Musician Prince Settles Lawsuit Over Perfume Deal

Prince and Vivendi SA (VIV) settled a lawsuit filed by a Pennsylvania manufacturer in 2008 accusing the singer and Universal Music Group of breaking a contract over the marketing of two perfumes, a lawyer for the plaintiffs said.

Revelations Perfume and Cosmetics, based in Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania, sued the musician, whose full name is Prince Rogers Nelson, and Universal Music in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan in November 2008, seeking at least $100,000 in damages. The company accused Prince of reneging on agreements to help market perfumes using his name and likeness and the name of his 2006 album “3121.”

A judge in April ordered Prince to pay $3.95 million for Revelations’ out-of-pocket losses, while denying the company’s request for punitive and lost-profit damages. The judge found there was no evidence that Prince and co-defendant Paisley Park Enterprises acted with malicious intent. Prince appealed the ruling the following month.

The parties have agreed to withdraw the suit and the appeal, according to court filings dated March 27. David E. Landau, an attorney with Duane Morris LLP in Philadelphia representing Revelations Perfume, confirmed in a phone interview that the case was settled. He declined to disclose the terms of the settlement.

David Donahue, an attorney with Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu Pc in New York representing Universal Music, declined to comment on the settlement. C. Kawezya Burris, an attorney with Kaye Scholer LLP in New York representing Prince, didn’t immediately return a voice-mail message seeking comment.

The case is Revelations Perfume and Cosmetics Inc. v. Prince Rogers Nelson, 603350/2008, New York State Supreme Court (Manhattan).

To contact the reporter on this story: Chris Dolmetsch in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan at

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at

Press spacebar to pause and continue. Press esc to stop.

Bloomberg reserves the right to remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.