Lawsuit

The members of 1960s rock band The Guess Who have settled a bitter trademark lawsuit in which two bandmates referred to a recent iteration of the group as nothing more than a “cover band.”
In a statement, Randy Bachman and Burton Cummings said they had reached a deal to resolve their lawsuit against fellow original members Jim Kale and Garry Peterson — ending a legal battle among the four original members of the band best known for hits like “American Woman” and “These Eyes.”

Under the deal, Bachman and Cummings said they will acquire full control over the trademark to the band’s name. Monetary terms and other aspects of the agreement were not disclosed in the announcement, and no legal papers announcing the settlement have yet been filed in court.

“We are pleased to have reached a resolution that honors our shared history and allows us to move forward with a new sense of purpose and camaraderie,” Bachman said, with Cummings adding that they were “committed to preserving and celebrating the legacy for our fans.”

Trending on Billboard

Attorneys for Kale and Peter didn’t immediately return a request for comment. As recently as April, their attorneys called the lawsuit “a complete farce” and threatened to “hold Bachman and Cummings accountable for their wrongful and extortionate conduct.”

The battle between the members of The Guess Who was just the latest clash between bandmates over the legal rights to classic group names. Journey, Stone Temple Pilots and Jefferson Starship have all fought protracted litigation over their trademarks, as have members of The Rascals, The Ebonys, The Commodores and The Platters.

Such disputes often arise out of one question: Who truly constitutes the band? Is it the members, or an LLC that owns the rights to the name? Is it the original lineup, or the one that produced the biggest hits? Does one key member and a bunch of replacements count? Fans, band members and lawyers will likely give you different answers.

Bachman and Cummings sued last year, claiming that Kale and Peterson were misleading the public by operating a “cover band” under the name The Guess Who. The case claimed that the rival band had never featured Bachman or Cummings, that Kale had retired in 2016 and that Peterson only rarely took the stage — but that the group had been falsely advertised as the real thing.

The lawsuit called the band a “deceptive scheme” driven by Kale and Peterson’s “greed.”

“Defendants’ false advertisements and marketing have led to confusion and outrage by fans and consumers, many of whom have taken to social media to share their experiences of being deceived into buying tickets to see the Cover Band because of advertising and promotion by Defendants implying that the Cover Band’s live performances will include Plaintiffs,” read the lawsuit filed by Bachman and Cummings.

Unsurprisingly, Kale and Peterson saw things differently. In an April motion to dismiss the lawsuit, they pointed out that they owned the federal trademark registration for the name and called the lawsuit a “complete farce” — perpetrated by two former members who had left the band in the 1970s and whom nobody expected to see in the current lineup.

“Consumers who see an ad for a concert by The Guess Who would not reasonably assume that Bachman and Cummings are performing merely because they were in the band many years ago,” Kale and Peterson’s attorneys wrote. “It is common knowledge that bands often undergo membership changes and that few if any bands formed in the 1960s still have the same lineup today.”

Responding to a lawsuit that called them a “cover band,” Kale and Peterson fired back with their own personal digs, painting Bachman and Cummings as spurned former members who were jealous of their ex-bandmates’ ongoing success.

“After all, that is what is really driving this lawsuit. Following their time in The Guess Who, Bachman and Cummings performed as solo artists or in other acts, but found less success than they apparently expected,” read Kale and Peterson’s response. “As a result, Bachman and Cummings have tried to take The Guess Who name for themselves, despite having left the band decades ago and Defendants carrying on the band’s legacy.”

The most recent legal battle between Journey members Jonathan Cain and Neal Schon appears to be over after Schon conceded to the appointment of a neutral third party to resolve the “deadlock” that Cain has claimed is crippling the band’s operations.
In an order issued Wednesday (Aug. 28), a Delaware judge appointed a so-called custodian to break ties between the two longtime bandmates. The ruling came a month after Cain sued Schon seeking such an umpire, claiming their endless disputes pose “a severe threat of harm” to the band’s “storied history of musical greatness.”

The order comes after Schon agreed to the appointment of such a neutral. In his written ruling, the judge wrote: “Schon does not oppose the court’s appointment of a custodian with the power to act as a third, deadlock breaking director.”

Trending on Billboard

In a statement, a spokesman for Cain said he was “elated with the outcome and looks forward to moving beyond this matter so that Journey can continue the band’s 50th Anniversary Freedom Tour.” An attorney for Schon did not immediately return a request for comment.

Legal battles are nothing new for Cain and Schon, the two key remaining members of an iconic rock band that’s still printing money decades after its “Don’t Stop Believin’” heyday. The two have repeatedly fought in court over the band’s finances over the past two years.

Filed by Cain last month in Delaware’s Chancery Court, the new case largely rehashed those same disagreements over spending — like Cain claiming that Schon unilaterally charts private jets and lavishly spends band funds on personal expenses.

But in technical terms, the case focused narrowly on the governance of Freedom 2020 Inc., a Delaware-based corporate entity they created to operate Journey’s touring. Since Cain and Schon each control exactly 50% of the company, the lawsuit says the two have reached an impasse that has spilled into many aspects of the band’s operations.

“The deadlock between the company’s directors is now interfering with the company’s ability to take even the most basic actions and is causing significant disruptions in the smooth operation of the company,” Cain’s lawyers wrote.

Wednesday’s order aims to resolve that situation by naming Joseph R. Slights, a former Chancery Court judge, as a custodian — a court-appointed official who can cast tie-breaking votes in corporate disputes.

To carry out those duties, the judge said that Slights will be able to “retain advisors or professionals, including music-industry advisors, attorneys, accountants and other professionals,” in order to decide how to resolve disputes between Cain and Schon.

Slights will have his work cut out for him. The complaint lodged last month painted a picture of extreme dysfunction within Journey, ranging from spending decisions to managing employees.

“Petitioner and respondent are deadlocked with regard to issues concerning the hiring and firing of company employees and Band crew members,” Cain’s lawyers wrote in the lawsuit. “It is common that one director will terminate an employee or crew member, and hours or days later, the other director will rehire that same individual.”

In a Facebook post last week, Schon said the accusations leveled by Cain were “slanderous” and that he “can’t stress enough how much it upset me and how wrong they are.” But he hinted that a deal was close to resolve the lawsuit by appointing a neutral third party like Slights.

“We’re going to bring in someone impartial to help us resolve our disputes, bring clarity to what we’re doing and allow us, as a band, to get back to what we should all focus on — making music and performing for our fans,” Schon wrote at the time.

A federal judge says Missy Elliott must face trial in a lawsuit filed by a man who claims to have co-written several of her decades-old songs, though the judge dismissed allegations over one particular song released by Aaliyah. In a ruling Tuesday (Aug. 27), Judge Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro refused to dismiss a lawsuit filed […]

Days after Shaboozey sued both Warner Chappell and his former record label, the label sued him right back — accusing the breakout country star of using “fraud” and “bad faith” to avoid his existing contractual obligations in the wake of the massive success of “A Bar Song (Tipsy).”
In a complaint filed Friday (Aug. 23) in Los Angeles court, Kreshendo Entertainment claims that after it released Shaboozey (Collins Obinna Chibueze) from his record deal in 2019, the company retained key rights to his music. Rather than stick to those requirements, Kreshendo claims the star has instead “elected a strategy of fraud and misrepresentation to deprive plaintiffs of their contractual rights.”

“Notably, Shaboozey had no issue with any of these terms for years,” write the company’s attorneys, from the law firm Reed Smith. “It was only after he recently released the ‘Bar Song,’ which has become a huge hit, that he has taken sudden issue with the terms he expressly agreed to.”

Trending on Billboard

The new case was filed just two days after Shaboozey filed his own case on Wednesday (Aug. 21) against Kreshendo and Warner Chappell. In that lawsuit, Shaboozey claimed that Warner was blocking him from exiting a publishing administration deal and that it was doing so at the behest of Kreshendo even though he had terminated the label years earlier.

But in the new accusations, Kreshendo says it’s Shaboozey who’s in the wrong. The company admitted that it had released Shaboozey from his record deal in 2019 but argued that the move came with important stipulations — namely, that Kreshendo would continue to own a 50% stake in all of the singer’s compositions and retain a right to be paid a percentage of profits from his masters.

Those requirements were put in place, according to Kreshendo, to compensate the company for the support it had provided a then-undiscovered singer.

“Before Shaboozey became the well-known artist he is today, he was an unknown artist that plaintiffs believed in, and they agreed to invest their time and money to help him develop and reach success in the music industry,” the complaint reads.

The lawsuit claims that Shaboozey has repeatedly breached the termination agreement, including through failing to pay the required profits and also through the wrangling with Warner that was detailed in his own lawsuit earlier in the week. Kreshendo says Shaboozey’s statements to Warner, including directing the company to stop paying Kreshendo, have been “false” and “an attempt to circumvent his contractual obligations.”

An attorney for Shaboozey did not immediately return a request for comment from Billboard on Monday (Aug. 26). Warner Chappell, which was named as a defendant in Shaboozey’s case, is not a plaintiff in the newer lawsuit.

The dueling lawsuits come amid a breakout year for Shaboozey. “A Bar Song,” a genre-blending hit that interpolates J-KWON‘s 2004 rap hit “Tipsy” into a bouncy pop country track, has spent seven weeks at No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100, marking the longest chart-topping stint for a song in 2024.

There’s a new front in the never-ending legal war between Joey Ramone’s brother and Johnny Ramone’s widow over control of the iconic punk band.
In a new lawsuit filed Friday (Aug. 23) in Manhattan federal court, Joey’s brother Mitchel Hyman (better known as Mickey Leigh) accused Johnny’s wife, Linda Cummings-Ramone, of violating federal trademark law by carrying out an “unrelenting quest” to associate herself with the Ramones.

As is typical of the nasty dispute between the two heirs (who each control exactly half of the band’s holding company), the lawsuit pulled no punches — calling Cummings-Ramone a former “groupie” with an “insatiable personal desire to shine a spotlight on herself.”

Trending on Billboard

“Ms. Cummings-Ramone has made and continues to make blatant attempts to exploit and personally capitalize on and benefit from the name, goodwill and legacy of the Ramones — that is, to try to push the false narrative that she is the heiress to … the Ramones’ legacy,”  Leigh’s lawyers write. “She most certainly is not. She is nothing more than a blatant self-promoter and an infringer.”

Joey Ramone (Jeffrey Ross Hyman) and Johnny Ramone (John William Cummings) were not actually brothers, and they had a notoriously chilly relationship during their decades as bandmates. In the years since the two died in the 2000s, that feud has seemingly continued between Leigh and Cummings-Ramone.

As the executors of Joey’s and Johnny’s respective estates, Leigh and Cummings-Ramone each own half of Ramones Productions, the entity that controls the band’s music and other assets. But that partnership has not gone smoothly, featuring multiple lawsuits and arbitrations over the past decade.

The latest scuffle began in January, when Cummings-Ramone sued Leigh in New York state court over allegations that he had “covertly” developed an “unauthorized” biopic (believed to be Netflix’s announced Ramones movie starring Pete Davidson as Joey). In the lawsuit, Cummings-Ramone said that any “authoritative story of the Ramones” would require her sign-off: “To permit defendants alone to tell the authoritative story of the Ramones would be an injustice to the band and its legacy.”

Eight months later, with the earlier case still pending, Leigh is now on offense — claiming that Cummings-Ramone has infringed the band’s trademarks held by Ramones Productions by using them herself. His new case repeatedly takes aim at her use of the name “Linda Ramone” despite the fact that “Ramone” was not the legal surname of her late husband nor any other band member.

“Ramones are unique in many ways. One of which is that they are the only band of stature where all the members were not related but used the same last name as if they were,” Leigh’s lawyers write. “That made it easy for defendant to insert herself into the Ramones legacy as part of the family, the public spokesperson, and to associate her personal brand with Ramones, by using the name ‘Linda Ramone.’ Indeed, ‘Linda Ramone’ never existed while her husband, John Cummings was alive. Defendant increasingly adopted the name ‘Linda Ramone’ after Mr. Cummings died.”

The lawsuit claims that earlier legal proceedings and agreements have sharply restricted how Cummings-Ramone is allowed to use that name, but that she has repeatedly exceeded those limitations in her public persona because she is “unabashedly obsessed with portraying herself as the widow of Johnny Ramone” and as an “integral member” of the band.

“Ms. Cummings-Ramone presents herself to the world as ‘Linda Ramone’ and unilaterally adopts the mantle of designated Ramones spokesperson and ‘keeper of the legacy’,” Leigh’s lawyers write. “She intentionally gives the false impression that she is empowered to take the lead on, or unilaterally pursue, Ramones business.”

A representative for Cummings-Ramone did not immediately return a request for comment on Monday (Aug. 26).