Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Bit Parts

By Stan Soocher
February 01, 2022

Latest Decision in Band Name Dispute Among Original "Rascals" Members

Through the years, the four original members of the 1960s rock band The Rascals, whose hits included "Groovin'" and "People Got To Be Free," have engaged in multiple intra-band battles over which members have the right to use the "Rascals" name for live performances. In the most recent case, arising out of a 2018 tour by keyboardist/vocalist Felix Cavaliere and guitarist Gene Cornish, Cavaliere and Cornish's touring company Beata Music filed a declaratory judgment and trademark dilution action against Rascals drummer Dino Danelli and vocalist Eddie Brigati. In 2021, District Judge John G. Koeltl of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a default judgment against Danelli. Then in January 2022, District Judge Koeltl issued a summary judgment ruling against Brigati on Brigati's counterclaims alleging breach of 1990 and 1992 settlement agreements and for a declaration that the consent of three of the four original Rascals members is required for live performance uses of the band name. Beata Music LLC v. Danelli, 18-cv-6354 (S.D.N.Y.). District Judge Koeltl found, among other things: "Because Brigati has offered no justification for failing to provide a damages calculation, and because he has not demonstrated the willingness or capability to provide evidence of damages now at the summary judgment stage, Brigati is precluded from offering any damages evidence," the district judge noted. The court added: "When the 1990 agreement was executed, Brigati had not been a performing member of the band for twenty years. The terms of the 1990 agreement address only how Danelli, Cornish, and Cavaliere may use The Rascals name. … Accordingly, Brigati is not a third-party beneficiary to the 1990 agreement and he cannot enforce that agreement.' Furthermore, the court wrote: "Brigati's contract claim with respect to the 1992 agreement also fails for the independent reason that the 1992 agreement does not address live performances and it does not supersede the 1990 agreement."

*****

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

A Lawyer's System for Active Reading Image

Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.

Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls Image

With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.