box1 header1
Entry Detail
Terms of Use The data on this site is for education, insights, and entertainment, and is not to be used for commercial purposes. If you want to use content for noncommercial purposes, be kind and give us due credit. To read the full Terms of Use, click here.
Options Conduct New Search
Copy Permalink to this Item
Misfits Tick Off Misfits
Highest Court S.D. New York
Year Ended 2010
Plaintiffs Band Member(s)
Defendants Band Member(s)
Business Entity of Artist(s)
Other Danzig
Short Description The Misfits are among the most popular and iconic of the early punk rock boom, with peak years in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Perhaps most famously, the band was the launching pad for lead singer Glen Danzig, better known simply as "Danzig," who has since had a lucrative, if not sometimes comical, solo career. After the band dissolved in the early-mid 1980s, their popularity nevertheless increased, and, in 1992, a lawsuit erupted between the members regarding rights to the songs and other intellectual property. A settlement, reached in 1994, determined that, though Danzig wrote the band's songs, the trademarks and merchandising rights were co-owned by the plaintiffs in that suit and Danzig, and that both parties could exploit the logo and goods without accounting to the other for their profit. Plaintiffs in this suit, members of the band during 1978-1982, were not parties to that suit, but allege they were assured that no member would seek exclusive trademark rights to the name. The band re-grouped shortly after the earlier settlement, and still exist today. When Plaintiffs learned that Defendants, members of the current line-up and the corporation they control, had registered trademarks for the Misfit and its logos, Plaintiffs sued, alleging fraud on the trademark office, a declaratory judgment of co-ownership of the name, and requesting cancellation of the registration and an accounting of profits. However, the court found that New York courts lacked general personal jurisdiction over Defendants, New Jersey residents and a New Jersey corporation, even though Defendants have performed and sold merchandise in New York, because they do not maintain an office, solicit business, keep bank accounts, own property, or have employees or agents there. Furthermore, Plaintiffs' trademark claims do not "arise from" their activities in the state, so no specific jurisdiction was shown either. Last, Plaintiff's claims for an accounting were simply unfounded. - LSW

Legal Issues
Conflicts of Law Jurisdiction & Forum Personal Jurisdiction
Trademarks & Unfair Competition Federal (Lanham Act) Declaratory Judgment
    Registration, Opposition & Cancellation

Opinions Kaufhold v. Cyclopian Music, Inc.
2010 WL 5094630
S.D. New York , December 14, 2010 ( No. 10 Civ. 4588(DLC) )

Errors Do you see something that is not correct?
The Discography is an ongoing project. Some entries in the database are displayed in various stages of completion. If you see spelling or grammar issues, they are likely to be corrected in the near future as they're noticed by editors (they're on the "To Do" list, we promise). But If you notice errors regarding facts, legal conclusions, or other information, please contact us to let us know. We've done our best, but can't assure perfection. Thank you.

Related Searches Parties
Band Member(s) ( Plaintiff )
Band Member(s) ( Defendant )
Business Entity of Artist(s) ( Defendant )
Danzig ( Other )
Misfits ( Other )

Legal Issues
Conflicts of Law / Jurisdiction & Forum / Personal Jurisdiction
Trademarks & Unfair Competition / Federal (Lanham Act) / Declaratory Judgment
Trademarks & Unfair Competition / Federal (Lanham Act) / Ownership
Trademarks & Unfair Competition / Federal (Lanham Act) / Registration, Opposition & Cancellation

S.D. New York (highest court)

permalink to this entry