Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Band Name Dispute Over Recording and Concert Uses
Crystal Entertainment & Filmworks of Miami recently filed a lawsuit against the group in U.S. District Court in Fort Lauderdale, alleging it owns the rights to the group's name. The music group's founder ' prominent Miami Beach songwriter and producer Lewis A. Martinee ' also filed recent applications for the trademark for both the recorded music and the performances.
Jeanette Jurado, Ann Curless Weiss and Gioia Bruno of Expos' assert that Crystal ' which inherited the ownership rights to Expos's recorded music ' does not have the right to the trademark as it pertains to live performances. Among its allegations, Crystal's lawsuit alleges trademark infringement, breach of contract and unfair competition. It also alleges 'cybersquatting' for the group using the Expos' name on its Web site. Crystal named former band member Kelly Moneymaker in the lawsuit, as well as the group's booking agent, Paradise Artists of Los Angeles, and its Las Vegas-based merchandise vendor, Walking Distance Entertainment.
According to the lawsuit and its exhibits, the music group signed an agreement with Crystal Entertainment in 2006 that acknowledges that Crystal owns all rights to the trademark Expos'. The agreement stipulates that Crystal will get 10% of the proceedings from concerts and 10% of the sales of merchandise. Crystal alleges that the group and Paradise directed Walking Distance to seek registration of Expos' on their behalf to 'obtain an unfair advantage and ride the coat tails of Crystal's marketing efforts,' the suit alleges. Crystal is seeking unspecified triple damages and attorney fees.
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.
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.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.