According to Rolling Stone, this amusing legal spat between will.i.am and Pharrell has taken another twist after Pharrell's attorney called Mr i.am's tweets denying he was suing Williams "revisionist history".
Basically, following will's tweets yesterday his lawyer Ken Hertz released a statement reiterating that his client wasn't suing Pharrell but that it was a "run-of-the-mill trademark procedure" in order to "defend trademarks that have been registered and that [will.i.am] has used widely and continuously for many years."
"We own a trademark," Hertz continued, in reference to the words I and Am. "They have applied for a trademark. We think their proposed trademark is too close to our registered and common law trademarks. They disagree. We hope to work out a sensible compromise that will allow both parties to move forward without unnecessary acrimony."
So then Pharrell's attorney, Brad Rose, had this to say about everything:
"The statements made by Will and his advisors over the past two days amount to revisionist history in the face of the public condemnation against Will that has resulted after this story broke yesterday. "The plain truth is that Will has obstructed every overture made by Pharrell to amicably resolve this matter and has steadfastly refused to engage in a dialogue. Will and his trademark counsel have instituted no less than eight cases against Pharrell in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and have also threatened on more than one occasion to sue Pharrell for trademark infringement in Federal District Court for damages and an injunction. All of this because Will misguidedly believes that he has the sole right to the words I AM in commerce, notwithstanding the myriad of I Am compound trademarks that coexist on the trademark register and in the marketplace."
It's all a bit silly really.