Apollonia Says Prince Would Have Opposed Estate’s Attempt to Control Her Name
Apollonia is pushing back against efforts by Prince’s estate to assert control over the stage name she has used for more than four decades, arguing that the late musician explicitly wanted her to continue performing and working under the identity he helped create.
In a declaration filed Friday in federal court, the singer, actress, and model, born Patricia Kotero, said Prince personally encouraged her to keep using the name “Apollonia” during a private conversation just weeks before his death in 2016. The filing is part of her ongoing lawsuit against Paisley Park Enterprises, the company that manages Prince’s estate, which has sought to cancel or take over her trademark registrations related to the name.
Kotero said the conversation took place on Feb. 28, 2016, following Prince’s Piano & a Microphone concert in Oakland, California. She stated that Susan Moonsie, a fellow member of the girl group Apollonia 6, was present during the exchange.
According to Kotero, Prince was clear about his wishes. She wrote that he urged both women to continue performing, merchandising, and pursuing creative projects using the names associated with their work during the Purple Rain era, emphasizing financial independence and long-term security. Kotero said Prince wanted them to remain active artists and believed they should retain control over the identities audiences associated with them.
Kotero argues that Prince never trademarked the name “Apollonia” during his lifetime and that the estate exceeded its authority when it assumed control of the trademark in June 2025 and attempted to cancel her existing registrations and pending applications at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. She is asking the court to deny the estate’s motion to dismiss her lawsuit and allow the case to proceed.
In her declaration, Kotero said the dispute would not exist if Prince were still alive. She claimed he would have opposed what she described as the estate’s aggressive legal posture and efforts to override his personal assurances to her. She added that losing the right to use the Apollonia name would jeopardize her livelihood, disrupt her business activities, and effectively erase an identity she has maintained publicly and professionally for decades.
Kotero first filed suit in August, seeking a judicial declaration affirming her right to use the name. She argued that Prince not only consented to her continued use of the name but actively encouraged it before his death from an accidental fentanyl overdose at age 57. Her complaint also expressed concern that, if successful before the trademark office, the estate could later sue her for infringement.
The estate has denied those claims. In a statement posted on Prince’s official Instagram account last year, Paisley Park Enterprises said it was acting to protect Prince’s legacy and intellectual property. The estate also said it had made multiple attempts to resolve the matter privately and had offered Kotero opportunities to perform at Paisley Park.
In court filings, the estate has maintained that it has no intention of preventing Kotero from using the name and argued that trademark ownership should be decided by the USPTO rather than a federal court. The estate also dismissed Kotero’s claims that promotional materials for a Purple Rain stage musical violated her rights, stating that the use of a character name beneath another actress’s photograph did not amount to actionable misconduct.
Kotero’s legal team disputes that characterization. Her attorney, Daniel M. Cislo, said the estate’s actions pose a real and ongoing threat to her professional identity and commercial interests.
Kotero rose to international fame as Prince’s co-star in Purple Rain and later fronted Apollonia 6, scoring a hit with “Sex Shooter.” She continued acting and recording under the Apollonia name throughout the 1980s and beyond. Prince died without a will, and his estate is now jointly owned by his surviving siblings following years of legal disputes.
A hearing on the estate’s motion to dismiss is scheduled for Feb. 13. Lawyers for the estate did not respond to a request for comment.
