Case 2:24-cv-01457-MAK Document 1 Filed 04/08/24 Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KURT L. TITCHENELL,
114 Commons Court,
Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania 19317

Plaintiff, Case Number: 2:24-cv-1457

v.

JASON BRADLEY DEFORD,

c/o Brad D. Rose
Pryor Cashman LLP
7 Times Square, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10036

Defendant.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, for its complaint against the above-named Defendant, alleges and avers as

follows:

THE PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff, Kurt L. Titchenell, is an adult individual located and doing

business as Jellyroll®, at 114 Commons Court, Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania 19317.

2. Defendant, Jason DeFord is an adult individual whose home address is

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),

as well as under pendant jurisdiction.

 Case 2:24-cv-01457-MAK Document 1 Filed 04/08/24 Page 2 of 12

4. Venue in this judicial district is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b), as the

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.

NATURE OF THE CASE

5. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against Defendant for service mark

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

and dilution under 54 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §1125.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

6. Plaintiff is presently the owner of U.S. service mark registration number

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

group; entertainment services in the nature of live musical performances.

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

Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

8. The Plaintiff, professionally known as Jellyroll has been providing

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

and his family.

9. Conversely, Defendant, who was not born until 1984 in Antioch,

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

at no cost in the area near his home.

11. Defendant further claims he became a musician by learning to play guitar

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

Jellyroll® can be found.

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 or Defendant’s management.

14. On February 29, 2024, Plaintiff’s co-counsel received an email from

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

15. Despite receipt of the cease-and-desist letter, Defendant has not

discontinued his use of Plaintiff’s registered trademark Jellyroll, or as spelled by Defendant,

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

such advertisement can be found at https://wmmr.com/event/jelly-roll-wells-fargo-center/ , a

copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

18. Defendant’s website at https://jellyroll615.com continues to use Plaintiff’s

registered trademark Jellyroll prominently on his website.

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)

20. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the averment contained in

paragraphs 1 through 18 herein.

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 Number Mark Date of Principal

Registration/Renewal

3,834,018 JELLYROLL August 17, 2010

May 28, 2016 (renewal)

December 26, 2019 (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

services in the nature of live musical performances as early as March 9, 1980.

24. Well before the acts of infringement complained of herein by Defendant,

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

originating from Plaintiff.

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

market area. See Exhibit A, attached hereto.

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

from Connecticut to Virginia. His market penetration continues to expand.

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

originating with Plaintiff.

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.

29. Defendant’s unauthorized use of Plaintiff’s mark Jelly Roll in interstate

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

in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1114(1)(a) and §1114(1)(b).

30. Defendant continues to commit the acts of infringement complained of

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

willful within the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1117.

32. Defendant’s unapologetic continued infringing acts and conduct, unless

enjoined by this Court, will continue to cause consumer confusion, mistake, and deception.

33. The confusion created by Defendant’s infringement of Plaintiff’s

registered trademark has affected the continued viability of Plaintiff’s business.

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)

35. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 34

as though more fully set forth at length herein.

36. Plaintiff’s registered service mark Jellyroll® was used in commerce by

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

the nature of live music performances.

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

use of Jelly Roll, in fact even before Defendant was born.

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

39. Initially only performing in the Philadelphia metropolitan area in the

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

performances at the White House.

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

reputation and recognition of Plaintiff’s famous service mark.

42. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and is being irreparably harmed

by dilution of its famous service mark, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1125(c).

COUNT III
Unfair Competition by False Designation of Origin by Service Mark Infringement
Under 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)

43. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 42

as though more fully set forth at length herein.

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

venues in locations at which Plaintiff is well-known and has performed.

45. Defendant engages in the sales of merchandise using Plaintiff’s registered

trademark which has caused members of the public to incorrectly assume these were products

associated with Plaintiff.

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

service mark, namely https://jellyroll615.com, an X feed (formerly Twitter) @JellyRoll615,

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.

48. Defendant’s infringement of Plaintiff’s registered service mark has caused

the relevant public and trade to believe erroneously that Defendant’s services are associated,

authorized, or sponsored by Plaintiff.

49. Because of Defendant’s troubled past, which includes a felony conviction

and imprisonment, such association as averred above has caused additional harm to Plaintiff

among the public and trade.

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.

51. As a consequence of the foregoing, Defendant is currently continuing to

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

service mark registration.

9
 Case 2:24-cv-01457-MAK Document 1 Filed 04/08/24 Page 10 of 12

52. Defendant’s acts and conduct as alleged herein constitute unfair

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

Plaintiff to injunctive relief.

COUNT IV
Injury to Business Reputation and Dilution in Violation of 54 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann §1125

53. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 52

as though more fully set forth at length herein.

54. Plaintiff is the owner of a service mark that is distinctive and famous in

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

55. Defendant has used and continues to use the famous service mark

belonging to Plaintiff in callous disregard of the harm caused to Plaintiff by Defendant’s

wrongful use, thus diluting the mark by that association.

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

to Plaintiff, including injury to Plaintiff’s good will and business reputation.

57. Plaintiff is being irreparably harmed by Defendant’s acts in violation of 54

Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §1125.

COUNT V
Common Law Unfair Competition, Palming Off, and Service Mark Infringement

58. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 57

as though more fully set forth at length herein.

10
 Case 2:24-cv-01457-MAK Document 1 Filed 04/08/24 Page 11 of 12

59. Defendant’s actions and conduct as alleged herein constitute unfair

competition under Pennsylvania common law.

60. Defendant’s actions and conduct as alleged herein constitute service mark

infringement under Pennsylvania common law.

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

to Plaintiff’s good will and business reputation.

Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to enter an Order as follows:

A. That Defendant, its officers, directors, partners, agents, servants,

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

permanently thereafter from directly or indirectly:

1. Using the name, term, or registered service mark Jellyroll® or any

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

Dated: April 8, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO &

NADEL LLP

OF COUNSEL: By: /s/ John D. Simmons

Steven D. Lustig John D. Simmons (ID 202405)

Two Commerce Square Two Commerce Square
2001 Market Street, Suite 2800 2001 Market Street, Suite 2800
Philadelphia, PA 19103 Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 965-1294 Telephone: (215) 965-1268
Facsimile: (215) 965-1331 Facsimile: (215) 965-1331
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Kurt L. Titchenell

12