Jelly Roll/Jellyroll Trademark Case
Jelly Roll/Jellyroll Trademark Case
KURT L. TITCHENELL,
114 Commons Court,
Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania 19317
v.
Defendant.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, for its complaint against the above-named Defendant, alleges and avers as
follows:
currently concealed but who can be contacted through his attorney Brad D. Rose of Pryor
Cashman LLP, 7 Times Square, 40th Floor, New York, NY 10036 or his manager, John
Meneilly, Emagen Entertainment Group, 4001 Inglewood Avenue, Redondo Beach, CA 90278.
3. This Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter under 28 U.S.C. §1338(a),
as this action arises under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125(a), 1125(c)(1), and 1125(d),
Defendant does business in this judicial district and all or a substantial part of the events,
omissions and harm giving rise to this action occurred in this judicial district.
infringement under 15 U.S.C. §1114(1)(a) and §1114(1)(b); false designation of origin and/or
sponsorship under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a); dilution under 15 U.S.C. §1125(c); common law palming
off, trademark and trade name infringement, and unfair competition; injury to business reputation
3,834,018, JELLYROLL® (the Mark) used in connection with the following services in
international class 41: Entertainment in the nature of live performances by a musical band or
7. Plaintiff has acquired the rights to the Mark and all goodwill therewith
having received a USPTO trademark registration on August 17, 2010, and having since renewed
the mark with the latest renewal having been accepted by the USPTO on December 26, 2019. A
copy of the Mark registration information as reflected in the official records of the United States
musical and vocal accompaniment for celebratory and charitable events first in the Delaware
Valley and now throughout the Northeast part of the United States since at least 1980, including,
2
Case 2:24-cv-01457-MAK Document 1 Filed 04/08/24 Page 3 of 12
among other notable events, two appearances at the White House for President George W. Bush
Tennessee claims in published interviews that his mother referred to him as Jelly Roll as a small
child.
10. Defendant claims he started using the name Jelly Roll in about 2010 in
connection with the personal distribution of self-created music mix tapes that he would distribute
while serving time in prison for felony armed robbery in his late teens and early twenties.
12. Prior to the Defendant’s recent rise in notoriety, a search of the name of
Jellyroll on most search engines, and particularly Google, returned references to the Plaintiff.
Now, any such search on Google returns multiple references to Defendant, perhaps as many as
18-20 references before any reference to Plaintiff’s entertainment dance band known as
13. On or about February 27, 2024, Plaintiff, through counsel, sent a cease-
and-desist letter by electronic mail to various email addresses believed to be associated with
Defendant’s counsel wanting to discuss the cease-and-desist letter. Several conversations ensued
and at one point Defendant’s counsel inquired as to whether Defendant really was in competition
with Plaintiff.
3
Case 2:24-cv-01457-MAK Document 1 Filed 04/08/24 Page 4 of 12
Jelly Roll.
16. Defendant, along with other musical accompaniment, has now announced
a nationwide tour that will make planned appearances throughout the Northeast including
Philadelphia.
17. In or about March 2024, Plaintiff became aware that Defendant was going
to appear for a live concert at the Wells Fargo Center located in Philadelphia on October 2, 2024,
and Defendant has been marketing this event and preselling tickets to it. All such marketing has
used the Defendant’s professionally adopted and infringing name Jelly Roll in these efforts. One
19. Defendant, ignoring the demand to cease and desist from his use of
Plaintiff’s registered trademark, continues to use the mark Jellyroll, thus continuing Defendant’s
infringement of Plaintiff’s service mark, creating confusion in the marketplace as to the source.
COUNT I
Federal Service Mark Infringement 15 U.S.C. §1114(1)(a) and (1)(b)
21. Plaintiff is the owner of the incontestable federal service mark registration
granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the following mark:
4
Case 2:24-cv-01457-MAK Document 1 Filed 04/08/24 Page 5 of 12
Registration/Renewal
22. The next §8 and §9 renewal dates for the mark are not until August 17,
2029, at the earliest, unless canceled by the Commissioner of Trademarks or a Federal Court, and
as long as the requirements for maintaining the registration are fulfilled as they become due.
23. Plaintiff first used the service mark Jellyroll in interstate commerce for
entertainment in the nature of live performances by a musical band or group and entertainment
members of general public in the United States have recognized the mark Jellyroll® as an
exclusive source identifier for entertainment services in the nature of live musical performances
25. Plaintiff’s registered service mark identified above is valid, subsisting and
now incontestable, and remains in full force and effect, and in continuous use throughout its
26. As a result of the long and continuous use of the mark since 1980 by
Plaintiff, along with the extensive advertising of the services of Plaintiff associated with the
mark, Plaintiff has greatly expanded his market reach to all states in the Northeast United States
5
Case 2:24-cv-01457-MAK Document 1 Filed 04/08/24 Page 6 of 12
27. Until Defendant began infringing on the use of the mark in areas in which
Plaintiff has provided services, members of the consumer population in the United States have
recognized the mark Jellyroll when used in connection with providing live musical entertainment
28. As a result of the long and continuous use of the mark by Plaintiff, and
until the confusion created by Defendant’s infringement of the mark, the general consumer
population identified Jellyroll as exclusive source identifiers for Plaintiff’s services of providing
live musical and vocal entertainment consisting of at least seven to eight musicians that feature a
horn section, a string section including violins, keyboards, a percussion section, and at least three
vocalists.
commerce, and especially in the Northeast of the United States in connection with live musical
performances including the promotion of such services in his advertising and marketing,
including, but not limited to his website, direct mail advertisements, venue initiated
advertisements, and elsewhere, is causing, has already caused, and will continue to cause, not
merely a likelihood of confusion, but actual confusion, mistake, and deception with respect to:
(a) the source and origin of the services offered by Defendant; (b) the affiliation, connection, and
association of Defendant with Plaintiff; and (c) Plaintiff’s sponsorship, approval, tolerance, and
control of the services offered by Defendant using the mark registered to Plaintiff, all of which is
herein in defiance of Plaintiff’s demand to cease such acts which are causing financial injury and
harm to Plaintiff.
6
Case 2:24-cv-01457-MAK Document 1 Filed 04/08/24 Page 7 of 12
31. Defendant’s continued acts and conduct of service mark infringement are
enjoined by this Court, will continue to cause consumer confusion, mistake, and deception.
34. Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction under the Lanham Act since a remedy
at law alone does not free Plaintiff from the harm that is continuing.
COUNT II
Trade Name or Service Mark Dilution in Violation of 15 U.S.C. §1125 (c)(1)
Plaintiff for entertainment services in the nature of live music performances long before
Defendant’s adoption and use of the name Jelly Roll in connection with entertainment services in
37. Plaintiff’s registered service mark Jellyroll has become famous due to
long, extensive, continuous, and exclusive use by Plaintiff in connection with the services
referenced in the USPTO registration, such fame occurring long before Defendant adoption and
38. Plaintiff’s registered service mark is recognized and famous in the same
service area as Defendant’s use and promotion of his performing name Jelly Roll.
7
Case 2:24-cv-01457-MAK Document 1 Filed 04/08/24 Page 8 of 12
1980s, Plaintiff has been expanding his footprint and has now performed under his registered
service mark in states from Connecticut to Virginia and every state in between, including
40. Upon information and belief, and furthermore based on the confusion of
which Plaintiff is aware and has been informed about, Defendant’s use of Jelly Roll has lessened
the capacity of Plaintiff’s registered service mark to identify and distinguish the services of
Plaintiff.
41. Defendant’s acts and conduct as alleged herein have tarnished the
42. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and is being irreparably harmed
COUNT III
Unfair Competition by False Designation of Origin by Service Mark Infringement
Under 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)
44. Defendant has arranged to perform under the name Jelly Roll at the Wells
Fargo Center in Philadelphia in October 2024 as part of a nationwide tour that includes other
trademark which has caused members of the public to incorrectly assume these were products
8
Case 2:24-cv-01457-MAK Document 1 Filed 04/08/24 Page 9 of 12
46. Defendant has also adopted a domain name that uses Plaintiff’s registered
Instagram @jellyroll615, Facebook profile under Jelly Roll, and TikTok @officialjellyroll.
47. Despite his receipt of a demand to cease and desist using Plaintiff’s
registered service mark, Defendant has ignored this demand and continues to use Plaintiff’s
registered service mark knowing that it continues to irreparably harm Plaintiff but has
nevertheless callously disregarded the rights of Plaintiff to his own service mark.
the relevant public and trade to believe erroneously that Defendant’s services are associated,
and imprisonment, such association as averred above has caused additional harm to Plaintiff
50. By the acts as alleged herein, Defendant has falsely designated and
represented his services sold in commerce or has callously and intentionally disregarded
clarifying the origin of his services, in an effort to trade on the goodwill of Plaintiff.
commit the acts complained of herein and has continued to do so in defiance of Plaintiff’s
demand to cease such infringement, and by Defendant’s acts, threatens to not stop until the value
and good will associated with Plaintiff and his use of the service mark is thus permanently
destroyed resulting in the destruction of Plaintiff’s business and cancellation of the service mark
due to non-use of the service mark, a requirement under federal law for a continuation of the
9
Case 2:24-cv-01457-MAK Document 1 Filed 04/08/24 Page 10 of 12
competition that has caused and, unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, will continue to
cause irreparable harm and injury to Plaintiff’s good will and business reputation entitling
COUNT IV
Injury to Business Reputation and Dilution in Violation of 54 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann §1125
54. Plaintiff is the owner of a service mark that is distinctive and famous in
55. Defendant has used and continues to use the famous service mark
56. As a result of the actions complained of herein, Defendant has caused and
unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, will continue to cause irreparable harm and injury
COUNT V
Common Law Unfair Competition, Palming Off, and Service Mark Infringement
10
Case 2:24-cv-01457-MAK Document 1 Filed 04/08/24 Page 11 of 12
60. Defendant’s actions and conduct as alleged herein constitute service mark
61. Defendant has caused and, unless restrained and enjoined by this Court,
will continue to cause irreparable harm and injury to Plaintiff, including but not limited to, injury
employees, attorneys, confederates, affiliates, related entities, and all persons acting for, with, by,
or under them, and any others within his control or supervision, and all others in active concert
or participation with the Defendant, be enjoined during the pendency of this action and
similar derivation of such of such service mark, including but not limited to Jelly Roll, in
international class 41: Entertainment in the nature of live performances by a musical band or
group; entertainment services in the nature of live musical performances, or any other
designation, trade name, or service mark that is confusing similar to Plaintiff’s service mark.
11
Case 2:24-cv-01457-MAK Document 1 Filed 04/08/24 Page 12 of 12
12