Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
COURTHOUSE STEPS
CASE CAPTION: John Densmore, individually and on behalf of California general partnerships comprised of John Densmore, the Estate of James Morrison, the Estate of Pam Courson, Raymond Manzarek and Robert Krieger v. Raymond Manzarek, Robert Krieger, Ian Astbury and Stewart Copeland, L.A. Superior Court # BC289730.
CAUSES OF ACTION: An injunction and an accounting.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The defendants are wrongfully holding themselves out as The Doors and wrongfully appropriated the trade name and logo. Densmore, Manzarek and Krieger were all members of the original band, Astbury was in The Cult and Copeland was in The Police. The Doors was created in 1965 with Jim Morrison and a partnership was formed in 1966, with the band members being equal partners. The agreement provided that if the partnership were dissolved, no individual member would have the right to use the name. The partnership terminated with Morrison's death in 1971. Pam Courson, Morrison's wife; died several years later. The three surviving members, with the acquiescence of Courson, agreed to continue using the band name together ' but not individually or with others. The new agreement also required unanimity on partnership matters. Plaintiff Densmore told the others that he no longer intended to perform in a band with them and did not consent to their use of the band name. He believes that the estates of Morrison and Courson also object to use of the name. Krieger and Manzarek said they would use another name and only identify themselves as former members of The Doors, but they have advertised appearances as The Doors.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.