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
 
Kid Rock's 1st Producer: "Breach!" (I)
Highest Court Sixth Circuit
Year Ended 2005
Plaintiffs Music Producer(s)
Music Publisher(s)
Record Label(s)
Defendants Kid Rock
Top Dog Records
Other No Other parties on file
Short Description This lawsuit was filed by Kid Rock's original manager in 1999, ten years after the two parties entered management, publishing, and various other contracts during the much-less-successful early years of Rock's career. Rock openly rejected the contracts the same year, asserting that Rock, not Plaintiff, owned the Top Dog record label and Rock's copyrights. Here, Plaintiff brought various tort, contract, and fiduciary duty claims, alleging Rock's subsequent transfer of the same compositions to Zomba violated Plaintiff's rights. Regarding these claims, the court held them preempted by the Copyright Act; the issue was really whether Rock infringed Plaintiff's copyrights, and no meaningful "extra element" existed outside basic infringement. As such, the claims were barred by copyright's three year statute of limitations. State claims were barred by their six-year limitations, and Plaintiff's trademark claims regarding the "Top Dog" mark, whether federal or state, were defeated by Plaintiff's utter abandonment following Rock's repudiation, having made no effort to enforce Plaintiff's alleged ownership over the past 10 years. See also "Kid Rock's 1st Producer: 'Breach!' (II)," for the follow-up suit to this entry. - LSW

Legal Issues
Business Associations Partnerships Partner & Fiduciary Duties
Conflicts of Law Jurisdiction & Forum Federal Removal Jurisdiction
Contracts Breach Repudiation
General Affirmative Defenses Federal Preemption
    Statutes of Limitation
  Equitable Actions Unjust Enrichment
Torts Economic Torts Fraud, Misrepresentation & Inducement
  Property Torts Conversion
Trademarks & Unfair Competition Federal (Lanham Act) Unfair Competition, False Advertising & Related Torts


Opinions Ritchie v. Williams
395 F.3d 283
Sixth Circuit , January 11, 2005 ( No. 03-1279 )


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
Kid Rock ( Defendant )
Music Producer(s) ( Plaintiff )
Music Publisher(s) ( Plaintiff )
Record Label(s) ( Plaintiff )
Top Dog Records ( Defendant )

Legal Issues
Business Associations / Partnerships / Partner & Fiduciary Duties
Conflicts of Law / Jurisdiction & Forum / Federal Removal Jurisdiction
Contracts / Breach / Repudiation
General / Affirmative Defenses / Federal Preemption
General / Affirmative Defenses / Statutes of Limitation
General / Equitable Actions / Unjust Enrichment
Torts / Economic Torts / Fraud, Misrepresentation & Inducement
Torts / Property Torts / Conversion
Trademarks & Unfair Competition / Federal (Lanham Act) / Unfair Competition, False Advertising & Related Torts

Courts
Sixth Circuit (highest court)


permalink to this entry