MTV Lawsuit Over Nick Cannon’s New Rap Battle Show Can Move Ahead, Judge Says

A federal judge is refusing to dismiss MTV’s lawsuit claiming Nick Cannon’s new battle rap show is a “flagrant” copycat of his long-running series Wild ’N Out.

The case, filed last year by MTV owner Viacom against the streaming service Zeus Network, claims that Cannon’s Bad vs. Wild stole “each and every” element of Wild ’N Out, a popular hip-hop comedy show that’s aired for more than 20 seasons on MTV and VH1.

In a ruling issued Monday (April 30), Judge Arun Subramanian dismissed several key elements of the case, including Viacom’s allegation that the new show infringed the copyrights to the original. But he said Bad vs. Wild had potentially violated trademark law by using a similar name and logo.

The ruling does not mean Viacom (now a unit of Paramount Skydance) has won the case. It must now seek evidence to prove that Zeus infringed its trademarks with the similar name. But the judge said those claims were strong enough to move the case ahead into discovery and toward an eventual trial.

Reps for both sides did not immediately return requests for comment. Cannon himself is not named in the case nor accused of wrongdoing.

Wild ’N Out, which debuted on MTV in 2005, features teams of comedy and hip-hop stars battling in a series of competitions, capped off by a freestyle battle and then a musical performance. Over the years — the show has run for 21 seasons — it has boasted guests including Snoop Dogg, Kanye West, A$AP Rocky and Lil Wayne.

In its lawsuit last year, Viacom said Cannon’s newer show was an intentional clone of the original, cemented by the use of the same host. The lawsuit didn’t name Cannon as a defendant but instead accused Zeus of essentially poaching him, claiming the new show was illegally “cosplaying” as a sequel to the original series.

“In an era where original content is at a premium, Zeus has chosen the path of least resistance: stealing the fruits of Viacom’s goodwill and decades of labor and innovation, and pawning it off as its own original idea for its own financial gain,” Viacom’s lawyers wrote at the time.

In his ruling on Monday, Judge Subramanian sided with Zeus on big parts of the case. Most notably, he rejected Viacom’s accusation that the new show infringed copyrights — saying that the company’s argument would have the “perverse” effect of making formulaic shows like police procedurals and reality TV illegal.

“Many reality shows … would be liable for copyright infringement, as they often recruit the same individuals, place them in similar scenarios, and have similar pacing and themes,” the judge said. “There is a reason that Viacom can only point to a single case for support; if thematic similarities sufficed for a copyright-infringement claim, it would make the development of new television shows much more difficult.”

But he allowed the trademark claims to move ahead, saying Viacom had shown enough to avoid having those claims similarly dismissed, including that the names were too similar to use on directly competing shows. He stressed, though, that more evidence would be needed to win the case.

“While it will have to make a greater showing at summary judgment, Viacom has met its burden at this stage,” the judge said.