After nearly forty years of professional association with Prince and his legacy, Apollonia Kotero, the actress who starred opposite the late music icon in the 1984 film “Purple Rain,” has found herself embroiled in a complex legal battle over the right to use her own stage name.
Four decades after Purple Rain, Apollonia battles Prince’s estate for the right to her own name.
The dispute erupted in August 2025 when Kotero filed a lawsuit against Paisley Park Enterprises LLC, the entity managing Prince’s estate, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. At the core of the conflict are trademark rights to the names “Apollonia” and “Apollonia 6,” which Kotero registered in 2018 and 2016 respectively, years after Prince’s death.
Prince’s estate launched its challenge in June 2025, petitioning the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to cancel Kotero’s trademarks. The estate bases its claims on contracts allegedly signed by Kotero in 1983 and 1984, when Prince selected her to replace Vanity as his co-star in “Purple Rain.”
Kotero’s legal team argues that her continuous, uncontested use of the name since 1985—when she left Prince’s organization to pursue independent projects—strengthens her claim to ownership. They note that neither Prince nor his representatives ever objected to her use of the name during his lifetime or in the years following his death until 2025.
Since her departure from Prince’s orbit, Kotero has maintained a visible career, releasing a solo album in 1988, appearing in films like “Black Magic Woman,” and recently launching a podcast called “Apollonia Studio 6” in 2022. This case bears striking similarities to a previous dispute in which the estate challenged Morris Day’s rights to perform under the name “the Time,” which was eventually settled.
She has also marketed Apollonia-branded merchandise through her website, demonstrating commercial use of the name.
The case highlights complex questions about the ownership of stage names, particularly when they originate within collaborative artistic relationships.
Legal experts suggest the outcome could establish important precedent for similar disputes involving artist names and intellectual property rights in the entertainment industry, especially when those names become inextricably linked with the performer’s identity over decades of public use. The lawsuit raises important questions about performance rights organizations and how they manage the collection and distribution of royalties when artist identities are contested.
Kotero could potentially secure additional income through sync licensing deals if she retains the rights to her name and associated intellectual property.
