{"id":906,"date":"2024-05-22T14:51:11","date_gmt":"2024-05-22T14:51:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/earth-wind-fire-wins-750k-tribute-band-settlement\/"},"modified":"2024-05-23T17:53:49","modified_gmt":"2024-05-23T17:53:49","slug":"earth-wind-fire-wins-750k-tribute-band-settlement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/earth-wind-fire-wins-750k-tribute-band-settlement\/","title":{"rendered":"Earth, Wind & Fire Wins $750K Tribute Band Settlement"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

\n\tAn Earth, Wind & Fire tribute act will pay the legendary R&B group $750,000 in damages for using its trademarked name in ways that a federal judge called \u201cdeceptive and misleading.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tThe payment, announced in a court filing Tuesday, will effectively end a year-long lawsuit in which the band alleged that the tribute act \u2014 \u201cEarth, Wind & Fire Legacy Reunion\u201d \u2013 infringed the trademark rights to the famous name by suggesting it was the real thing.<\/p>\n

\n\tEarlier this year, the federal judge overseeing the case sided with Earth, Wind & Fire, ruling that the tribute act\u2019s conduct had been \u201cdeceptive and misleading.\u201d A trial had been scheduled to figure out how much Legacy Reunion would need to pay, but the two sides reached an undisclosed settlement on that question last week.<\/p>\n

\n\tIn Tuesday\u2019s filing, the judge disclosed the total that Legacy Reunion had agreed to pay \u2013 \u00a0$750,000, plus interest \u2014 a rare step following settlements, which are typically kept private. Neither side immediately returned requests for comment.<\/p>\n

\n\tEarth, Wind & Fire has continued to tour since founder Maurice White died in 2016, led by longtime members Philip Bailey, Ralph Johnson and White\u2019s brother, Verdine White. The band operates under a license from an entity called Earth Wind & Fire IP, a holding company controlled by Maurice White\u2019s sons that formally owns the rights to the name.<\/p>\n

\n\tLast year, that company filed the current lawsuit, accusing Legacy Reunion of trying to trick consumers into thinking it was the real Earth, Wind & Fire. Though it called itself a \u201cReunion,\u201d the lawsuit said the tribute band contained only a few \u201cside musicians\u201d who had briefly played with Earth, Wind & Fire many years ago.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cDefendants did this to benefit from the commercial magnetism and immense goodwill the public has for plaintiff\u2019s \u2018Earth, Wind & Fire\u2019 marks and logos, thereby misleading consumers and selling more tickets at higher prices,\u201d the group\u2019s lawyers wrote at the time.<\/p>\n

\n\tTribute acts \u2014 groups that exclusively cover the music of a particular band \u2014 are legally allowed to operate, and they often adopt names that allude to the original. But they must make clear that they are only a tribute band, and they can get into legal hot water if they make it appear that they are affiliated with or endorsed by the original.<\/p>\n

\n\tRuling on the case last month, Judge Federico A. Moreno said the evidence pointed \u201coverwhelmingly\u201d in the band\u2019s favor. In particular, the judge cited angry social media posts and emails from fans who attended the \u201cReunion\u201d shows because they thought it was the original band \u2014 proof of the kind of \u201cactual confusion\u201d that\u2019s crucial evidence in a trademark lawsuit.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cIt is not a far cry to think that an average consumer looking for an Earth, Wind & Fire concert would believe that they could acquire that experience from either plaintiff or defendants,\u201d the judge wrote.<\/p>\n

\n\tFollowing Tuesday\u2019s order, the only remaining issue in the case is an injuction permanently banning Legacy Reunion from infringing the name. That issue will be subject to future rulings clarifying exactly what it will cover.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

An Earth, Wind & Fire tribute act will pay the legendary R&B group $750,000 in damages for using its trademarked name in ways that a federal judge called […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":907,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[1285,1105,1101,1103,399,1104,1102,882],"class_list":["post-906","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lawyers","tag-750k","tag-band","tag-earth","tag-fire","tag-settlement","tag-tribute","tag-wind","tag-wins"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/906","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=906"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/906\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":950,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/906\/revisions\/950"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/907"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=906"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=906"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=906"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}