Creedence

Case 3:14-cv-00633 Document 1 Filed 12/05/14 Page 1 of 11
1
2
3
4
5
WATSON ROUNDS
MICHAEL D. ROUNDS
Nevada Bar No. 4734
MATTHEW D. FRANCIS
Nevada Bar No. 6978
5371 Kietzke Lane
Reno, NV 89511
Telephone: (775) 324-4100
Facsimile: (775) 333-8171
Email: mrounds@watsonrounds.com
Email: mfrancis@watsonrounds.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
11
12
13
14
POOR BOY PRODUCTIONS, INC., a Nevada

corporation; CREEDENCE CLEARWATER
REVIVAL, a California partnership; STUART
COOK, an individual; DOUGLAS CLIFFORD, an
Individual; PATRICIA FOGERTY, an individual
and the executrix of the Estate of Thomas Fogerty,
v.
16
17
COMPLAINT
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs,
15
Case No.:
JOHN FOGERTY, an individual,

Defendants.
18
19
Plaintiffs Poor Boy Productions, Inc. (Poor Boy), Creedence Clearwater Revival
20
(CCR), Stuart Cook (Cook), Douglas Clifford (Clifford), and Patricia Fogerty (Ms.
21
Fogerty) (collectively Plaintiffs), by and through their undersigned attorneys Watson Rounds,
22
for their Complaint against Defendant John Fogerty (Defendant or Fogerty), allege the
23
following:
24
25
26
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1.
This action arises under the Acts of Congress relating to the Lanham Act, Title 15
U.S.C. 1051, et seq., and the common law. This is also an action for declaratory relief from an
27
anticipated claim of breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
28
dealing by Defendant Fogerty. This is also an action for breach of contract, breach of the
-1-
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duty under California
law. Jurisdiction is based on federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338 because
this action involves federal questions of law. Additionally, this Court has subject matter
jurisdiction under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1332(a) because the amount in controversy
exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and the action is between
citizens of different states. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the claims brought
under the common law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1338(b) and 1367(a).
8
9
2.
Defendant is subject to this Courts personal jurisdiction because he has
conducted business in this judicial district and has derived revenue from services and/or goods
10
provided to customers in this district. As just one example, Fogerty performed in Las Vegas,
11
Nevada in October of 2014.
12
13
3.
Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b)
and (c), and in the Reno Division of the District of Nevada.

PARTIES
14
15
16
17
18
4.
Plaintiff Poor Boy is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business
located in Incline Village, Nevada.

5.
Plaintiff CCR is a California partnership comprised of Messrs. Cook, Clifford,
and Fogerty, and Ms. Fogerty.
19
6.
Plaintiff Clifford is a resident of the State of Nevada.
20
7.
Plaintiff Cook is a resident of the State of Texas.
21
8.
Plaintiff Ms. Fogerty is a resident of the State of Arizona.
22
9.
Defendant John Fogerty is a resident of the State of California.

FACTS
23
24
10.
The musical group Creedence Clearwater Revival was originally comprised of
25
Douglas Clifford, Stuart Cook, Tom Fogerty and John Fogerty. Tom Fogerty passed away in
26
1990, and his interest in CCRs property, including intellectual property and royalties, passed to
27
his wife, Ms. Fogerty.
28
-2-
11.
CCR is the owner of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 1222931 (931 Reg.) for
the Mark Creedence Clearwater Revival for Entertainment Services in International Class 41,
and all common law rights relating thereto. A copy of the 931 Reg. is attached hereto as Exhibit
A.
12.
On July 2, 1996, Fogerty filed a Complaint in the United States District Court
Central District of California Western Division against Poor Boy, Cook, Clifford and Ms.
Fogerty styled Fogerty v. Poor Boy Productions, Inc., et al., Case No. CV 96-4634 RMT
(RNBx). Fogerty also sought and obtained a preliminary injunction against the Defendants in
that action from performing under the name Creedence Clearwater Revisited. The Ninth
10
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that order in an unpublished opinion in Fogerty v. Poor Boy
11
Productions, Inc., et al., 124 F.3d 211 (9th Cir. 1997).
12
13.
After the Ninth Circuit reversed the district courts preliminary injunction order,
13
the parties entered into a settlement agreement (the Settlement Agreement) on or about
14
January 9, 2001. A copy of this Settlement Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Pursuant
15
to the Settlement Agreement, the parties agreed that Fogerty would withdraw his objection to
16
Cliffords and Cooks performing under the name Creedence Clearwater Revisited. Id. The
17
parties also agreed that Clifford, Cook and Ms. Fogerty would not authorize any third party
18
person or entities to perform under the names Creedence, Creedence Clearwater or any
19
derivative of those names without the prior written permission of Fogerty. Id. The parties also
20
agreed that Poor Boy would pay monies to Fogerty for uses of the Revisited name. Id.
21
14.
After entering into the Settlement Agreement, Poor Boy fully performed under the
22
terms of that Agreement, and paid the agreed-upon monies to Fogerty. However, in a July 9,
23
2011 article for Ultimateclassicrock.com, Fogerty publically condemned and objected to Poor
24
Boys, Cliffords and Cooks use of the Creedence Clearwater Revisited name. See
25
http://ultimateclassicrock.com/john-fogerty-condemns-former-bandmates/, a copy of which is
26
attached hereto as Exhibit C.
27
28
15.
After publication of this article, Poor Boy, through counsel, sent a letter to
counsel for Fogerty enclosing checks for performances and merchandise for Creedence
-3-
Clearwater Revisited for the second and third quarters of 2011, and demanding cessation of
Fogertys malfeasance and breach of the Settlement Agreement. Fogerty did not respond, and,
as a result, Poor Boy ceased paying Fogerty monies under the Settlement Agreement. To this
day, the offending article can still be accessed today at http://ultimateclassicrock.com/john-
fogerty-condemns-former-bandmates/.
16.
In addition to violating the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Fogerty has used
the Creedence Clearwater Revival service mark and trademark without the permission of CCR.
Examples of such infringing uses are attached collectively hereto as Exhibit D.
17.
Fogertys unauthorized use of Creedence Clearwater Revival creates a
10
likelihood of confusion, mistake and deception as to the affiliation, connection, association,
11
origin, sponsorship or approval of its goods and services by or with CCR, all to CCRs
12
irreparable loss and damage.
13
18.
Upon information and belief, confusion of consumers will likely occur as a result
14
of the acts of Fogerty complained of herein unless Fogerty is enjoined from continuing said acts.
15
Furthermore, CCR will suffer irreparable injury to its reputation and goodwill unless Fogerty is
16
so enjoined.
17
19.
Fogerty has recently alleged that Poor Boy, Clifford and Cook have violated the
18
terms of the Settlement Agreement by failing to pay royalties and at least impliedly, by asserting
19
that Messrs. Clifford and Cook have not performed together. As such, Fogerty has recently
20
demanded payment of all monies allegedly owing from December 2011 to the present, including
21
an accounting of performances where Clifford and Cook have not performed together. Fogerty
22
has also threatened litigation in the event his demands were not satisfied.
23
CLAIM I
24
(Trademark Infringement - 15 U.S.C. 1114(a))
25
26
27
28
20.
Plaintiffs repeat, reallege, and reiterate each and every paragraph set forth above
as if fully set forth herein.

21.
By the acts complained of herein, Fogerty has used in connection with his
services and/or goods a reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation of the Creedence
-4-
Clearwater Revival Mark protected by the 931 Reg in connection with the sale, offering for
sale, distribution and advertising of his entertainment services and/or goods, and such use is
likely to cause confusion, mistake and deception amongst the consuming public in violation of
15 U.S.C. 1114(a).
22.
Fogertys aforesaid acts have caused and will continue to cause great and
irreparable injury to Plaintiffs and, unless such acts are restrained by this Court, such acts will
continue and Plaintiffs will therefore continue to suffer great and irreparable injury.
23.
Plaintiffs have been damaged by Defendants willful infringement in an amount
according to proof.
10
CLAIM II
11
(Lanham Act Violation - 15 U.S.C. 1125(a))
12
13
14
24.

25.
By the acts complained of herein, Fogerty has used in connection with his
15
entertainment services and/or goods a false designation of origin, description or representation,
16
including use of the Infringing Marks which is likely to cause confusion, mistake or to deceive as
17
to origin, affiliation, connection, sponsorship or association of Fogerty with Plaintiffs, or as to
18
the origin, sponsorship or approval of Fogertys services and/or goods by Plaintiffs, in violation
19
of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).
20
26.
21
22
23
24
27.
Plaintiffs have been damaged by Defendants willful unfair competition in an
amount according to proof.
25
CLAIM III
26
(Unfair Competition at Common Law)
27
28
28.
-5-
29.
The aforesaid acts of Fogerty constitutes the sale and passing-off of his services
and/or goods as Plaintiffs services and/or goods, infringement, imitation and misappropriation
of Plaintiffs Mark, unjust enrichment, and unfair competition with Plaintiffs, in violation of
Plaintiffs rights at common law.
30.
8
9
31.
Plaintiffs have been damaged by Defendants willful unfair competition in an
amount according to proof.
10
CLAIM IV
11
(Declaratory Relief - 28 U.S.C. 2201-2202)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
32.

33.
By reason of the foregoing allegations, an actual case or controversy has arisen
and exists between Plaintiffs and Fogerty as to alleged violations of the Settlement Agreement.
34.
Plaintiffs contend that they have not violated the Settlement Agreement, but that
Fogerty has.
35.
Given the nature of Fogertys charges, Plaintiffs will continue to suffer harm and
damage unless this Court declares that Plaintiffs have not violated the Settlement Agreement.
20
CLAIM V
21
(Breach of Contract)
22
23
24
36.

37.
Poor Boy, Clifford, Cook, and Ms. Fogerty and Fogerty entered into the
25
Settlement Agreement on or about January 9, 2001 whereby Fogerty agreed to withdraw his
26
objection to Cliffords and Cooks performing under the name Creedence Clearwater
27
Revisited. See Exhibit B. The parties also agreed that Clifford, Cook, and Ms. Fogerty would
28
not authorize third party persons or entities to perform under the names Creedence,
-6-
Creedence Clearwater or any derivative of those names without the prior written permission of
Fogerty. Id. The parties also agreed that Poor Boy would pay monies to Fogerty for uses the
Revisited name. Id.
38.
Poor Boy, Clifford, Cook, and Ms. Fogerty performed under the terms of his
Settlement Agreement with Fogerty until Fogerty breached the Settlement Agreement by
publically condemning and objecting to Poor Boys use of the Creedence Clearwater Revisited
name, which he agreed to pursuant to the Settlement agreement. See Exhibit C.
8
9
10
39.
As a direct and proximate result of Fogertys actions and breach of contract, Poor
Boy, Clifford, Cook, and Ms. Fogerty have suffered damages in an amount in excess of $75,000,
and in an amount according to proof.
11
CLAIM VI
12
(Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)
13
14
15
16
17
40.

41.
The Settlement Agreement between Poor Boy, Clifford, Cook, and Ms. Fogerty
and Fogerty contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
42.
The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires that Fogerty do
18
nothing to injure the right of Poor Boy, Clifford, Cook, and Ms. Fogerty to receive the benefits
19
of that Agreement, that Fogerty give full cooperation to Poor Boy, Clifford, Cook, and Ms.
20
Fogerty, and Fogerty refrains from doing any act to prevent or impede Poor Boy, Clifford, Cook,
21
and Ms. Fogertys enjoyment of the benefit of that Agreement.
22
43.
The acts and omissions described herein have resulted in Fogertys breach of not
23
only the Settlement Agreement with Poor Boy, Clifford, Cook, and Ms. Fogerty, but have also
24
resulted in the breach of Fogertys covenant of good faith and fair dealing as applied to that
25
Agreement.
26
44.
As a direct and proximate result of Fogertys actions and breaches of implied
27
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Poor Boy, Clifford, Cook, and Ms. Fogerty have suffered
28
damages in an amount in excess of $75,000, and in an amount according to proof.
-7-
CLAIM VII
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty Cal. Corp. Code. 16401, 16404, 16501)
3
4
5
45.

46.
Cal. Corp. Code 16401(g) states that a partner may use or possess partnership
property only on behalf of the partnership. Cal. Corp. Code 16501 provides that a partner is
not a coowner of partnership property and has no interest in partnership property that can be
transferred, either voluntarily or involuntarily. Cal. Corp. Code 16404 provides that (a) The
fiduciary duties a partner owes to the partnership and the other partners are the duty of loyalty
10
and the duty of care set forth in subdivisions (b) and (c). Subsection (b)(3) of Code provides
11
that a partner must refrain from competing with the partnership in the conduct of the partnership
12
business before the dissolution of the partnership.
13
14
15
47.
By using the Creedence Clearwater Revival service mark and trademark
without CCRs permission, Fogerty has violated his fiduciary duties to that partnership.
48.
As a direct and proximate result of Fogertys actions and breaches of fiduciary
16
duty, CCR has suffered damages in an amount in excess of $75,000, and in an amount according
17
to proof.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
18
19
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court for the following relief:
20
1.
That the Court find that the Fogerty has been and is infringing the Creedence
21
Clearwater Revival service mark and trademark and corresponding 931 Reg., and is competing
22
unfairly with Plaintiffs, and otherwise has been unjustly enriched.
23
2.
That Plaintiffs be awarded their damages and Fogertys profits attributable to his
24
infringement of the Creedence Clearwater Revival service mark and trademark and
25
corresponding 931 Reg. under 15 U.S.C. 1117(a).
26
3.
That Plaintiffs be awarded three times the profits attributable to Fogertys
27
infringement of the Creedence Clearwater Revival service mark and trademark and
28
corresponding 931 Reg. under 15 U.S.C. 1117(a).
-8-
4.
1
2
That Plaintiffs be awarded their reasonable attorneys fees and costs of suit, under
15 U.S.C. 1117(a).
5.
That an injunction be issued against Fogerty and his servants, agents, employees,
successors and assigns, and all persons acting in concert or privity with him, enjoining each of
them, singly and collectively, from: (a) further using, promoting, advertising, and marketing the
Creedence Clearwater Revival service mark and trademark, or any name, mark or designation
confusingly similar thereto; (b) further holding himself out to the public as being affiliated with
or sponsored by CCR in any manner, or committing any acts likely to imply any such
relationship or affiliation; (c) requiring Fogerty to deliver to Plaintiffs for destruction all
10
infringing material in his possession, custody or control bearing the Creedence Clearwater
11
Revival service mark or trademark, or any other names, marks or designations confusingly
12
similar thereto; and (d), requiring Fogerty to cease stating that Poor Boy, Clifford and Cook
13
cannot use the Creedence Clearwater Revisited service mark and trademark in commerce.
6.
14
15
and awarding all applicable damages for Defendants conduct.

7.
16
17
That an order be issued preventing Fogertys infringement and unfair competition
That the Court declare that none of the Plaintiffs have violated the Settlement
Agreement.
18
8.
For general damages.
19
9.
For incidental damages.
20
10.
For consequential damages.
21
11.
For costs of suit incurred herein.
22
12.
For reasonable attorneys fees.
23
13.
For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
-9-
1
2
14.
That the Court grant Plaintiffs such other relief as is just and proper.
DATED this 5th day of September, 2014.
WATSON ROUNDS
By: /s/ Michael D. Rounds

MICHAEL D. ROUNDS
MATTHEW D. FRANCIS
5371 Kietzke Lane
Reno, NV 89511
Telephone: (775) 324-4100
Facsimile: (775) 333-8171
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-10-
JURY DEMAND
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Plaintiffs Poor Boy Productions, Inc., Creedence
Clearwater Revival, Stuart Cook, Douglas Clifford, and Patricia Fogerty hereby demand a jury
trial on all issues triable by jury.
DATED this 5th day of December, 2012.
WATSON ROUNDS
11
By: /s/ Michael D. Rounds

MICHAEL D. ROUNDS
MATTHEW D. FRANCIS
5371 Kietzke Lane
Reno, NV 89511
Telephone: (775) 324-4100
Facsimile: (775) 333-8171
12
7
8
9
10
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-11-

Creedence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Creedence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:14-cv-00633 Document 1 Filed 12/05/14 Page 1 of 11

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

POOR BOY PRODUCTIONS, INC., a Nevada

JOHN FOGERTY, an individual,

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Case 3:14-cv-00633 Document 1 Filed 12/05/14 Page 2 of 11

under the common law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1338(b) and 1367(a).

Defendant is subject to this Courts personal jurisdiction because he has

Nevada in October of 2014.

and (c), and in the Reno Division of the District of Nevada.

located in Incline Village, Nevada.

Plaintiff CCR is a California partnership comprised of Messrs. Cook, Clifford,

and Fogerty, and Ms. Fogerty.

Plaintiff Clifford is a resident of the State of Nevada.

Plaintiff Cook is a resident of the State of Texas.

Plaintiff Ms. Fogerty is a resident of the State of Arizona.

Defendant John Fogerty is a resident of the State of California.

The musical group Creedence Clearwater Revival was originally comprised of

his wife, Ms. Fogerty.

Case 3:14-cv-00633 Document 1 Filed 12/05/14 Page 3 of 11

Productions, Inc., et al., 124 F.3d 211 (9th Cir. 1997).

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/john-fogerty-condemns-former-bandmates/, a copy of which is

attached hereto as Exhibit C.

Case 3:14-cv-00633 Document 1 Filed 12/05/14 Page 4 of 11

day, the offending article can still be accessed today at http://ultimateclassicrock.com/john-

Examples of such infringing uses are attached collectively hereto as Exhibit D.

Fogertys unauthorized use of Creedence Clearwater Revival creates a

likelihood of confusion, mistake and deception as to the affiliation, connection, association,

irreparable loss and damage.

(Trademark Infringement - 15 U.S.C. 1114(a))

as if fully set forth herein.

Case 3:14-cv-00633 Document 1 Filed 12/05/14 Page 5 of 11

Plaintiffs have been damaged by Defendants willful infringement in an amount

(Lanham Act Violation - 15 U.S.C. 1125(a))

as if fully set forth herein.

entertainment services and/or goods a false designation of origin, description or representation,

to origin, affiliation, connection, sponsorship or association of Fogerty with Plaintiffs, or as to

Plaintiffs have been damaged by Defendants willful unfair competition in an

amount according to proof.

(Unfair Competition at Common Law)

as if fully set forth herein.

Case 3:14-cv-00633 Document 1 Filed 12/05/14 Page 6 of 11

Plaintiffs rights at common law.

Plaintiffs have been damaged by Defendants willful unfair competition in an

amount according to proof.

(Declaratory Relief - 28 U.S.C. 2201-2202)

as if fully set forth herein.

By reason of the foregoing allegations, an actual case or controversy has arisen

as if fully set forth herein.

Case 3:14-cv-00633 Document 1 Filed 12/05/14 Page 7 of 11

Revisited name. Id.

name, which he agreed to pursuant to the Settlement agreement. See Exhibit C.

(Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)

as if fully set forth herein.

and Ms. Fogertys enjoyment of the benefit of that Agreement.

As a direct and proximate result of Fogertys actions and breaches of implied

damages in an amount in excess of $75,000, and in an amount according to proof.

Case 3:14-cv-00633 Document 1 Filed 12/05/14 Page 8 of 11

(Breach of Fiduciary Duty Cal. Corp. Code. 16401, 16404, 16501)

as if fully set forth herein.

business before the dissolution of the partnership.

By using the Creedence Clearwater Revival service mark and trademark

As a direct and proximate result of Fogertys actions and breaches of fiduciary