The following statement comes courtesy of Stephen M. Doniger, Esq.:

“After the four remaining original members of Ratt (Pearcy, DeMartini, Croucier and Blotzer) finished touring in 2014, Bobby Blotzer began touring as Bobby Blotzer’s Ratt Experience, and Juan Croucier began touring as Ratt’s Juan Croucier. Realizing that he could make ten times as much per show touring as Ratt, Blotzer relabeled his cover band as Ratt, over the objections of every other member of the band. He then proceeded to get into litigation with each of his three partners in an effort to usurp control of the Ratt name, claiming that WBS owned the band name and he controlled WBS.

A Federal District Court in the Central District of California has now Ordered judgment to be entered against WBS/Blotzer, finding that WBS does not own the Ratt name (WBS, Inc. v. Juan Croucier et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-07251-DDP). Under a 1985 written Ratt Partnership Agreement, the name/trademarks are the property of the partnership and can only be transferred with the unanimous approval of all partners. Thus, in 1997 when Blotzer, DeMartini and Pearcy purported to transfer the trademarks to WBS, that transfer was invalid since Juan Croucier (Ratt bassist) whom was still a partner, and never advised of, let alone consented to, the transfer. Thus, the partnership still owns the Ratt name.

Pearcy, DeMartini and Croucier have also expelled Blotzer from the partnership. Blotzer thus has no further interest in the Ratt name and may now only refer to himself as a “former member of Ratt” as per the partnership agreement. DeMartini, Pearcy and Croucier look forward to continuing to tour as Ratt and thank their fans for all the ongoing support.”

Share : facebooktwittergoogle plus

10 Responses

Leave us a comment

  • Rattlehead on

    I think this is great news!! Blotzer had no business branding his tribute band as Ratt. He was a cowriter on just a few lesser known songs, and no credits on any of the glory days hits!! Shame on Blotzer for branding his tribute group as Ratt. Well deserved karma bit him in the ass, for sure!!

  • Jay Brooke on

    That’s pretty funny, the court rules that the four living partners equally own rights to the name, which means Blotzer loses his lawsuit against Croucier. Then DiMartini, Pearcy & Croucier say they have expelled Blotzer from the partnership so he has no rights. That’s what DiMartini, Pearcy & Blotzer did to Croucier and the court ruled in favor of Croucier. So even if they say he is expelled from the partnership, the court rules Blotzer owns an equal share regardless. Like sands through the hourglass…

  • elliot goldberg on

    this is juan helluva saga.

  • Tyger of Pan Tang on

    Whatever mistake was made in not consulting Crouzier 20 years ago, I don’t know how much mileage a performing entity with Pearcy can get. That last album was great, but youtube clips suggest a rather different performance level. There appears to be a lot more dysfunction than just what Blotzer brought to the mix.

  • T on

    I guess we can expect a major RATT tour in the not too distant future. I’m curious to see if Bobby thinks he has legal recourse to challenge this.

Leave a Reply