MR

Neal is asked about Journey Through Time, his relationship with Cain, leaving Azoff, new music, and more!

According to this, Azoff told Neal to quit Journey at one point!

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/musi ... e-1109823/

Good interview. Quite controlled for Neal, who occasionally can go off on one a bit, but he even managed to not get into Cains bat shit crazy wife situation too much. I admire his optimism.

My only issue is that we have heard a lot of this before however new band and new management... this has the opportunity to be the most exciting time for Journey in a long time.

There was a civil war within Journey. Some stakeholders wanted to milk the past with as little effort as possible. The other stakeholders wanted to be a real, active band.

While I can understand both sides... I certainly am happy Schon won.

Eric wrote:There was a civil war within Journey. Some stakeholders wanted to milk the past with as little effort as possible. The other stakeholders wanted to be a real, active band.

While I can understand both sides... I certainly am happy Schon won.

Well said.

Eric wrote:There was a civil war within Journey. Some stakeholders wanted to milk the past with as little effort as possible. The other stakeholders wanted to be a real, active band.

While I can understand both sides... I certainly am happy Schon won.

It does not say Neal won. It says it is not settled

In another interview posted here he said they put forth a settlement offer...and if they did not agree to it they would see them in court. Seems to me they didn't agree but still would rather settle.

Neal has won. Nothing yet.

Monker wrote:

Eric wrote:There was a civil war within Journey. Some stakeholders wanted to milk the past with as little effort as possible. The other stakeholders wanted to be a real, active band.

While I can understand both sides... I certainly am happy Schon won.

It does not say Neal won. It says it is not settled

In another interview posted here he said they put forth a settlement offer...and if they did not agree to it they would see them in court. Seems to me they didn't agree but still would rather settle.

Neal has won. Nothing yet.

“Won” in that there is a new Journey album and tour.

Monker wrote:It does not say Neal won. It says it is not settled

In another interview posted here he said they put forth a settlement offer...and if they did not agree to it they would see them in court. Seems to me they didn't agree but still would rather settle.

Neal has won. Nothing yet.

By any metric, new music is a win. Only issue I can forsee is if Ross blocks the relase somehow (which I doubt).

The article references the “Crossroads Festival for Eric Clapton” so I looked for that performance and found it kinda cool the line-up was the current Journey, of course sans Arnel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnZAyBcQCao&list=RDrnZAyBcQCao&start_radio=1

Not sure if this was heard elsewhere, but I think this is also the first time Neal acknowledged that Journey Through Time was nixed due to band members' gripes over the Journey trademark/name/etc. Assuming those members are Ross and/or Smitty, seems to me Neal may very well have a problem releasing music or touring under the banner of Journey if lawsuit isn't settled.

FamilyMan wrote:Not sure if this was heard elsewhere, but I think this is also the first time Neal acknowledged that Journey Through Time was nixed due to band members' gripes over the Journey trademark/name/etc. Assuming those members are Ross and/or Smitty, seems to me Neal may very well have a problem releasing music or touring under the banner of Journey if lawsuit isn't settled.

Nightmare is what sued Neal to stop JTT. Yes, that includes Smith and Valory, but also Herbie and Steve Perry. So, it was the corporation, not just a couple individuals.

“Won” in that there is a new Journey album and tour.

The fact is there is no music out and Neal said the tour plans are not made and it is up to management.

Neal has talked about new music since last summer. Talk is not the same as 'having new music.'

Monker wrote:Nightmare is what sued Neal to stop JTT. Yes, that includes Smith and Valory, but also Herbie and Steve Perry. So, it was the corporation, not just a couple individuals.

Nightmare's counsel, Dan Schacht, filed the suit. While Herbie and Perry allegedly voted against Neal and Jon in a shareholder meeting, we really don't know what the case is. In fact, Perry denies knowing anything about the entire fiasco.

“I have no clue what that’s all about,” Perry says when the matter comes up. “I’ve been out of that band since May of 1998.”

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/musi ... y-1078482/

The_Noble_Cause wrote:

Monker wrote:Nightmare is what sued Neal to stop JTT. Yes, that includes Smith and Valory, but also Herbie and Steve Perry. So, it was the corporation, not just a couple individuals.

Nightmare's counsel, Dan Schacht, filed the suit. While Herbie and Perry allegedly voted against Neal and Jon in a shareholder meeting, we really don't know what the case is. In fact, Perry denies knowing anything about the entire fiasco.

“I have no clue what that’s all about,” Perry says when the matter comes up. “I’ve been out of that band since May of 1998.”

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/musi ... y-1078482/

I'm glad you agree that it is Nightmare who sued to stop JTT. It is not one or two individuals, it is the corporation who did it.

BTW, I looked up the Trademark complaint again. It is still suspended until the civil suit (Ross's) is resolved.

So, the ownership of the Journey trademark is still up in the air. Ross's lawsuit asks for this to be determined...if Nightmare owns it or if Schon/Cain own it. I doubt Nightmare is going to give it up, since they only exist because of Journey. If Nightmare keeps the ownership, then Neal is going to have pay a bunch of $'s to Steve Smith and Ross Valory to keep this version of the band. He's probably going to be paying for their retirement regardless. Yeah, it's speculation, but at this point I don't see it going any other way...unless it goes to court...and if it does, I think Neal loses.

https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno ... 17&pty=OPP

Monker wrote:BTW, I looked up the Trademark complaint again. It is still suspended until the civil suit (Ross's) is resolved.

JTT is done, and Neal hasn't indicated that he wants to bring it back. Would be a frivolous lawsuit.

Monker wrote:So, the ownership of the Journey trademark is still up in the air. Ross's lawsuit asks for this to be determined...if Nightmare owns it or if Schon/Cain own it. I doubt Nightmare is going to give it up, since they only exist because of Journey. If Nightmare keeps the ownership, then Neal is going to have pay a bunch of $'s to Steve Smith and Ross Valory to keep this version of the band. He's probably going to be paying for their retirement regardless. Yeah, it's speculation, but at this point I don't see it going any other way...unless it goes to court...and if it does, I think Neal loses.

https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno ... 17&pty=OPP

Imo, even if Schon/Cain don't own it legally (example - the Elmo partners contract is invalid), there is a case to be made that they own Journey through adverse possession/squatters rights. They've been the shepherding the brand since 1998 and writing basically 99% of the songs. Ross has no case. He didn't even write his own basslines.

The_Noble_Cause wrote:

Monker wrote:BTW, I looked up the Trademark complaint again. It is still suspended until the civil suit (Ross's) is resolved.

JTT is done, and Neal hasn't indicated that he wants to bring it back. Would be a frivolous lawsuit.

Monker wrote:So, the ownership of the Journey trademark is still up in the air. Ross's lawsuit asks for this to be determined...if Nightmare owns it or if Schon/Cain own it. I doubt Nightmare is going to give it up, since they only exist because of Journey. If Nightmare keeps the ownership, then Neal is going to have pay a bunch of $'s to Steve Smith and Ross Valory to keep this version of the band. He's probably going to be paying for their retirement regardless. Yeah, it's speculation, but at this point I don't see it going any other way...unless it goes to court...and if it does, I think Neal loses.

https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno ... 17&pty=OPP

Imo, even if Schon/Cain don't own it legally (example - the Elmo partners contract is invalid), there is a case to be made that they own Journey through adverse possession/squatters rights. They've been the shepherding the brand since 1998 and writing basically 99% of the songs. Ross has no case. He didn't even write his own basslines.

Not really. It has been Nightmare who has initiated lawsuits and protected the trademark. When looking up the info for the JTT lawsuit, I saw numerous lawsuits initiated by Nightmare protecting the Journey trademark. They have set and enforced the boundaries of the trademark use since at least 1985. Neal and Jonathan did not do that, neither did Elmo. Herbie allowed Nightmare to license the trademark to Elmo. Part of the licensing agreement was Journey had to remain active. After ROR they were not active. Then in 1994 Herbie/Nightmare acted on that clause to end that license to Elmo. In 1998, when Perry was negotiated out of Elmo, a document reads, “Schon and Cain hereby acknowledge that Nightmare Productions,
Inc. (currently known as N.M. Productions, Inc. (“N.M.”) is the current owner of the [MARK]
NAME and that its approval may be necessary to use the NAME.” All of this is documented in Ross's counter suit:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/11Itjy2 ... ujiF_ULDkU

Elmo Partners has not had license for the trademark since 1994, and they never "owned" it. Nightmare has actively enforced the trademark, and did not let it sit unused...so there is no "squatter" rights involved. Neal and Jon may write songs and perform in Journey, but the evidence shows to me that Elmo does not own the trademark....Elmo will have to buy it from Nightmare...which I doubt Nightmare will sell. So, IMO, Neal/Jonathan/Elmo will have to pay off Valory and Smith to settle the counter suit. Then, Nightmare will own the name and JTT will not be able to continue...and Journey can continue with this new lineup.

The JTT trademark lawsuit is NOT frivolous...The point is to not allow Neal to use the Journey trademark for his solo/special project purposes. After the Ross suit is settled, then Neal can ask for a summary judgement and end it and not touch JTT again, if that is what he wants. Otherwise, he will have to spend a year in court (according to the schedule in the suit) to defend JTT.

Monker wrote:Not really. It has been Nightmare who has initiated lawsuits and protected the trademark. When looking up the info for the JTT lawsuit, I saw numerous lawsuits initiated by Nightmare protecting the Journey trademark. They have set and enforced the boundaries of the trademark use since at least 1985.

And how many did they win? Why are there so many tribute bands out there currently using the scarab logo? Some actually selling swag (music, T-shirts etc) - all with the scarab logo on it! There's no case here.

Monker wrote: Neal and Jonathan did not do that, neither did Elmo. Herbie allowed Nightmare to license the trademark to Elmo. Part of the licensing agreement was Journey had to remain active. After ROR they were not active. Then in 1994 Herbie/Nightmare acted on that clause to end that license to Elmo. In 1998, when Perry was negotiated out of Elmo, a document reads, “Schon and Cain hereby acknowledge that Nightmare Productions,
Inc. (currently known as N.M. Productions, Inc. (“N.M.”) is the current owner of the [MARK]
NAME and that its approval may be necessary to use the NAME.” All of this is documented in Ross's counter suit:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/11Itjy2 ... ujiF_ULDkU

Elmo Partners has not had license for the trademark since 1994, and they never "owned" it. Nightmare has actively enforced the trademark, and did not let it sit unused...so there is no "squatter" rights involved. Neal and Jon may write songs and perform in Journey, but the evidence shows to me that Elmo does not own the trademark....Elmo will have to buy it from Nightmare...which I doubt Nightmare will sell.

Without Cain/Schon, the band would still be dormant. You may not agree with it, but there is a slim case to be made here for adverse possession.

Trademark matters aside, Ross's case also argues that the shareholders were within their rights to vote and displace Cain/Schon in their respective roles (president etc.) Maybe. Depends if the meeting was illegitimately convened as Cain/Schon claim. Even if it was, where does it say that Ross and Smitty can't be replaced at will?

Monker wrote:So, IMO, Neal/Jonathan/Elmo will have to pay off Valory and Smith to settle the counter suit. Then, Nightmare will own the name and JTT will not be able to continue...and Journey can continue with this new lineup.

Neal already said they offered Ross a generous package or something to that effect.

The_Noble_Cause wrote:

Monker wrote:Not really. It has been Nightmare who has initiated lawsuits and protected the trademark. When looking up the info for the JTT lawsuit, I saw numerous lawsuits initiated by Nightmare protecting the Journey trademark. They have set and enforced the boundaries of the trademark use since at least 1985.

And how many did they win? Why are there so many tribute bands out there currently using the scarab logo? Some actually selling swag (music, T-shirts etc) - all with the scarab logo on it! There's no case here.

I don't know and it doesn't make any difference. The simple fact is that Nightmare did not abandon the ownership of Journey. They protected the Journey trademark. Therefore, there is no squatter's rights to claim. Also, Elmo did not show any interest in protecting the Journey trademark over the past 22yrs...and allowed Nightmare to do it, which is even more evidence that Nightmare owns Journey.

Without Cain/Schon, the band would still be dormant. You may not agree with it, but there is a slim case to be made here for adverse possession.

That doesn't matter. Look at Little River Band" The guy who owns that bands trade mark (Stephen Housden) has not been a member of the band since the early 2000's...but, he protects the mark via lawsuits whenever he sees fit. He owns the band and makes money off of every concert ticket and probably new (post 2002 or so) music sold.

Trademark matters aside, Ross's case also argues that the shareholders were within their rights to vote and displace Cain/Schon in their respective roles (president etc.) Maybe. Depends if the meeting was illegitimately convened as Cain/Schon claim. Even if it was, where does it say that Ross and Smitty can't be replaced at will?

The owner of the trademark can determine such things. If they do not like the makeup of the band, they can simply refuse to give this version of Journey permission to use the name. If they want to, they could create a version of Journey with Smith and Valory, and force Neal out of the band.

I also find it unlikely the court would say that a corporation does not have the right to determine who sits on their own board. The entire thing about the online signature seems very unlikely to me and would require some extraordinary proof. This is slightly irrelevant anyway because if Neal wants control of Journey, he needs ownership of the trademark...and I see virtually no chance of that happening.

Monker wrote:So, IMO, Neal/Jonathan/Elmo will have to pay off Valory and Smith to settle the counter suit. Then, Nightmare will own the name and JTT will not be able to continue...and Journey can continue with this new lineup.

Neal already said they offered Ross a generous package or something to that effect.

Yes, he did. And, in that interview he said that if they do not accept it, they will see them in court. Nowadays he is BS'ing a different tune. IMO, they did not accept the settlement. So, now he is all compromising and playing nice...because he knows he has to pay off Valory and Smith to get out of this mess he created.

Monker wrote:I don't know and it doesn't make any difference. The simple fact is that Nightmare did not abandon the ownership of Journey. They protected the Journey trademark. Therefore, there is no squatter's rights to claim. Also, Elmo did not show any interest in protecting the Journey trademark over the past 22yrs...and allowed Nightmare to do it, which is even more evidence that Nightmare owns Journey.

I'd be curious to see examples of Nightmare protecting the brand in the years that Journey sat dormant.
All of these guys are just suckling at the teet of Cain/Schon.

Anyway, Cain/Schon's lawsuit never argued that Nightmare abandoned ownership. They acknowledge the ownership. Lawsuit states:

"Cain and Schon, through Elmo Partners, hold the exclusive, irrevocable right to the
Journey Mark, including the Journey name.

Nightmare Productions, a California corporation used by Journey to conduct part of
the band’s business, owns the Journey Mark."

Valory/Smith thought there was just one layer of bureaucracy to contend with (Nighmare), but there's actually two: ELMO and NOMOTA.

You can dogmatically pretend that this case is black and white, but it's not.

Monker wrote:That doesn't matter. Look at Little River Band" The guy who owns that bands trade mark (Stephen Housden) has not been a member of the band since the early 2000's...but, he protects the mark via lawsuits whenever he sees fit. He owns the band and makes money off of every concert ticket and probably new (post 2002 or so) music sold.

Housden wouldn't have a case of adverse possession. He isn't even credited on most of LRB's biggest hits. Now let's compare that to Journey and actually quote the Cain/Schon lawsuit again:

"Cain, Schon and Perry wrote most of the band’s hit songs together, including Don’t Stop Believin, Still They Ride and Stone in Love. They are credited on every song on Escape, Frontiers and Raised on Radio."

Now, the band isn't arguing adverse possession, but there is a case to be made, if they choose to go down that (unlikely) route.

Monker wrote:The owner of the trademark can determine such things. If they do not like the makeup of the band, they can simply refuse to give this version of Journey permission to use the name. If they want to, they could create a version of Journey with Smith and Valory, and force Neal out of the band.

Until this gets to court, Cain is still the president of Nightmare Productions. So I find that highly unlikely.

Monker wrote:I also find it unlikely the court would say that a corporation does not have the right to determine who sits on their own board. The entire thing about the online signature seems very unlikely to me and would require some extraordinary proof.

Are you claiming that Cain made the whole thing up?

Monker wrote:This is slightly irrelevant anyway because if Neal wants control of Journey, he needs ownership of the trademark...and I see virtually no chance of that happening.

They are not arguing ownership. They are arguing that they have an irrevocable right (thru Nightmare) as laid out in the amended Elmo agreement.

Ross's suit, I believe, has a document saying that the Elmo partnership expired on a certain date and Cain/Schon have no irrevocable right to the mark at all.

Monker wrote:Yes, he did. And, in that interview he said that if they do not accept it, they will see them in court. Nowadays he is BS'ing a different tune. IMO, they did not accept the settlement. So, now he is all compromising and playing nice...because he knows he has to pay off Valory and Smith to get out of this mess he created.

Playing nice? On FB the other day, Neal bashed Smith claiming he earned 10 million on tour before he attempted his takeover. He also recently criticized how Ross/Smith conducted business. You are just making things up again.

The_Noble_Cause wrote:Anyway, Cain/Schon's lawsuit never argued that Nightmare abandoned ownership.

Correct. YOU are arguing the Schon/Cain have squatters rights. I am saying they don't because Nightmare owns the Journey mark and actively manages it. For Schon/Cain to claim Journey's mark via squatters rights, Nightmare would have to ignore it. They didn't. Therefore, Schon/Cain has no real case here.

Valory/Smith thought there was just one layer of bureaucracy to contend with (Nighmare), but there's actually two: ELMO and NOMOTA.

You, and Neal are just guessing about such things. In fact, IMO, you and Neal are completely miscalculating everybody's motivation.

Ross's counter suit asks the court to determine who owns the Journey mark. Elmo has not had a license to the Journey name since 1994.

You can dogmatically pretend that this case is black and white, but it's not.

According to the available evidence, I think it is very obvious.

Monker wrote:That doesn't matter. Look at Little River Band" The guy who owns that bands trade mark (Stephen Housden) has not been a member of the band since the early 2000's...but, he protects the mark via lawsuits whenever he sees fit. He owns the band and makes money off of every concert ticket and probably new (post 2002 or so) music sold.

Housden wouldn't have a case of adverse possession. He isn't even credited on most of LRB's biggest hits. Now let's compare that to Journey and actually quote the Cain/Schon lawsuit again:

My point is that who wrote how many songs, how long they were in the band, how much they contributed is irrelevant when it comes to who owns the trademark. Ross presented DOCUMENTS, real EVIDENCE, that Nightmare owns the mark. Ross presents EVIDENCE that Elmo lost its license due to inactivity by 1994. Ross presents EVIDENCE that Elmo admitted they needed Nightmare's permission to use the name. Neal's documentation is just bunch of hot air and innuendo...it comes across as a someone who is pissed off and wanting revenge, not someone who has any real evidence to produce.

Now, the band isn't arguing adverse possession, but there is a case to be made, if they choose to go down that (unlikely) route.

No, there is no case because it is DOCUMENTED that Nightmare owns the mark, and managed the mark. To claim squatter rights Neal/Jon would have to be managing the mark in leu of Nightmare ignoring it. That is NOT what happened.

Monker wrote:The owner of the trademark can determine such things. If they do not like the makeup of the band, they can simply refuse to give this version of Journey permission to use the name. If they want to, they could create a version of Journey with Smith and Valory, and force Neal out of the band.

Until this gets to court, Cain is still the president of Nightmare Productions. So I find that highly unlikely.

You are wrong. I just looked it up. On 9/20/2020, Nightmare Productions, Inc filed their board members and Steve Smith is listed as Director and Chief Executive Officer, Ross Valory is listed as Secretary. Neal and Jonathan are listed but have no titles.

https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/Docum ... 4-29015102

Monker wrote:I also find it unlikely the court would say that a corporation does not have the right to determine who sits on their own board. The entire thing about the online signature seems very unlikely to me and would require some extraordinary proof.

Are you claiming that Cain made the whole thing up?

Yes. I think he is full of shit.

Monker wrote:This is slightly irrelevant anyway because if Neal wants control of Journey, he needs ownership of the trademark...and I see virtually no chance of that happening.

They are not arguing ownership. They are arguing that they have an irrevocable right (thru Nightmare) as laid out in the amended Elmo agreement.

I already documented this in previous posts, and mentioned it earlier in this one.
Ross's suit documents that there was a clause in the license to Elmo that the license was only valid while the band remained active. In 1994 (I think, look at previous posts if you want the exact year), Herbie activated this clause and revoked the license to Elmo...documented in Ross's lawsuit with a letter to Elmo. In addition, it is documented that the post-Perry Elmo ADMITTED Nightmare had sole ownership and they need their permission to use the name.

So, they did not have "an irrevocable right" to use the Journey mark...it was revoked in the early 1990's...and it is well documented in Ross's counter suit.

So, if Neal does not get the name, he has no control over Journey. Elmo is under the thumb of Nightmare.

Monker wrote:Yes, he did. And, in that interview he said that if they do not accept it, they will see them in court. Nowadays he is BS'ing a different tune. IMO, they did not accept the settlement. So, now he is all compromising and playing nice...because he knows he has to pay off Valory and Smith to get out of this mess he created.

Playing nice? On FB the other day, Neal bashed Smith claiming he earned 10 million on tour before he attempted his takeover. He also recently criticized how Ross/Smith conducted business. You are just making things up again.

I am speaking about this interview. You are taking my comment out of context.

Monker wrote:I already documented this in previous posts, and mentioned it earlier in this one.
Ross's suit documents that there was a clause in the license to Elmo that the license was only valid while the band remained active. In 1994 (I think, look at previous posts if you want the exact year), Herbie activated this clause and revoked the license to Elmo...documented in Ross's lawsuit with a letter to Elmo. In addition, it is documented that the post-Perry Elmo ADMITTED Nightmare had sole ownership and they need their permission to use the name.

This document and its influence on the outcome of the case has been a concern to me since the suit was first filed. However, if Elmo's control of the name ceased in 1994, Cain and Schon / Journey / Nightmare should have been able to essentially fire Perry from the band and move on rather than pay him nearly as much as the two of them were making while he sat at home on his ass. Therefore, might Elmo have been reinstated after Chalfant and Rolie were out and Perry was back in? Otherwise, Perry and his lawyers screwed them over even more than we thought previously.

NoMoreTails wrote:

Monker wrote:I already documented this in previous posts, and mentioned it earlier in this one.
Ross's suit documents that there was a clause in the license to Elmo that the license was only valid while the band remained active. In 1994 (I think, look at previous posts if you want the exact year), Herbie activated this clause and revoked the license to Elmo...documented in Ross's lawsuit with a letter to Elmo. In addition, it is documented that the post-Perry Elmo ADMITTED Nightmare had sole ownership and they need their permission to use the name.

This document and its influence on the outcome of the case has been a concern to me since the suit was first filed. However, if Elmo's control of the name ceased in 1994, Cain and Schon / Journey / Nightmare should have been able to essentially fire Perry from the band and move on rather than pay him nearly as much as the two of them were making while he sat at home on his ass. Therefore, might Elmo have been reinstated after Chalfant and Rolie were out and Perry was back in? Otherwise, Perry and his lawyers screwed them over even more than we thought previously.

You are correct. But, it seems it is more complicated than that.

IMO, in 1994, Herbie wanted to reunite Journey with Chalfant and not Perry...that is why he inacted that clause. That way they could continue on without Perry...because Elmo was not involved, and Perry had less power.

In 1998, Nightmare was in control. But, keep in mind that Perry was still part of Nightmare and part of Elmo, even though they did not have a license from Nightmare. So, it's more complicated. IMO, it was not just getting him out of Journey, but out of Elmo. Who knows how much he could direct Journey being part of Elmo, or how much he would be paid, or if Nightmare would even agree to allow Perry to not be part of the band but still allow Elmo to use the name. So, it was not a simple thing to just fire him. So, a majority of the board at Nightmare not just to fire Perry...but to allow Elmo with only Schon/Cain to continue using the name. That's my thoughts on it anyway.

When Neal talks about things being done by handshake deals, or whatever, I think this is what he means. IMO, there seems to not have been an official license and signed contract between Journey and Elmo since 1994...and Neal just assumed there was a nonverbal, handshake, sorta deal. IMO, if these lawsuits are ever settled there will be a signed contract and license between Nightmare and Elmo once again. Or, maybe it goes to court and, IMO, they will rule that Nightmare owns the license and Elmo has nothing.

Monker wrote:Correct. YOU are arguing the Schon/Cain have squatters rights.

No, I am saying there is a hypothetical legal argument to be made for adverse possession, *IF* they choose to pursue it. Which I have acknowledged from the very start is unlikely.

Monker wrote: I am saying they don't because Nightmare owns the Journey mark and actively manages it. For Schon/Cain to claim Journey's mark via squatters rights, Nightmare would have to ignore it. They didn't. Therefore, Schon/Cain has no real case here.

The contract that allowed Journey to continue post-Perry is the amended 1998 Elmo agreement. Nightmare didn't sign it. If that's null and void, we should have seen alot more lawsuits by now. If Ross didn't agree with Elmo negotiating the terms of Journey's revenue, why did he tour with them for decades?

Monker wrote:You, and Neal are just guessing about such things. In fact, IMO, you and Neal are completely miscalculating everybody's motivation.

Not at all. Just referencing the lawsuit again. Unlike you, this isn't an emotional issue for me. Quote below.

"Schon and Cain agree that all New Journey business shall be conducted through a
new entity (i.e., neither Elmo nor N.M. Productions), to be established by Schon and Cain for
this purpose (the "New Journey Entity")."

That new entity became Nomota (No More Tails). Again, the idea that Valory/Smith just have to deal with Nightmare is wrong. There's Elmo and there's NOMOTA too.

Monker wrote:Elmo has not had a license to the Journey name since 1994.

The amended Elmo agreement signed by Perry/Schon/Cain is from 1998. If Nightmare was actively managing the mark, as you claim, how did this slip by? Ultimately, it will be up to the court. Like I said, if the 1998 amended Elmo agreement is legally invalid (allowing the band to move forward), why is Ross just suing now? He is basically admitting that he has been a part of an illegitimate enterprise for decades. Sounds like self-incrimination! What a clueless asshole!

Monker wrote:According to the available evidence, I think it is very obvious.

Sorry. You sound like a Valory fanboy that sped-read a poorly sourced blabbermouth article on the issue.

Monker wrote:Ross presented DOCUMENTS, real EVIDENCE, that Nightmare owns the mark. Ross presents EVIDENCE that Elmo lost its license due to inactivity by 1994. Ross presents EVIDENCE that Elmo admitted they needed Nightmare's permission to use the name. Neal's documentation is just bunch of hot air and innuendo...it comes across as a someone who is pissed off and wanting revenge, not someone who has any real evidence to produce.

Schon/Cain produced documents as well - including the amended Elmo agreement in 1998, which is the entire basis for the band moving on from Steve Perry. If that wasn't legit, why didn't Nightmare block it? You said they were actively managing the mark, right?

Monker wrote:No, there is no case because it is DOCUMENTED that Nightmare owns the mark, and managed the mark. To claim squatter rights Neal/Jon would have to be managing the mark in leu of Nightmare ignoring it. That is NOT what happened.

I'll ask you again - if Nightmare owned and managed the mark, why was the Perry/Schon/Cain amended Elmo agreement allowed to happen? And why has that document been the basis for everything (from touring profits to the back catalogue etc) from 1998 till now?

Monker wrote:I already documented this in previous posts, and mentioned it earlier in this one. Ross's suit documents that there was a clause in the license to Elmo that the license was only valid while the band remained active. In 1994 (I think, look at previous posts if you want the exact year), Herbie activated this clause and revoked the license to Elmo...documented in Ross's lawsuit with a letter to Elmo. In addition, it is documented that the post-Perry Elmo ADMITTED Nightmare had sole ownership and they need their permission to use the name.

So, they did not have "an irrevocable right" to use the Journey mark...it was revoked in the early 1990's...and it is well documented in Ross's counter suit.

So, if Neal does not get the name, he has no control over Journey. Elmo is under the thumb of Nightmare.

Nope.

Once again, if the Elmo license was revoked, why is the entire legal basis for Journey based on a 1998 amended Elmo bros. agreement? Either the Elmo amendment carries the weight of the law or it does not. And if it doesn't, why did it take Nightmare and Ross over 20 years to realize that?

Monker wrote:I am speaking about this interview. You are taking my comment out of context.

Not sure how one interview reflects a dramatic PR shift in tone - especially when Neal is on FB calling Ross "a wannabe" and claiming how Smitty raked in 10 mill before pulling a take over.

NoMoreTails wrote:This document and its influence on the outcome of the case has been a concern to me since the suit was first filed. However, if Elmo's control of the name ceased in 1994, Cain and Schon / Journey / Nightmare should have been able to essentially fire Perry from the band and move on rather than pay him nearly as much as the two of them were making while he sat at home on his ass. Therefore, might Elmo have been reinstated after Chalfant and Rolie were out and Perry was back in? Otherwise, Perry and his lawyers screwed them over even more than we thought previously.

The 1998 amended Elmo agreement stipulated Perry's compensation. If Elmo dissolved in 1994, then the entire band has been operating in fraud since the Augeri years. Too late to cry foul now.

The_Noble_Cause wrote:The 1998 amended Elmo agreement stipulated Perry's compensation. If Elmo dissolved in 1994, then the entire band has been operating in fraud since the Augeri years. Too late to cry foul now.

I figured Perry had to have demanded Elmo be reinstated and that the lawyers and management couldn't have been inept enough to let them pay Perry if he had no legitimate claim on the name at that point. It sounds like something has been conveniently omitted from all the documentation Ross provided in his suit.

Well, after this, I'm done. I'm not going to get any further into it with your ridiculous accusations about me getting emotional, which I'm not, or your attempts at insults with stuff like "Sorry. You sound like a Valory fanboy that sped-read a poorly sourced blabbermouth article on the issue." I think you project your insecurities and I'm just not going to put up with it.

The contract that allowed Journey to continue post-Perry is the amended 1998 Elmo agreement. Nightmare didn't sign it. If that's null and void, we should have seen alot more lawsuits by now. If Ross didn't agree with Elmo negotiating the terms of Journey's revenue, why did he tour with them for decades?

You're wrong. If you read through that document, it is nothing more then the negotiation to get Perry out of Elmo. There is no mention of a contract with Nightmare. There is NO document the shows a license between Nightmare and Elmo or NoMoTa after Herbie's 1994 letter. As I said, they seem to be operating with handshake deals without anything being formal.

And, as Ross pointed out in his counter suit, it is this very document that says, "Notwithstanding the above, Schon and Cain hereby acknowledge that Nightmare Productions, Inc. (currently known as N.M. Productions Inc. ("NM")) is the current owner of the Name and that its approval may be necessary to use the Name. As a shareholder of NM, Perry hereby agrees that he will vote in favor of NM granting such approval, provided that if the corporation and/or any NM shareholder receives any consideration, directly or indirectly, in connection with such grant of rights, then Pcny shall receive the same consideration."

So, where is THAT agreement. The one that Perry said he would vote in favor of because Nightmare is the current owner of the Name and its approval may be necessary to use the Name? Where are the notes from THAT shareholder meeting where they voted to allow NoMoTa to use the name? Where is ANY evidence that Nightmare licensed the name or trademark to NoMoTa? I see none.

Monker wrote:You, and Neal are just guessing about such things. In fact, IMO, you and Neal are completely miscalculating everybody's motivation.

Not at all. Just referencing the lawsuit again. Unlike you, this isn't an emotional issue for me. Quote below.

What you quoted had NOTHING to do with Smith and Valory's motivations about being on the board of Nightmare and everything else that prompted Neal's knee-jerk lawsuit. In Ross's counter suit he specifically says that they replaced Neal and Jonathan because of the trademark violation of JTT and protecting the Journey name. That is much more realistic then a crazy scheme for retirement.

That new entity became Nomota (No More Tails). Again, the idea that Valory/Smith just have to deal with Nightmare is wrong. There's Elmo and there's NOMOTA too.

First, Nightmare owns the trademark...not Elmo and not NoMoTa. They are who have historically protected the mark. They own it. They were voted into those positions, they didn't just magically appear. Lastly, if it were not a threat, Neal would not have freaked and sued them.

Monker wrote:Elmo has not had a license to the Journey name since 1994.

The amended Elmo agreement signed by Perry/Schon/Cain is from 1998. [/quote]

That was NOT a contract with Nightmare. That a negotiation for Perry's exit from Elmo. Nightmare did not even have a place to sign the document. The contract with Nightmare ended in 1994. If there was an agreement after that, it was either not a signed contract, or was not presented in the various lawsuits.

Like I said, if the 1998 amended Elmo agreement is legally invalid (allowing the band to move forward), why is Ross just suing now? He is basically admitting that he has been a part of an illegitimate enterprise for decades. Sounds like self-incrimination! What a clueless asshole!

Oh, please that is just a ridiculous statement. The 1998 agreement was between Schon, Cain, and Perry. It had NOTHING to do with Nightmare giving them license to the name. Nightmare is managing the trademanrk, not how the money is split from touring or album sales...that is what Elmo/NoMoTa is for. If you look it up, the band members are employees of NoMoTa. It is a business. Ross is bringing it up now to ask the court to rule who owns the Journey name. NoMoTa/Elmo has NEVER owned the Journey name....and Ross knows that and has documented proof of that.

Schon/Cain produced documents as well - including the amended Elmo agreement in 1998, which is the entire basis for the band moving on from Steve Perry. If that wasn't legit, why didn't Nightmare block it? You said they were actively managing the mark, right?

Nightmare has no place in "blocking" an agreement between partners in a different LLC. That is an ignorant question.

I'll ask you again - if Nightmare owned and managed the mark, why was the Perry/Schon/Cain amended Elmo agreement allowed to happen? And why has that document been the basis for everything (from touring profits to the back catalogue etc) from 1998 till now?

Nightmare has no say in how another company directs its affairs. That's like asking why HP doesn't control how Best Buy pays its employees. It's an ignorant question.

Once again, if the Elmo license was revoked, why is the entire legal basis for Journey based on a 1998 amended Elmo bros. agreement? Either the Elmo amendment carries the weight of the law or it does not. And if it doesn't, why did it take Nightmare and Ross over 20 years to realize that?

You are simply ignorant of what the 1998 agreement is.

Show me a contract after the 1994 letter from Herbie. THAT is what is missing. The Elmo agreement is irrelevant. It had NOTHING to do with a license agreement with Nightmare.

And, that's it. I'm done with this argument for now.

NoMoreTails wrote:

The_Noble_Cause wrote:The 1998 amended Elmo agreement stipulated Perry's compensation. If Elmo dissolved in 1994, then the entire band has been operating in fraud since the Augeri years. Too late to cry foul now.

I figured Perry had to have demanded Elmo be reinstated and that the lawyers and management couldn't have been inept enough to let them pay Perry if he had no legitimate claim on the name at that point. It sounds like something has been conveniently omitted from all the documentation Ross provided in his suit.

Perry never had a claim to the name of Journey. It is owned by Nightmare. Period.

What Perry had was a stake in Elmo.

What you guys are not understanding is that Elmo and NoMoTa are basically businesses. it seems Elmo was a partnership and NoMoTa is an LLC...one small step from a corporation. So, the partnership of Elmo makes money...by touring as a band, or "whatever". That money is distributed by however the partnership is set up, or the LLC in the case of NoMoTa. So, the entire issue of the trademark doesn't come into play with Perry leaving the band. It is simply what the business of Elmo is willing to give Perry to get him out of the partnership.

What I am saying is so far there has been NOTHING showing a new agreement between Nightmare and Elmo or NoMoTa after 1994. It either exists and is not public, or the agreement was informal with nothing written down. The 1998 document is NOT an agreement between Nightmare and NoMoTa.

Monker wrote:Perry never had a claim to the name of Journey. It is owned by Nightmare. Period.
What Perry had was a stake in Elmo.

Yes, I should have said Perry's rights to the use of name through Elmo's agreement with Nightmare rather than his claim to the name.... Surely there had to be a reinstatement of that agreement after Perry joined for the reunion or else it makes no sense that they paid Perry the percentage they did. Otherwise, he should have gotten only what any other stakeholder in Nightmare received. It makes no sense that Cain/Schon would have continued the Elmo partnership with Perry after 1994 if it no longer carried permission to the use the name. It is possible Ross's suit didn't include every piece of evidence.

NoMoreTails wrote: It makes no sense that Cain/Schon would have continued the Elmo partnership with Perry after 1994 if it no longer carried permission to the use the name.

Bingo.

This whole drama reminds me of the lyrics to Edge of the Blade.

"You've been tryin' very hard,
Now this time you've gone too far,
Your performance perfect in every way, perfect!
I hear the rumors all around,
contracts and lawyers, and champagne downtown,
Tell me what you think you want me to do,
I've always been fair with you,
Turning on me after all we've been through,
If you want trouble, that's just the way it will be"

WHY DOES JOURNEY HAVE TO LIVE OUT THE SONGS THEY WROTE?