Ed sued for trademark infringement Options

[jayda]

He posted on facebook about this Mohegan Sun gig and it's saying this - reworked a little? :



"I Alone," Ed Kowalczyk »

Ed Kowalczyk, widely known as the lead singer and songwriter for the Rock band LIVE, released his first solo album in 2012 entitled Alive. The album produced two singles, "Grace" and "Stand."

[dancing queen]

radio dj on 105.7 the X just explained the lawsuit. then played All Over You.

[OutToDry]

yeah it got reworked, the subtext is what it is I guess for the moment.

[World Dreamer]

[SJN1279]

My friend who is a lawyer, and a fan of all four members of LIVE, just called me with some of his thoughts:

a. Wasn't Ed's picture on FriendsofLIVE's website for about 2 years after the split? Weren't they stating that this was only a hiatus until July 2011?

b. Didn't FriendsofLIVE also send out mass emails updating us on Ed's career for roughly 2 years after the split?

c. A version of LIVE without Ed has not played an official show as of yet(invite only and surprise opener for Candlebox).

He feels that the lawsuit is only to get Ed to change his billing before new LIVE tours. He doubts that they will win damages, and especially not the ridiculous amount of 2 million.

This post has been edited by SJN1279: Jul 18 2012, 9:20 am

[World Dreamer]

My friend who is a lawyer, and a fan of all four members of LIVE, just called me with some of his thoughts:

a. Wasn't Ed's picture on FriendsofLIVE's website for about 2 years after the split? Weren't they stating that this was only a hiatus until July 2011?

b. Didn't FriendsofLIVE also send out mass emails updating us on Ed's career for roughly 2 years after the split?

c. A version of LIVE without Ed has not played an official show as of yet(invite only and surprise opener for Candlebox).

He feels that the lawsuit is only to get Ed to change his billing before new LIVE tours. He doubts that they will win damages, and especially not the ridiculous amount of 2 million.

I know you lying because anyone who is a friend of "all four members" and not just Ed wouldn't be a friend of yours.

[PillarOfDavidson]

My friend who is a lawyer, and a fan of all four members of LIVE, just called me with some of his thoughts:

Saul Goodman?

[Gertjan]

He feels that the lawsuit is only to get Ed to change his billing before new LIVE tours.

Possibly so, which makes it all worthwhile I guess. It is indeed very confusing to present a new lead-singer when the ex-frontman is still advertising that he is part of Live.

I don't dare to speculate on the outcome of statutory damages. Civil law is a strange beast.

[Aitkens]

It's rather comical that the actions of one man, EK, have truly unraveled and burnt down a lifelong friendship. All of this happening to him I am truly enjoying, because he destroyed something amazing, then proceeded to rape it within an inch of its life for years.

[themaestro]

My friend who is a lawyer, and a fan of all four members of LIVE, just called me with some of his thoughts:

a. Wasn't Ed's picture on FriendsofLIVE's website for about 2 years after the split? Weren't they stating that this was only a hiatus until July 2011?

b. Didn't FriendsofLIVE also send out mass emails updating us on Ed's career for roughly 2 years after the split?

c. A version of LIVE without Ed has not played an official show as of yet(invite only and surprise opener for Candlebox).

He feels that the lawsuit is only to get Ed to change his billing before new LIVE tours. He doubts that they will win damages, and especially not the ridiculous amount of 2 million.

Even if Ed was still in Live I don't think he could use that to promote his solo career the way they have the trademark set up.

This post has been edited by themaestro: Jul 18 2012, 9:40 am

[PurdueSteve]

As much as I hate to admit it, Ned is partially correct.

Until officially replaced, Ed was a member of Live. His solo billings at that time were accurate. He, at that time was Live's Ed Kowalczyk.

Since the 4 guys determined that the band was no longer in hiatus and/or that Ed was no longer the lead singer of Live, whatever date that was, would have been the time could no longer promote himself as "Live's Ed Kowalczyk"

Even though he doesn't own the trademark I believe he is allowed to mention his former affiliation. If I leave companyX I'm allowed to list CompanyX on my resume. Same for Ed. He can mention that he was a member, as in past tense, of Live. Continuing to bill himself, as he has done recently would warrant some damages in my opinion, but I don't think damages would be awarded for hiatus period, unless it was just to give the other three guys a cut, not because Ed wrongfully used the name Live.

Regardless Ed needs to change his promotions NOW, which is likely the purpose of the suit anyway. The 2mil amount might just be an arbitrary value to establish weight as a case to get it heard in a certain court.

[Rupe]

On why it took so long - I imagine there have been letters and (one-way) correspondence with Ed's camp, warning him to cease. When those were ignored, it was taken to the next level. Those ignored warnings would be prime evidence to be used against Ed.

My one concern is if Ed is still a owner or signatory for Action Front - how do CCP convince a judge that Ed is not legally part of AF, and therefore Live? Sure, he "left", but was there any official termination of employment or such? Unfortunately, I have never been in a professional band (or any band for that matter), so have no clue how it works. I do know that in my line of work, if I leave my company, I can't use any of my portfolio of work without that company's permission, and have to give them proper credit. They own the work, not me. I can't offer myself out there as an employee of them, and may even run into static if I used "formerly of XYZ" without their permission. Corporations are quite protective of their names - and rightly so, as it has so much intangible value. Even if I remain an employee of Company XYZ, I can't do "solo" work that capitalizes or promotes me as part of Company XYZ.

CCP seem like savvy businessmen, not ones to waste time and money on frivilous lawsuits. Its only when things don't work out on a handshake or gentlemen's agreement (ie when they get ), do they turn to legal matters.

[themaestro]

On why it took so long - I imagine there have been letters and (one-way) correspondence with Ed's camp, warning him to cease. When those were ignored, it was taken to the next level. Those ignored warnings would be prime evidence to be used against Ed.

My one concern is if Ed is still a owner or signatory for Action Front - how do CCP convince a judge that Ed is not legally part of AF, and therefore Live? Sure, he "left", but was there any official termination of employment or such? Unfortunately, I have never been in a professional band (or any band for that matter), so have no clue how it works. I do know that in my line of work, if I leave my company, I can't use any of my portfolio of work without that company's permission, and have to give them proper credit. They own the work, not me. I can't offer myself out there as an employee of them, and may even run into static if I used "formerly of XYZ" without their permission. Corporations are quite protective of their names - and rightly so, as it has so much intangible value. Even if I remain an employee of Company XYZ, I can't do "solo" work that capitalizes or promotes me as part of Company XYZ.

CCP seem like savvy businessmen, not ones to waste time and money on frivilous lawsuits. Its only when things don't work out on a handshake or gentlemen's agreement (ie when they get ), do they turn to legal matters.

Exactly.

[OutToDry]

As much as I hate to admit it, Ned is partially correct.

Until officially replaced, Ed was a member of Live. His solo billings at that time were accurate. He, at that time was Live's Ed Kowalczyk.

Since the 4 guys determined that the band was no longer in hiatus and/or that Ed was no longer the lead singer of Live, whatever date that was, would have been the time could no longer promote himself as "Live's Ed Kowalczyk"

Even though he doesn't own the trademark I believe he is allowed to mention his former affiliation. If I leave companyX I'm allowed to list CompanyX on my resume. Same for Ed. He can mention that he was a member, as in past tense, of Live. Continuing to bill himself, as he has done recently would warrant some damages in my opinion, but I don't think damages would be awarded for hiatus period, unless it was just to give the other three guys a cut, not because Ed wrongfully used the name Live.

Regardless Ed needs to change his promotions NOW, which is likely the purpose of the suit anyway. The 2mil amount might just be an arbitrary value to establish weight as a case to get it heard in a certain court.

Most of Ed's billings and posters used the Live logos and use of 'of Live'. Once Ed announced as his tape recording statements that he's solo and no longer joining back. He's in breech of the trademark. He had a chance to rectify this late last year, but the billing ambiguity has continued until this day and now sadly a suit is needed to get him to stop.

This post has been edited by OutToDry: Jul 18 2012, 9:52 am

[OutToDry]

On why it took so long - I imagine there have been letters and (one-way) correspondence with Ed's camp, warning him to cease. When those were ignored, it was taken to the next level. Those ignored warnings would be prime evidence to be used against Ed.

My one concern is if Ed is still a owner or signatory for Action Front - how do CCP convince a judge that Ed is not legally part of AF, and therefore Live? Sure, he "left", but was there any official termination of employment or such? Unfortunately, I have never been in a professional band (or any band for that matter), so have no clue how it works. I do know that in my line of work, if I leave my company, I can't use any of my portfolio of work without that company's permission, and have to give them proper credit. They own the work, not me. I can't offer myself out there as an employee of them, and may even run into static if I used "formerly of XYZ" without their permission. Corporations are quite protective of their names - and rightly so, as it has so much intangible value. Even if I remain an employee of Company XYZ, I can't do "solo" work that capitalizes or promotes me as part of Company XYZ.

CCP seem like savvy businessmen, not ones to waste time and money on frivilous lawsuits. Its only when things don't work out on a handshake or gentlemen's agreement (ie when they get ), do they turn to legal matters.

Ed's no longer on the articles of incorporation of "Live" for almost a year now.

This post has been edited by OutToDry: Jul 18 2012, 9:55 am