Pennsylvania Band Jellyroll Faces Trademark Dispute with Country Star Jelly Roll

Pennsylvania Band Jellyroll Faces Trademark Dispute with Country Star Jelly Roll

Jellyroll, a long-standing Pennsylvania-based band established in 1980, is embroiled in a legal battle over trademark infringement with the country star Jelly Roll. The band has held the trademark for its name since 2010, adding complexity to the case.

One day, music industry experts may look back at the famous case Jellyroll vs. Jelly Roll as a significant moment — but it's more likely that a news story in 2024 will spark a lot of jokes and mix-ups.

The band Jellyroll, hailing from Pennsylvania, has been entertaining crowds at weddings and charity functions in the Keystone State since 1980. They have owned the rights to their name since 2010. Currently, they are taking legal action against country singer Jelly Roll to prevent him from using the same name.

Kurt L. Titchenell from the band Jellyroll is taking legal action against Jason DeFord (also known as Jelly Roll) for infringing on their service mark, as revealed in court documents obtained by Court Watch. Jellyroll has owned the trademark for almost 15 years and renewed it in 2019.

The lawsuit claims that Jelly Roll's use of the name has harmed the band's reputation and made it difficult for them to promote themselves, leading to confusion in the market.

Before the Defendant became well-known, a search for Jellyroll on search engines like Google would show results related to the Plaintiff. However, now, when you search for Jellyroll on Google, you will see many more references to the Defendant, around 18-20 references, before you find any mention of the Plaintiff's entertainment dance band known as Jellyroll®.

Country Star Jelly Roll Faces Trademark Infringement Suit from Pennsylvania Band Jellyroll 2

Country Star Jelly Roll Faces Trademark Infringement Suit from Pennsylvania Band Jellyroll 2

Jelly Roll, as known by his stage name, revealed that his mother affectionately gave him this nickname when he was a child, even before he started his career. It was not until approximately 2010 that he started using this name professionally, coinciding with the time he acquired the trademark for Jellyroll.

Jellyroll's biggest opportunity came in 2007 when President George W. Bush's daughters watched them perform and invited them to play at the White House. Former First Lady Laura Bush also requested the band to play at her 44th high school reunion.

The legal action follows Titchenell's lawyers sending a cease and desist letter to Jelly Roll in February, which was ignored. After some discussions, Jelly Roll's lawyers questioned if they were truly in competition with Titchenell.

Jelly Roll recently announced a tour in the northeast, with a stop planned in Pennsylvania. In order to promote the tour, he utilized his stage name "Jelly Roll," which is the name he is known for professionally.

Do you know who the Queen of Country is?

The lawsuit alleges that Jellyroll has significantly increased its market presence in the Northeast United States, spanning from Connecticut to Virginia. The band's market reach is said to be continuously growing.

Jelly Roll has not responded to the lawsuit publicly. We have contacted them for a statement.

Editor's P/S:

The Jellyroll vs. Jelly Roll case highlights the complexities and potential pitfalls surrounding the use of similar names in the entertainment industry. The band Jellyroll's long-standing ownership of their name and its association with a specific niche market raises concerns about the impact of Jelly Roll's adoption of the same name. The confusion created by the similarity in names can damage the band's reputation and make it challenging for them to maintain their distinct identity in the market.

The legal battle also raises questions about the nature and extent of competition between the band and the singer. While Jellyroll focuses on a more traditional dance band genre, Jelly Roll operates within the country music sphere. It remains to be seen whether the court will find that the two entities operate in sufficiently overlapping markets to justify a finding of infringement. The outcome of this case will have implications for other businesses facing similar issues, as it could establish guidelines for determining the permissible extent of name similarity in the entertainment industry.