Kassbaum v. Steppenwolf Productions, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
236 F.3d 487 (2000)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
By 1975, the band Steppenwolf no longer existed in its original form. Two former members, including Nicholas Kassbaum (plaintiff) began touring as The New Steppenwolf, leading to a legal dispute over their use of the Steppenwolf name. This was resolved through an agreement in which Kassbaum paid former member John Kay and Steppenwolf Productions, Inc. (SPI) (defendant) for the right to use the name. In 1979 a second agreement granted The New Steppenwolf, Inc. the right to use the name for recording and distribution purposes until 1981. However, in a 1980 contract, Kassbaum and The New Steppenwolf, Inc. agreed to relinquish all rights to the name Steppenwolf to SPI and Steppenwolf, Inc. (SI) (defendant) “for any purposes whatsoever.” From 1980 through 1996, Kassbaum performed as Lone Wolf, but described himself as “a former member of Steppenwolf” for promotional purposes, without objection from SPI or SI. In 1996 Kassbaum joined a group called World Classic Rockers and continued to promote himself as a former member of Steppenwolf. At this point, SPI and SI sent cease-and-desist orders, alleging violation of the Lanham Act and breach of the 1980 contract. Kassbaum filed an action for declaratory relief. The district court found that Kassbaum had violated the 1980 contract. Summary judgment was granted in favor of SPI and SI. Kassbaum appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gould, 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. 46,500 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.