Crystal Entertainment & Filmworks, Inc. v. Jurado

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
99 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1197, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12473, 643 F.3d 1313 (2011)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

In a dispute over ownership of a performing group's trademark, rights belong to the party who controls the nature and quality of the performances and is identified by the public as the source of the services, not necessarily the entity that originally created the name.

Facts:

In 1984, Pantera Group Enterprises formed the band 'Exposé' with three original singers who achieved limited success.
In 1986, Jeanette Jurado, Ann Curless, and Gioia Bruno replaced the original members and became the new lineup of Exposé.
The new lineup achieved significant commercial success, releasing multiple platinum and gold albums that featured their photographs on the covers, making them the public face of the band.
The band disbanded in 1995, but its music continued to be sold through compilation albums.
In 2003 and 2006, Jurado, Curless, and Bruno signed trademark licensing agreements with Crystal Entertainment (Pantera's alleged successor) to tour again as Exposé, in which they acknowledged Crystal's ownership of the mark.
By 2007, the band members felt Crystal was not promoting or assisting them, so they stopped paying licensing fees.
The members formed their own company, Walking Distance Entertainment, LLC, and filed an application to register the Exposé mark for themselves for live musical performances.

Procedural Posture:

Crystal Entertainment & Filmworks, Inc. filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court against Jeanette Jurado, Ann Curless, Gioia Bruno, and their company, Walking Distance Entertainment, LLC.
The complaint alleged breach of contract, federal trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, and other related violations.
The defendants filed an answer and asserted counterclaims seeking rescission of the licensing agreements.
The district court conducted a three-day bench trial.
The district court entered a final judgment finding that Jurado, Curless, and Bruno were the common-law owners of the Exposé mark, ruling in their favor on the trademark claims.
The district court also ruled in favor of Crystal on its claim for breach of the 2006 licensing agreement.
Crystal Entertainment, as appellant, appealed the district court's final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an entertainment company that created a band's name and entered into licensing agreements with its members own the common law trademark rights to the name when the band members are the ones the public associates with the mark and who control the quality of the performances?

Opinions:

Majority - Pryor, Circuit Judge

No. The entertainment company does not own the common law trademark rights because ownership is determined by public association and control over the quality of services, which rests with the performers. To establish ownership of an unregistered mark, a party must demonstrate prior use in a manner that is sufficiently public to identify the user as the source in the public mind. Crystal failed to provide credible evidence that its predecessor, Pantera, established such an association with the original band. In cases of 'joint endeavors' where prior ownership is unclear, courts apply a two-step test: 1) identify the quality or characteristic for which the group is known by the public, and 2) determine who controls that quality or characteristic. The district court correctly found that the public associates the Exposé mark with the performances and personalities of Jurado, Curless, and Bruno, and that they, not Crystal, controlled the nature and quality of the band's services. Therefore, the band members are the common law owners of the mark.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies the principle that for service marks related to performing groups, public perception and control over the service are paramount in determining ownership. It affirms that trademark rights are not static and can vest in the performers who cultivate the goodwill and public recognition associated with a name, even if a producer or company originated it. The ruling serves as a strong precedent in the 11th Circuit for legacy artists in disputes with original producers, emphasizing that contractual acknowledgments of ownership can be outweighed by the reality of who the public identifies as the brand and who actually controls the artistic product.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Crystal Entertainment & Filmworks, Inc. v. Jurado (2011)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"