VanHalen2012 Eriq Gardner of The Hollywood Reporter reports:

When famous people marry, their spouses often take on a famous last name. That benefit can even survive divorce. But can it be used as a commercial asset?

Witness a new lawsuit by ELVH Inc., which is the intellectual property holding company of the world-famous rock band Van Halen. The group was eponymously named after its family members — guitarist Eddie Van Halen and drummer Alex Van Halen (bassist Wolfgang Van Halen, Eddie’s son, came into the fold in 2006, replacing Michael Anthony).

In 1984, Alex married Kelly Carter. Twelve years later, he divorced Kelly Van Halen. Now, nearly two decades after the divorce papers were finalized, ELVH is taking Kelly Van Halen to a California federal court over her use of her name in trade. Specifically, Alex Van Halen’s ex-wife has named her construction and interior design company after herself, which the plaintiff asserts is a trademark infringement.

Way back in 1891, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, “A man’s name is his own property, and he has the same right to its use and enjoyment as he has to that of any other species of property. If such use be a reasonable, honest, and fair exercise of such right, he is no more liable for the incidental damage he may do a rival in trade than he would be for injury to his neighbor’s property by the smoke issuing from his chimney, or for the fall of his neighbor’s house by reason of necessary excavations upon his own land.”

The question here is whether senior family name users like Eddie and Alex can permanently enjoin junior family name users like Kelly from using “Van Halen” in a commercial enterprise. The outcome might depend on whether it can be shown that Kelly had intent to trade upon the goodwill or reputation of the famous band’s moniker.

In the lawsuit, Kelly is said to have filed two trademark applications on “Kelly Van Halen” for products like chairs, children’s blankets, bathing suits, building construction, interior design services and more.

The band is opposing the trademarks on the ground that the mark — her real name — is “confusingly similar to Plaintiff’s VAN HALEN Marks in sound, appearance and commercial impression.”

It’s also asserted that goods in the apparel and fashion space “are either identical or closely related to the goods sold by Plaintiff,” and that Kelly Van Halen is diluting Van Halen, passing off Van Halen and committing unfair competition for Van Halen.

ELVH is represented by the law firm of Kinsella Weitzman.

additional source: Billboard

Share : facebooktwittergoogle plus

14 Responses

Leave us a comment

  • Bob on

    Watch out for the Romeo Delight protein shakes…

  • Sinjin on

    Wonderful. Now bring Mike back and write 12 more songs.

  • Lee on

    I wonder if she heard of Sweet Connie and her AVH story. If she puts those red stripes on the white colored swag then the guys could sue a lot.

  • John G on

    Gene Simmons memo to EVH – Here are some product ideas:

    Dance the Night Away: Long lasting deodorant

    Feel Your Love Tonight: Thinner more sensitive prophelactics

    Bottoms Up: A better tequilla

    Sinners Swing: A new piece of furniture designed to spice up the night

    Where have all the good times gone? Conservative memoir written during the Obama years

    Intruder: Home security system

    You’re no good: Valerie’s new autobiography

    Somebody Get Me a Doctor: Senior Citizen home medic alert system

  • sar305 on

    It seems the biggest benefactors of the Van Halen name are lawyers.

Leave a Reply