Densmore v. Manzarek
California Court of Appeal
2008 WL 2209993 (2008)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
In 1965, John Densmore (plaintiff), Raymond Manzarek (defendant), Robby Krieger (defendant), and Jim Morrison (collectively, the bandmates) started the garage band that came to be known as The Doors. The Doors rose to rapid fame and prominence. In March 1971, the bandmates executed the Old Doors Agreement, building on a prior partnership agreement, which stated that (1) all decisions involving The Doors must be unanimous; (2) the agreement would be dissolved upon the death of any partner, meaning any bandmate; and (3) if the partnership was dissolved for any other reason, none of the surviving bandmates would have the right to use The Doors’ name or logo. Shortly after, Morrison died. In October 1971, the surviving bandmates executed the New Doors Agreement, which revived and duplicated all provisions from the Old Doors Agreement. The Doors were not successful following Morrison’s death and subsequently stopped performing. In 2003, without Densmore’s knowledge or consent, Manzarek and Krieger started touring again as The Doors. Two other musicians were brought in to replace Morrison and Densmore. Densmore notified Manzarek and Krieger of his objections, but they continued to tour and to sell merchandise using The Doors’ name and logo. Densmore filed a breach-of-contract action against Manzarek and Krieger seeking damages and injunctive relief. After a jury trial, the trial court held that Manzarek and Krieger had breached the New Doors Agreement, permanently enjoined Manzarek and Krieger from using The Doors’ name and logo, and ordered Manzarek and Krieger to pay Densmore one-third of all profits from the 2003 tour. Manzarek and Krieger appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Flier, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.