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
 
Who Owns "Expose" Mark?
Highest Court S.D. Florida
Year Ended 2009
Plaintiffs Music Producer(s)
Record Label(s)
Defendants Band Member(s)
Music Promoter(s)
Talent Agent(s)
Other Expos?
Short Description This is a trademark dispute between the band Expose (an all-girl, early 1990s singing group) and a film company that owns a trademark in the name for music performance-related products, regarding ownership of the name. During settlement negotiations between the band and Plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest during the mid-1990s, the band admitted Plaintiff's predecessor owned the name, and entered a trademark license agreement stating as much. In 2007, the band's legal counsel sent a letter saying Plaintiffs did not actually own the name, stating that the band would seek to register it for themselves. Plaintiffs brought suit for trademark infringement and unfair competition, among numerous other related causes of action. The band's entities counterclaimed, alleging the earlier settlements were induced by fraud, and requesting rescission of the settlement. After venue was found to be proper, the court held that--while the contract cannot be rescinded because Plaintiff was not a party to settlement negotiations, but merely purchased the name from that party--Defendants' counterclaim for fraud was validly stated. Justifiable reliance required further fact-finding, and could not be dismissed summarily. - LSW

Legal Issues
Civil Procedure Third Party Claims Necessary Parties
Conflicts of Law Choice of Law Forum Selection Clause
  Jurisdiction & Forum Venue
Contracts Breach Repudiation
General Affirmative Defenses Statutes of Limitation
  Equitable Remedies Constructive Trust
Trademarks & Unfair Competition Federal (Anti-Cybersquatting Cons. Prot. Act) Cybersquatting
  Federal (Lanham Act) Trademark Infringement
    Unfair Competition, False Advertising & Related Torts
  State Statute/Common Law Unfair & Deceptive Trade Practices


Opinions Crystal Entertainment & Filmworks, Inc. v. Jurado
2009 WL 1098463
S.D. Florida , April 22, 2009 ( No. 08-60125-CIV )


Crystal Entertainment & Filmworks, Inc. v. Jurado
2008 WL 4980345
S.D. Florida , November 20, 2008 ( No. 08-60125-CIV )


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) ( Defendant )
Expos? ( Other )
Music Producer(s) ( Plaintiff )
Music Promoter(s) ( Defendant )
Record Label(s) ( Plaintiff )
Talent Agent(s) ( Defendant )

Legal Issues
Civil Procedure / Third Party Claims / Necessary Parties
Conflicts of Law / Choice of Law / Forum Selection Clause
Conflicts of Law / Jurisdiction & Forum / Venue
Contracts / Breach / Repudiation
General / Affirmative Defenses / Statutes of Limitation
General / Equitable Remedies / Constructive Trust
Trademarks & Unfair Competition / Federal (Anti-Cybersquatting Cons. Prot. Act) / Cybersquatting
Trademarks & Unfair Competition / Federal (Lanham Act) / Trademark Infringement
Trademarks & Unfair Competition / Federal (Lanham Act) / Unfair Competition, False Advertising & Related Torts
Trademarks & Unfair Competition / State Statute/Common Law / Unfair & Deceptive Trade Practices

Courts
S.D. Florida (highest court)


permalink to this entry