Dealing with Ginn, Rollins, Morris and a few other former BF
members and confederates listed in Ginn’s suit as defendants was no doubt a walk in the park
after handing the diva-riffic mélange of money grabbing in the Jackson camp. As
comedian Denis Leary put it so well, the Jacksons are so weird “They give each
other new heads for Christmas.” Dealing with a simple punk rock family feud is
an easy day.
In August, Ginn sued
everyone for trying to cop the four bars that pretty much stand for Black
Flag, including Rollins and Morris, who weirdly enough applied to trademark the
bars.
The news of Judge Pregerson’s ruling came from the winning
camp and was picked up by the major pop music trades, including Rolling
Stone and Spin. Both cited the
FLAG crew, mostly composed of the
victorious defendants, as the source of the judge’s ruling and its context.
For what that’s worth, it is interpreted as such:
1) the court found
that SST had no rights in the trademarks;
(2) Ginn seemed to have no individual rights in the Black Flag trademarks;
(3) even if either had had any rights in those marks, they had abandoned those rights through a failure to police the mark for nearly 30 years;
(4) the defendants’ claim that the Black Flag assets were owned by a statutory partnership comprised of various former band members – even if these members only consisted of Henry and Ginn, based on (a) accepting Ginn’s argument that he never quit and given that there is no evidence or allegation that Henry ever quit – has merit;
(5) that even if the plaintiffs had some trademark claim in the marks, there was no likelihood of consumer confusion between Black Flag and Flag given the ample press coverage over the dispute; and
(6) the trademark application and registration that Henry and Keith made was done in good faith (e.g. not fraudulently) – and is thus not necessarily subject to cancellation – given that they understood their actions to have been done on the part of the Black Flag partnership (see No. 4, above).
(2) Ginn seemed to have no individual rights in the Black Flag trademarks;
(3) even if either had had any rights in those marks, they had abandoned those rights through a failure to police the mark for nearly 30 years;
(4) the defendants’ claim that the Black Flag assets were owned by a statutory partnership comprised of various former band members – even if these members only consisted of Henry and Ginn, based on (a) accepting Ginn’s argument that he never quit and given that there is no evidence or allegation that Henry ever quit – has merit;
(5) that even if the plaintiffs had some trademark claim in the marks, there was no likelihood of consumer confusion between Black Flag and Flag given the ample press coverage over the dispute; and
(6) the trademark application and registration that Henry and Keith made was done in good faith (e.g. not fraudulently) – and is thus not necessarily subject to cancellation – given that they understood their actions to have been done on the part of the Black Flag partnership (see No. 4, above).
I wonder if Rollins and Morris have to share any merch
proceeds with Ginn.
