In a striking legal move, Rick Darnell Ross, the original Rick Ross and former drug kingpin, has filed a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against rapper William Leonard Roberts II, known professionally as Rick Ross. The case, registered under federal case number CV104528 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, seeks to prevent Roberts from using Ross’s name, identity, and trademark without consent.

The TRO, filed on June 18, 2010, asserts that Roberts has misappropriated Ross’s name and likeness for commercial gain, particularly in the music industry, where he has allegedly profited from the use of the name that Ross claims rightfully belongs to him. According to the documents, Ross emphasizes that he never authorized Roberts to use his name or story, which he argues is an infringement on his rights.

The legal action specifically requests that major industry players—including Def Jam Recordings, Universal Music Group, and prominent figures like Jay-Z—cease any association or release of Roberts’s music that exploits the Rick Ross name. The court has been informed that Roberts’s upcoming album, titled “Teflon Dawn,” should not be released until the matter is resolved, and punitive measures may be imposed for any violations of the order.

In the filed memorandum, Ross details how his name has taken on a unique significance, tied to both his past and the value associated with it in the urban entertainment community. He argues that the name has acquired distinctiveness, meaning it is recognized beyond mere nomenclature; it is linked to his identity and history, a factor that has contributed to its commercial value.

Ross’s legal team contends that the exploitation of his name by Roberts, who allegedly profited while Ross was incarcerated, constitutes an unlawful act that has harmed his personal and professional reputation. The legal documents filed in this case lay out a comprehensive argument for why Roberts should be prohibited from continuing to use the name Rick Ross in any commercial context, a request supported by the seriousness of the claims.

In a forthcoming interview, Ross is expected to provide further insights into the implications of this case and his motivations for pursuing legal action against Roberts and the companies involved. As the legal proceedings unfold, this case highlights ongoing issues of identity rights and trademark infringement in the music industry, raising questions about ownership and recognition in a landscape often fraught with competition and controversy.

Stay tuned for more updates on this developing story, as both parties prepare for what could be a pivotal legal battle over one of hip-hop’s most recognizable names.