Subscribe to Christianity Today
Subscribe to Christianity Today
Donate to Christianity Today
November 23, 2009
Free Newsletters:
RSS Feeds | Audio | Twitter

Home > Music > 2008 > February (Web-only) |  
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.




Smith told CT that those conversations between Morales and Collins prompted MOSH's lawsuit against Morales. Smith claims that those conversations could have "opened up a potential lawsuit" from Collins against the younger group over use of the Imperials name. "He [Armond Morales] had called into question our very existence legally," said Smith.

Collins did not return phone calls from CT.

Because Collins owns the national trademark, the younger group wants Armond to give them the trademark rights he owns under common law, as common-law rights are gained from usage of a trademark and do not require registration. When MOSH applied for the name in Tennessee in September 2006, they were awarded the trademark in Tennessee under common law. If Armond Morales's common-law rights were not transferred to MOSH, the younger group would not be able to continue attempting to obtain a national trademark.

Still More Imperials

Adding to the confusion is the fact that there is a fourth group with some claim to the Imperials name. In addition to the Classic Imperials (Armond Morales and friends), the younger Imperials (Jason Morales and MOSH), and Little Anthony & the Imperials, there's another group billing itself as the Imperials. That group is composed of former members of the original Imperials — including Terry Blackwood — that once backed up Elvis Presley in his Las Vegas shows in 1969–72. That group continues to perform occasional shows, doing Elvis tributes and sometimes backing up Elvis impersonators.

Joe Moscheo, a current member of this group, told CT he believes the younger members think that Armond "duped" them into something that didn't have any worth when he signed the trade agreement in 2005.

"I think Armond was caught in the moment [in 2005]," Moscheo said. "He was retiring and wanted to do something for his son. Armond made a bad deal. He was giving away something he didn't rightfully own himself. Now they're trying to press him for it. Even if they win, it's a lose-lose situation for both sides."

While the legal battle continues, both parties keep moving ahead with their music. Armond and the Classic Imperials — who for now call themselves "the Artists Formerly Known as the Imperials" — are independently releasing a cd titled Standing Strong.

Meanwhile, the younger version of the Imperials has an extensive touring schedule and plans to record a Christmas album independently this year.



Related Elsewhere:

The younger Imperials respond to this article, saying "We feel it is time to let the truth be known," with an "Open Letter" on their website.

Armond Morales responds with "A Letter to My Son" at his own website.

The younger Imperials' site includes history, bio, and upcoming concerts.

The Classic Imperials recently created a new site and call themselves "the Artists Formerly Known as the Imperials."

The Classic Imperials have posted a new song on YouTube, and the comments section includes some remarks about the lawsuit and the ongoing battle between the two sides.

The Imperials and Armond Morales interviewed with Southern Gospel News after Armond began singing with the Classic Imperials.




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