How Did Boston Lose a Long-Running Trademark Infringement Suit?
Rock band Boston recently lost its long-running trademark infringement suit against former guitarist Barry Goudreau. Boston founder, Tom Scholz, sued Goudreau for using the term “original” member of the band instead of “former” in promotion and advertising related to the guitarist’s new band, Ernie and The Automatics. However, a Massachusetts jury ultimately concluded that any alleged trademark misuse was unlikely to cause confusion by members of the public.
Allegations of Trademark Infringement
After leaving Boston, Goudreau filed a lawsuit over royalties against Scholz and the other remaining band members. Pursuant to a resulting settlement agreement, the parties agreed that Goudreau could refer to himself as “formerly of Boston,” but would have no other interest, right or title to the trademarked name BOSTON. However, advertisements and promotions for subsequent bands Goudreau played with referred to him as “lead guitarist rock legend from the band Boston,” “Barry Goudreau of the Multi-Platinum Group Boston,” and “original member of Boston.”
In 2013, Scholz filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Goudreau, alleging that that he had violated the settlement agreement and infringed on Scholz’s BOSTON trademarks by using or allowing the use of descriptive terms that deviate from “formerly of Boston.” According to the suit, Goudreau’s “persistent, unauthorized, and willful misuse” of trademarks associated with Boston embellished his role in the band. The suit also maintained that the trademark infringement “deprives Scholz of his ability to control fully the nature and quality of all (Boston) products and services . . . and harms the valuable reputation and goodwill” of the band.
In a 2015 summary judgment ruling, U.S. District Judge Denise Casper dismissed several of the trademark infringement claims, concluding that Scholz has failed to provide evidence that Goudreau was responsible for any of the allegedly infringing advertisements and promotions. Accordingly, he could not be held liable for direct infringement because issues of fact still existed with respect to the trademark claims involving promotions by the band Ernie and the Automatics, they proceeded to trial.
Jury Rejects Trademark Claim
To prove trademark infringement under the Lanham Act and Massachusetts common law, Scholz had to demonstrate that “(1) the plaintiff owns and uses the disputed marks; (2) the defendant used similar or identical marks without permission; and (3) unauthorized use likely confused consumers, harming the plaintiff.” The jury ultimately sided with Goudreau on the issue of trademark infringement. It concluded that any misuse of the BOSTON trademark was unlikely cause confusion about the status or lineup of the band in the mind of the public. As Goudreau’s attorneys argued, while his role and influence over the band is debatable, Goudreau is technically an original member of Boston.
The case is Scholz v. Goudreau, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, No. 13-10951.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Boston Founder Loses Trademark Battle of the Bands
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
How Did Boston Lose a Long-Running Trademark Infringement Suit?
Rock band Boston recently lost its long-running trademark infringement suit against former guitarist Barry Goudreau. Boston founder, Tom Scholz, sued Goudreau for using the term “original” member of the band instead of “former” in promotion and advertising related to the guitarist’s new band, Ernie and The Automatics. However, a Massachusetts jury ultimately concluded that any alleged trademark misuse was unlikely to cause confusion by members of the public.
Allegations of Trademark Infringement
After leaving Boston, Goudreau filed a lawsuit over royalties against Scholz and the other remaining band members. Pursuant to a resulting settlement agreement, the parties agreed that Goudreau could refer to himself as “formerly of Boston,” but would have no other interest, right or title to the trademarked name BOSTON. However, advertisements and promotions for subsequent bands Goudreau played with referred to him as “lead guitarist rock legend from the band Boston,” “Barry Goudreau of the Multi-Platinum Group Boston,” and “original member of Boston.”
In 2013, Scholz filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Goudreau, alleging that that he had violated the settlement agreement and infringed on Scholz’s BOSTON trademarks by using or allowing the use of descriptive terms that deviate from “formerly of Boston.” According to the suit, Goudreau’s “persistent, unauthorized, and willful misuse” of trademarks associated with Boston embellished his role in the band. The suit also maintained that the trademark infringement “deprives Scholz of his ability to control fully the nature and quality of all (Boston) products and services . . . and harms the valuable reputation and goodwill” of the band.
In a 2015 summary judgment ruling, U.S. District Judge Denise Casper dismissed several of the trademark infringement claims, concluding that Scholz has failed to provide evidence that Goudreau was responsible for any of the allegedly infringing advertisements and promotions. Accordingly, he could not be held liable for direct infringement because issues of fact still existed with respect to the trademark claims involving promotions by the band Ernie and the Automatics, they proceeded to trial.
Jury Rejects Trademark Claim
To prove trademark infringement under the Lanham Act and Massachusetts common law, Scholz had to demonstrate that “(1) the plaintiff owns and uses the disputed marks; (2) the defendant used similar or identical marks without permission; and (3) unauthorized use likely confused consumers, harming the plaintiff.” The jury ultimately sided with Goudreau on the issue of trademark infringement. It concluded that any misuse of the BOSTON trademark was unlikely cause confusion about the status or lineup of the band in the mind of the public. As Goudreau’s attorneys argued, while his role and influence over the band is debatable, Goudreau is technically an original member of Boston.
The case is Scholz v. Goudreau, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, No. 13-10951.
