIII — his numbering skips V and VII); the defendants moved again to dismiss on Oct. 10, 2025. (ECF Nos. 109, 112.)

Trademark Claims Survive

The order denies dismissal of Kenyatta’s claims for infringement of a registered mark (Count I, § 1114) and of an unregistered mark / unfair competition (Count II, § 1125(a)). On confusion, it credits Kenyatta’s allegation that “Act Bad” “has led consumers and industry professionals to contact Kenyatta ‘under the mistaken belief that ACT BAD is owned, sponsored, or controlled by Combs.’” (Id. at 4.) It rejects the defendants’ First Amendment defense under Rogers v. Grimaldi as premature: the song title “has some artistic relevance,” but it is “not immediately apparent from the face of [the] complaint” the defense would prevail. (Id. at 13–14.) It also rejects the defendants’ fraud-on-the-PTO argument as “a factual question that cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss.” (Id. at 15.) “Kenyatta has adequately alleged that he has a valid registered trademark in the phrase ‘ACT BAD’ and that the defendants’ use of that mark in commerce is likely to cause confusion,” the order concludes as to Count I; Count II is denied on the same reasoning. (Id. at 15, 17.)

Counterfeiting and Willful-Infringement Claims Dismissed

Trademark counterfeiting (Count III) requires marks “spurious” or “substantially indistinguishable” from the real one. Comparing Kenyatta’s own exhibits, the order finds his mark “somewhat different from” the defendants’ use and concludes he “has failed plausibly to allege that the defendants’ products rise to the level of ‘counterfeits’ within the meaning of the Lanham Act.” (Id. at 21.) The derivative “willful trademark infringement” claim (Count IV) fails for the same reason and “is therefore dismissed.” (Id. at 23.) Neither dismissal is stated as with or without prejudice.

Unjust Enrichment and Declaratory Judgment Dismissed With Prejudice

The order dismisses Kenyatta’s unjust-enrichment/constructive-trust claim (Count VI) as duplicative of his Lanham Act claims — “dismissed with prejudice.” (Id. at 24.) It also dismisses his request for a declaratory judgment voiding any Gourick licensing agreement (Count VIII): Kenyatta “can litigate those issues through his Lanham Act claims,” and Gourick “is not even a party in this dispute” — also “dismissed with prejudice.” (Id. at 25–26.)

The Other Side

In the parties’ joint case-management plan, filed after the ruling, the defendants deny the SAC and specifically deny that Kenyatta has any “superior, valid, or enforceable trademark right,” that they used any mark without authorization, that consumers were confused, or that Kenyatta suffered recoverable damages or harm. (ECF No. 125 at 2.) Their affirmative defenses include laches, statute of limitations, consent or license, waiver, estoppel, fair use, abandonment, unclean hands, invalidity, alleged fraud on the USPTO, and First Amendment protection for “ACT BAD” as the title of an expressive work; they deny willfulness and call any damages speculative, unmitigated, or third-party caused. (Id.)

What's Next

The Clerk was directed to close the motion at ECF No. 112. (Id. at 26.) The defendants answered the surviving claims with a jury demand on June 22, 2026. (ECF No. 120.) Magistrate Judge Gary Stein entered a case-management and scheduling order on July 30, 2026: initial disclosures by Aug. 28, 2026; a Sept. 11 deadline to join parties or amend pleadings; fact discovery, including depositions, closing Feb. 26, 2027; and expert discovery by Apr. 30, 2027. (ECF No. 125 at 3–4.) The order flags that depositions of Kenyatta and Combs must occur at their places of confinement, Sing Sing Correctional Facility and FCI Fort Dix, which may affect that deadline. (Id. at 4.) No motions are presently anticipated; the parties expect a jury trial of at least seven days. (Id. at 4–5.) On Sept. 22, 2026, Adam R. Rahman of Jonathan D. Davis, P.C. filed a notice of appearance for the defendants. (ECF No. 126.)

Counsel and Sources

Charles Kenyatta, Jr. proceeds pro se. Sean Combs and Bad Boy Entertainment, LLC are represented by Jonathan D. Davis, David Charles Russell, Colin James Steele and Adam R. Rahman of Jonathan D. Davis, P.C. Source: ECF Nos. 1, 95, 96, 98, 105, 109, 110, 113, 118, 119, 125 and 126 on the Kenyatta v. Combs docket.

Diddy Docket reports on public court records. Parties are presumed innocent or not liable unless proven otherwise. This is not legal advice.