Pay Up: Drake Wants Royalties From Macy’s and Walgreens For Use Of The Phrase ‘YOLO’
Remember a few weeks ago when we reported that “YOLO” was named the most annoying and overused word of 2012? Well, it seems that Drake now believes that he is entitled to royalties for commercial use of the phrase. The rapper recently uploaded two photographs of merchandise being sold by Macy’s and Walgreens with the acronym etched across them. Accompanied by the photographs were captions that read “Walgreens you either gotta chill or cut the cheque,” and “Same goes for you Macy’s”
It has not been indicated whether or not Drake has trademarked the phrase. But, in the event that he hasn’t, there doesn’t appear to be a whole lot he can do about the exploitation of the phrase by Macy’s and Walgreens. Ironically, Knowyourmeme.com notes that Drake was not the first person to usher the phrase into Pop culture. Instead, the acronym is tied to Adam Mesh, who appeared on NBC’s reality show “The Average Joe” and is said to have launched a clothing line after the phrase. Mesh has since expressed his utter disgust and disapproval for the meaningless direction that the saying has been dragged in.
“When I created the word it was meant as inspiration to live life to the fullest. Disappointed in current use. I have moved on,” he tweeted.
Adam Mesh clearly wants no ties with the foolish phrase that has served as every idiot’s excuse to act a complete and utter fool. Drake; however, is waiting for his payoff. What’s funny is that Drake isn’t the only person seeking to cash out on the phrase. According to Gawker, there have been over 100 YOLO trademark applications submitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Although Drake is not the terms originator, Google Insights has proven that the phrase’s popularity has surged since the release of his 2011 hit “The Motto” in which he constantly chants YOLO.
Check out the next page if you’re interested in seeing the YOLO merchandise being sold by Macy’s and Walgreens. What do you think of Drake’s claim that he should be paid for use of the term? Should he be entitled to some sort of compensation?