Kobe Bryant Accuses Pharma Company Of Using Illegal Substances In Black Mamba Lawsuit

Kobe Bryant and his legal team are going with a new game plan in their battle against Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals for the right to use the name “Black Mamba.”

Both parties have been fighting in court since 2017 over the name. Hi-Tech filed to trademark it in 2015 for its line of diet pills called “Black Mamba Hyperrush.”

Kobe Bryant has a new tactic in a court battle to trademark his nickname “Black Mamba.” (Photo: Vivien Killilea / Getty Images Entertainment via Getty Images)

Bryant tried to trademark the name one year later and said since it’s been his nickname throughout his NBA career, people wouldn’t be able to distinguish the hoop player from the pills.

The five time champion also pointed to Nike commercials that use the word “hyper,” which he said would confuse folks even more with the Hyperrush diet pills.

Now, according to The Blast, in his new legal attack, the retired shooting-guard has accused Hi-Tech of selling products that contain substances that have been banned by the FDA as a dietary supplement. He wants the courts to automatically grant him the “Black Mamba” trademark as a result.

“The product, marketed and sought to be registered as a ‘dietary supplement,’ has contained and continues to contain prohibited substances by the FDA: DMAA and Methylsynephrine,” read newly filed legal documents.

During the legal back-and-forth, Hi-Tech accused Bryant of being a bully and not having a legitimate argument as to why he should get the rights to the Black Mamba name.

The company stated that his argument about people being confused is a flimsy one, because a professional boxer named Roger Mayweather already uses the moniker. And he even trademarked “Roger Black Mamba Mayweather” in 2013.

Bryant hasn’t spoken about any of this publicly and has maintained his silence since the very beginning.

Still independent.

We hope this story was worth your time. For over 14 years, Atlanta Black Star has stayed Black-owned and independently run. We didn't get here by waiting on ad budgets that were never built to prioritize us. Our readers did that.

Corporate support for Black media has always been thin. Outlets like ours get roughly 1% of the $170 billion spent on U.S. advertising each year, and that margin is shrinking further as advertisers walk back the DEI-linked commitments they made in 2020. That's the backdrop. It's not why we're asking.

The wider picture isn't any steadier. Newspaper ad revenue has fallen more than 80% since 2005, and local newsrooms are closing at a rate of roughly two a week nationwide. When outlets go under, it's rarely the ones built to center a Black perspective from the ground up that get to stick around.

We know a request for support isn't why you came here. But without readers choosing to fund this work directly, the depth of reporting we can do at home and abroad shrinks along with everyone else's. If you're not in a position to give, that doesn't change how much we value you as a reader.

If you are able to, a recurring contribution does more for us than a single one-time gift, because it lets us plan the next investigation instead of just the next invoice. It takes about 30 seconds, no long form, no account. Thank you for continuing to support independent journalism and freedom of the press.

Back to top