Cher Wants $5 Million Logo Lawsuit Dismissed

Summary: Cher’s legal team asked a New York judge to dismiss a $5 million copyright infringement lawsuit filed against her.

Are typefaces subject to copyright? According to Cher’s lawyers, the answer is a contralto “No!”

Back in January, it was reported that Cher is broke and dying, and a lawsuit filed by a graphic designer may lead the “Believe” and “Turn Back Time” singer into bankruptcy.

Radar Online said that the entertainer was once worth almost $305 million but diminished her empire due to bad investments, unpaid family and friend loans, lavish living expenses, and medical expenses. Additionally, the 70-year-old singer has had health problems, which have hindered her ability to earn back what she’s lost.

Insiders said that the recent lawsuit against Cher has come at a bad time. In the paperwork, graphic designer Moshik Nadav claimed Cher used his Paris Logo typography for her album “Closer to the Truth.” The album has sold 585,000 copies and was released by Warner Brothers Records and Ganesh Productions. Smog design Inc. helped with the cover design, and all three companies were named as defendants as well as the singer.

In Nadav’s lawsuit, he said that he is a leader in the typography world and that his Paris Logo typeface is unique to his brand. He said that Cher’s team stole his typeface, and he is seeking damages of $5 million.

Below is a sample of the Paris Logo as well as the Cher design for “Closer to the Truth.”

Graphic courtesy of The Hollywood Reporter.

On Monday, Cher’s lawyers told a New York federal judge that typefaces are not protected by copyright. Cher’s attorney Leonard Venger said that copyright code spells out that elements such as short phrases, typeface, and coloring cannot be protected.

“The Paris and Paris Pro Logos share just one letter with the Cher Logos – an ‘r,’ ” the motion to dismiss said. “In addition, Plaintiffs’ attempts to rely on other letters included within the Paris typeface (but not in the Paris or Paris Pro Logos) to support their infringement claim is improper and unavailing.”