Court to Hear NewJeans’ Objection to ADOR’s Injunction on April 9

NewJeans

The legal battle between NewJeans (NJZ) and ADOR continues to drag on!

The court awarded an injunction to ADOR nearly a day before their first performance as NJZ on March 21. They were ordered to not use the new stage name and carry out independent activities without the label’s permission.

NewJeans has filed an objection to the court’s approval of ADOR’s injunction, which has prevented the group from engaging in independent activities.

On April 9 at 2:00 PM, the 50th Civil Agreement Division of the Seoul Central District Court, presided over by Chief Judge Kim Sang Hoon, will hold a hearing to address the objection filed by the five members of NewJeans against the injunction granted to ADOR.

Previously, the court had granted ADOR’s request to block NewJeans’ independent activities. The agency filed the injunction after NewJeans tried to end their exclusive contracts last November and continued to work on their own. The injunction aimed to stop NewJeans’ members from signing new advertising deals or promoting themselves independently.

Later, ADOR expanded the scope of their application to seek a ban on all music-related activities by NewJeans. This included songwriting, composing, performing, and singing, even under their rebranded name “NJZ”. The label stated that they had to reluctantly request an entertainment ban on NewJeans’ due to the group’s escalating activities.

The court ruled in favor of ADOR to temporarily halt their activities as NJZ till the outcome of the main lawsuit is announced. The label filed a lawsuit to confirm the exclusive contract’s validity in December 2024, hearing is scheduled for April 3.

Since the group is ordered to not perform under the new name, they have announced suspension of activities indefinitely.

NewJeans swiftly responded to the court’s decision by submitting an objection on the same day the injunction was accepted. All eyes are now on the April 9 hearing, where the court will consider NewJeans’ objection to the injunction.

Exit mobile version