Subscribe to Christianity Today
Subscribe to Christianity Today
Donate to Christianity Today
November 26, 2009
Free Newsletters:
RSS Feeds | Audio | Twitter

Home > 2008 > February (Web-only)Christianity Today, February (Web-only), 2008  |   |  
Imperials Embroiled in Lawsuit Over Name
One of Christian music's most popular singing groups is entangled in a legal battle that puts father and son on opposing sides.




ADVERTISEMENT

"Our contention is that none of the individual Imperials won group awards," Smith said. "It's very similar to a sports team. If a player retires, he doesn't take the awards with him unless he won individual awards. The team won those championships. They stay with the team."

Singing in the Same Market

The elder Morales says he signed the document in 2005 because he had retired from the Imperials in 2003 and that "it made sense" at the time to transfer the name to his son and the new group. He adds that the younger group was "pressuring me to get out of the group, even though I was the owner. … They thought they could do things better and didn't need an old guy."

Armond Morales moved to Hawaii to sing with the Classic Imperials, but when the company they worked for went bankrupt, the group moved to Tennessee in 2006. At that time, the younger group and Armond interviewed with Southern Gospel News announcing the groups' coexistence in Tennessee. The younger group said, "We are honored to carry on this legacy, and it's always a big honor to be on stage with them."

Smith now says MOSH agreed to that interview because they were "trying to make the best of a bad situation." He says MOSH never believed the two groups could exist in the same market.

"It's confusing to people," said Smith, noting that when he books his group, people ask, "Now, which Imperials are you?" Smith said. "I shouldn't have to explain who's who."

Armond Morales said he doesn't believe his performances with the Classic Imperials are taking business away from the younger group. The Classic Imperials sang about 25 concerts in 2007, while the younger group performed more than 150 times.

The Fight Over a Name

In August 2006, MOSH applied to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for the national trademark to "The Imperials," but was denied because another singer — Clarence Collins — owns the name.

Collins is a member of Little Anthony & the Imperials, an African American group popular in the late 1950s and early '60s. During the height of their popularity, Armond Morales contacted Collins to seek permission to use the name "the Imperials" for his fledgling group. In March 2007, Collins told the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board that he did grant Morales permission to use the Imperials name back in the 1960s, but according to the trademark office, Collins still owns the national trademark.

Then in October 2006, MOSH filed a petition of cancellation with the trademark board, asking to have Collins removed as owner of the Imperials trademark. The group claimed that Collins committed fraud because he knew Armond Morales was using "the Imperials" name, and because Collins changed the name of his group from "the Imperials" to "Little Anthony & the Imperials." MOSH also claims that because Collins's group has not continued to perform over the years, it "abandoned" the trademark, thus making it available to others. However, a decision on the trademark petition was suspended due to MOSH's lawsuit against Armond Morales.

When Armond Morales found out MOSH was going after the national trademark, he contacted Collins. According to court documents, Armond Morales asked Collins for permission to use the Imperials name so he could continue singing with the Classic Imperials. Morales told Collins at the time that MOSH was planning to sue the elder Morales for using the name.

share this pageshare this page



E-mail this pageE-mail this pageWrite CTPrint this articlePost a comment





  


Subscribe to Christianity Today and get 3 free trial issues. No credit card required.

Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. Offer valid in U.S. only.

If you decide you want to keep Christianity Today coming, honor your invoice for just $19.95 and receive nine more issues, a full year in all. If not, simply write "cancel" across the invoice and return it. The three trial issues are yours to keep, regardless.


Click here for international orders2-for-1 Gifts!

[Reader Reviews]
Average User Rating: 

Displaying 1 - 3 of 134 comments.See all comments
Mark from Indiana   Posted: March 12, 2008 4:49 PM
it's all really a moot point anyway. If a bunch of kids bought the Beatles trademark, does that make them the real group? Even if they sang all the old songs? NO. When u consider these punks' motivations, it all comes down to selfishness anyway. You can give me all the baloney about "wanting to carry on the Imperials tradition", etc, and it's still rationalizing nonsense. The only reason they would have done this is to capitalize on the name. Especially when u consider they lay claim to past achievements of the original group. This is deceitful and full of sin. This kinda crap is the very type of thing that is wrong with CCM today. I'd question whether these guys are living a Christian life at all. I wouldn't walk across the street to listen to these guys. Let them gain popularity on their own merits, instead of notoriety of being known as Christians tearing each other up in courts. You can't buy a ministry, but a company. This shows where their hearts lie.. I'm ashamed of them.

michelle   Posted: March 12, 2008 2:39 AM
I know that his dad might have went back on his word, don't get me wrong that is wrong, but suing them isn't any better and 2 wrongs does not a right make! and yes what about Seniority his dad Deserves better. That said, no one is perfect, but since they are in the public eye they should consider being better examples. and I am not holding a grudge but geesh! also his dad deserves credit because not only is he his father and got him started out he raised the boy! he owes all he knows to God and his parents and if they want to come back and use the name they should go ahead and actually say it would be better if we legally shared the name for both groups

Michelle   Posted: March 12, 2008 2:29 AM
Yes I believe that the younger generation of the two should be More grateful, it sounds like his dad hit hard times and needs his band back but either his son or the band minus the son is being greedy and my parents have told me that christians should not sue other people let alone family. I mean it sounds like they are highly ungrateful because they won't let the oringnal imperials use the name that they gave to them as a gift and his son and the others Should want to return the favor I mean why is it such a big deal that his father use the name "the classic imperials" because thats what they were His son and his band should have made an announcement that they will be sharing the name, I mean after all they do share last names and what ever happened to honor thy father and thy mother? or respect your elders I guess that is gone with the wind with the younger generation of imperials Even if they fall on hard times, you don't sue your family thats all their is to it forgive

The allotted time for commenting has ended.

sponsors 








[Browse More Christianity Today]

Search






















Search by Name
Or use Advanced Search to search by program, region, cost, affiliation, enrollment, more!

Search by:





Books & Culture
Christianity Today
Church Law & Tax Report
Church Finance Today
Leadership Journal
Men of Integrity
Outcomes
Kyria.com
Your Church
ChristianityTodayLibrary.com
PreachingToday.com