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
 
Stones Tour Co. vs. Stones Merchandiser
Highest Court S.D. New York
Year Ended 2009
Plaintiffs Business Entity of Artist(s)
Defendants Music Merchandiser(s)
Other Rolling Stones
Short Description This case is a good example of how immensely popular bands must handle their activities and proprietary interests through temporary corporations. Plaintiff in this suit was a corporation created solely for to handle the Rolling Stones' 2005 tour, called "A Bigger Bang." Defendant was an outside company exclusively licensed by Plaintiff to use various trademarks, copyrights (including songs and images), and other band interests, in conjunction with smartphone campaigns. Slightly before the contract between Plaintiff and Defendant, the Stones' record label, Virgin Records, also licensed some of the exclusive properties to a third party, SanDisk, who then licensed it for Palm's PDA handheld devices. After Defendant learned of the Virgin/Palm licenses, it told Plaintiff of the breach and failed to perform under the contract. Both parties alleged breach. The trial court found the Virgin license did not violate the exclusivity of the Plaintiff/Defendant license, because the label did not license anything to another phone product, but to an allowed third party, who then licensed it to another; Plaintiff was not involved in these actions and did not authorize the SanDisk/Palm endeavor in violation of the contract. Defendant's argument that Plaintiff's warrantees of ownership were invalid could not stand, as the contract contained a clause prohibiting Defendant from challenging Plaintiff's proprietary status. On Defendant's counterclaims, however, the court denied both parties' summary judgment, saying genuine issues of fact still existed whether Plaintiff made false representations or violated an express warranty. The District Court denied both parties' motions for reconsideration, but allowed Defendant leave to amend its complaint to re-state counts relating to an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. - LSW

Legal Issues
Contracts Breach Good Faith & Fair Dealing
    Payment & Performance
Copyrights Ownership Assignments, Licenses & Renewal Rights
General Equitable Defenses Laches
    Unclean Hands
    Waiver, Estoppel & Acquiescence
Trademarks & Unfair Competition General Assignments & Licenses


Opinions RST (2005) Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd.
597 F.Supp.2d 362
S.D. New York , February 04, 2009 ( No. 07 Civ. 3737(VM) )


RST (2005) Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd.
2008 WL 5416379
S.D. New York , December 17, 2008 ( No. 07 Civ. 3737(VM) )


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
Business Entity of Artist(s) ( Plaintiff )
Music Merchandiser(s) ( Defendant )
Rolling Stones ( Other )

Legal Issues
Contracts / Breach / Good Faith & Fair Dealing
Contracts / Breach / Payment & Performance
Copyrights / Ownership / Assignments, Licenses & Renewal Rights
General / Equitable Defenses / Laches
General / Equitable Defenses / Unclean Hands
General / Equitable Defenses / Waiver, Estoppel & Acquiescence
Trademarks & Unfair Competition / General / Assignments & Licenses

Courts
S.D. New York (highest court)


permalink to this entry