New article about lawsuit(next date March 12), 1/10/13 Options

[sellingthdrama]

I think we'll need to be okay with "living in the past", since we all come to a message board daily for a band that hasn't made an album in 7 years, and hasn't been relevant for 12.

[SJN1279]

Did the March 12th summary judgement happen? Since Live will tour this summer, and Ed is being billed as the former lead singer of Live, is it even an issue anymore?

This post has been edited by SJN1279: Mar 16 2013, 11:37 am

[Bremang]

Their appearance date is for Monday, Mar 18, 2013, 4PM.

Their NOI has been extended and is due Friday, May 17, 2013.

Their current deposition deadline is Monday, Jan 5, 2015.

All files for the case are located in 60 Center Street, Room 103B. It's open for viewing between 9AM-3PM. A fan might have fun going to check out the files.

[SJN1279]

Their appearance date is for Monday, Mar 18, 2013, 4PM.

I'm guessing that didn't happen?

[Bremang]

Not sure. Ask the CCP fans or call the clerk. CCP's NOI in a couple months.

[Hoodstock]

I didn't realize they were suing Ed for $2 million. That's a lot of cheddar!

Original lead singer Ed Kowalczyk is sued for $2 million for continuing to use the band name after leaving the group in 2009.

Live

When a popular band breaks up, it's often similar to what happens when two celebrities get divorced -- a lot of quarreling over assets. Sometimes it's worse, as often a band dissolution doesn't have the benefit of any pre-nup providing guidance on how to divide the spoils of the success. Who, for example, gets to retain use of the band's name?

Just ask the Beach Boys, the Doors, and Deep Purple, just to mention three groups whose members have faced off against each other over band name rights. Now, add the '90s alternative rock group, Live, to the list. Lead singer Ed Kowalczyk wants to use "Live" as part of his solo act, but the band's other original members are attempting to put a stop to that in a new trademark lawsuit.

Technically, it's not the other band members, including Chad Taylor (lead guitar), Patrick Dahlheimer (bass), and Chad Gracey (drums) who are doing the suing, but rather Action Front Unlimited, the company that was set up by the band members and now holds the group's trademarks. Each member of Live has an equal share of the company, according to a lawsuit filed in New York federal court.

Kowalczyk left the band in 2009 as a new vocalist (Chris Shinn) came in.

Since then, Kowalczyk has let the world know he's still "Alive," the title of his solo album. He's said to be touring as "Ed Kowalcyk of Live."

The other band members aren't happy with what Kowalczyk has been doing so Action Front is suing. The former lead singer, who played a bit role in David Fincher's Fight Club, is being accused of not informing the public he is no longer a member of Live nor telling them that his music isn't endorsed by the band. This has caused "confusion," says the lawsuit. Booking agents, theaters, arenas and the press are allegedly being deceived into thinking Kowalcyk still has affililation with the group.

The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction plus $2 million in statutory damages for claims of trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and trademark dilution. Kowalczyk couldn't be reached for comment.

Lawsuits like this have a way of festering.

The prototypical example is the large amount of litigation that followed the break-up of the original Platters. Singer Herb Reed became the last original member of the group to leave the band in the early '70s and afterwards, the company (Five Platters Inc) that was formed by the original members, hired a new member to continue on as a new Platters group. That led to four decades of litigation which culminated just a few months aga when a judge ruled, "'Only You,' Herb Reed, have exclusive rights to the mark." (Reed died last month.)

Often, in cases like this, it comes to who has continuously exploited the band name and who is recognized by the public as holding the greatest claim to the mark. Of course, the nature of the business partnership can also have an impact. In the Live situation, each of the four members had signed an Employment Agreement with the company organized to run the band's services.

Live broke out with the 1994 album, Throwing Copper, which spent a year on the Billboard 200 album chart before hitting the #1 position. The names of the group's hits seem rather ironic in retrospect, including "Lightning Crashes," "Selling the Drama," and "I Alone." More name-play: According to the complaint, the original band members met each other in school in the 1980s and were first called, "Public Affection."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/l...zyk-sued-350390

[Live4Life]

You know, i read this and all i can do is shake my fucking head. ED and his songs are what made the band famous. I can't believe that they would go this far.
As i have always said, i don't think ANY of them should be able to use the name.
Why is it ok for them and not ed? THEY are no longer live.
I doubt anyone will get the point i am trying to make but whatever. All of these men should be ashamed of themselves. It's dispicable. It really is.

[mfitz804]

You know, i read this and all i can do is shake my fucking head. ED and his songs are what made the band famous. I can't believe that they would go this far.
As i have always said, i don't think ANY of them should be able to use the name.
Why is it ok for them and not ed? THEY are no longer live.
I doubt anyone will get the point i am trying to make but whatever. All of these men should be ashamed of themselves. It's dispicable. It really is.

Holding all the legalities aside, I think it should be as simple as this. If one guy leaves or is fired, and three-fourths of the band stay together, I think the three-fourths should get to use the name. If I recall, ownership of the Live entity was split 4 ways.

As far as Ed goes, calling himself "Ed of Live" should be out, as he is no longer "of Live". I have no problem with "Ed Formerly of Live", because that is true. He was a HUGE part of the band for many years.

I understand where he is coming from, but Ed kind of needs to move on. Naming your album "Alive" and your tour the "I Alone" tour is really a hack move and screams of desperation. You are embarking on a solo career, you should either stand or fall on your own.

[PurdueSteve]

You know, i read this and all i can do is shake my fucking head. ED and his songs are what made the band famous. I can't believe that they would go this far.
As i have always said, i don't think ANY of them should be able to use the name.
Why is it ok for them and not ed? THEY are no longer live.
I doubt anyone will get the point i am trying to make but whatever. All of these men should be ashamed of themselves. It's dispicable. It really is.

It's not "Ed and his songs". Not literally, not technically and not legally.

Ed didn't play the bass, lead or drums. Ed did not write those parts. Ed did not compose and arrange the songs. Ed wrote most of the lyrics, but not all and most, but not all, songs started with a basic melody that Ed wrote.

The reason they can use the name is that it is a majority rule. Since 3/4 of them are still around and since Ed voluntarily left, they have legal right to the name. It'd be much more problematic if they split 2 and 2, but since they split 3 and 1, it's simple.

You think Ed should have the right to walk away, and the other guys just be fucked out of the namesake? How in your whacky little head is that OK?

I think you Ed trolls forget that ED walked away from the band. He was not kicked out. He wasn't replaced. He left and the guys wanting to forge ahead found someone new.

[SJN1279]

I understand where he is coming from, but Ed kind of needs to move on. Naming your album "Alive" and your tour the "I Alone" tour is really a hack move and screams of desperation. You are embarking on a solo career, you should either stand or fall on your own.

I actually think the "I Alone" acoustic tour is a very good name for his tour. It also has caught on very well and rewarded Ed will a lot of success.

[Live4Life]

Same goes for Ed, why should he be fucked out of a namesake. so what if he left. bahh, not even going to bother to continue. The whole thing is very childish. and the whole taking sides things is just as lame. i won't be coming here really too much. i'm not into this new live. I'm helping with things the night of the nh show [even though i was threatend by bill hynes on facebook] lol. not sure if he realizes WHO OWNS THE VENUE!! hahaaa..I will see them, for free of course. Until then, just have to wait and see. If the other stuff is anything like that first new song i'm out.

This post has been edited by Live4Life: Apr 5 2013, 1:01 pm

[SinfulEyes]

It's not "Ed and his songs". Not literally, not technically and not legally.

Ed didn't play the bass, lead or drums. Ed did not write those parts. Ed did not compose and arrange the songs. Ed wrote most of the lyrics, but not all and most, but not all, songs started with a basic melody that Ed wrote.

The reason they can use the name is that it is a majority rule. Since 3/4 of them are still around and since Ed voluntarily left, they have legal right to the name. It'd be much more problematic if they split 2 and 2, but since they split 3 and 1, it's simple.

You think Ed should have the right to walk away, and the other guys just be fucked out of the namesake? How in your whacky little head is that OK?

I think you Ed trolls forget that ED walked away from the band. He was not kicked out. He wasn't replaced. He left and the guys wanting to forge ahead found someone new.

Well said, Steve. I think these biased music simpletons don't realize that a song is more than just some vocals.

[SinfulEyes]

Same goes for Ed, why should he be fucked out of a namesake. so what if he left. bahh, not even going to bother to continue. The whole thing is very childish. and the whole taking sides things is just as lame. i won't be coming here really too much. i'm not into this new live. I'm helping with things the night of the nh show [even though i was threatend by bill hynes on facebook] lol. not sure if he realizes WHO OWNS THE VENUE!! hahaaa..I will see them, for free of course. Until then, just have to wait and see. If the other stuff is anything like that first new song i'm out.

Good for you. I hope you enjoy the show.

[alexou]

And also Ed left the band by himself. Don't forget that. I think everyone should be happy now. It begins to be more fair. Ed has almost stoped to misbill himself and plays 60% of Live songs in his concert. If it is what you want top see, then it is totally fine. CCP owned the name, they kept it, as simple as that.

[mfitz804]

I actually think the "I Alone" acoustic tour is a very good name for his tour. It also has caught on very well and rewarded Ed will a lot of success.

At best, its ironic because he left the band and now its "him alone". But trading on his former success to that level is kind of a hack move. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

Even if it stinks