Question on BRI and Corporate votes

[HeyJude]

Good point.  The person who would stand to lose the most is Al.  Brian has proven himself to be a very viable solo commodity.  There is no reason to think that he couldn't simply revert to what he was doing last year... and the year before... and on and on.  Al Jardine, by himself, isn't the live draw of Brian Wilson or even of the Mike/Bruce lead Beach Boys touring band.  In fact, it would seem (to me, at least) that Brian holds most of the cards.  Brian can command higher ticket prices than anyone else (correct?).  Mike and Bruce WITH Brian could command higher ticket prices than they could alone.  The issue is whether or not Brian wants to do that. 

If (and it's a big "if") we are to believe recent comments, both Brian and Al want to do more reunion stuff in some capacity. I think, if Brian is inclined to tour in some capacity, either solo or group, for all we know he may like the reunion setup because he does much less heavy lifting in the live show.

I dunno. There may be some kind of subversive, reverse psychology sort of marketing coming from the BB's right now, but I'm not very sure that the whole thing is a big elaborate plan to build up excitement about more reunion stuff. Mike is coming off bad in the articles, and it's a bunch of "Beach Boys back to their acrimonious ways" headlines.

[Wirestone]

I have to say, I think AGD is way off the mark here.

Fans are unhappy because, at least as it is popularly depicted, Brian, Al and Dave are being excluded from the band they helped create. This is no little matter, and it doesn't matter what the behind the scenes facts are. It matters how it looks, and it looks like Mike behaving -- once again -- like his most negative caricatures.

As I've said in another thread, my suspicion is that Al, Brian and Dave are simply peeved because of the press release coming out before the U.K. appearances, and because they (likely) haven't gotten a firm commitment from Mike to do more full-lineup work in the future. They're not actively working (as far as we know) to keep him from playing the October dates. They just don't want the big show, the one that received raves across the country, to be shelved permanently.

And why would anyone want that? This reunion made Brian decide he wants to be a Beach Boy again.

Shouldn't that count for something?

[HeyJude]

I have to say, I think AGD is way off the mark here.

Fans are unhappy because, at least as it is popularly depicted, Brian, Al and Dave are being excluded from the band they helped create. This is no little matter, and it doesn't matter what the behind the scenes facts are. It matters how it looks, and it looks like Mike behaving -- once again -- like his most negative caricatures.

As I've said in another thread, my suspicion is that Al, Brian and Dave are simply peeved because of the press release coming out before the U.K. appearances, and because they (likely) haven't gotten a firm commitment from Mike to do more full-lineup work in the future. They're not actively working (as far as we know) to keep him from playing the October dates. They just don't want the big show, the one that received raves across the country, to be shelved permanently.

And why would anyone want that? This reunion made Brian decide he wants to be a Beach Boy again.

Shouldn't that count for something?

Well said! The October dates were known of for quite some time. Al and Brian (and/or their "people") didn't start making a fuss about things until after the semi-press release. That tells me that, as you say, they had accepted Mike was doing some gigs in October, and that perhaps that press release in their minds seemed a bit more assertive in the old lineup being the lineup going forward for the forseeable future.

[SMiLE Brian]

This reunion made Brian decide he wants to be a Beach Boy again.

Added this quote to my profile, said quote really sums up the reunion.

[Sheriff John Stone]

I have to say, I think AGD is way off the mark here.

Fans are unhappy because, at least as it is popularly depicted, Brian, Al and Dave are being excluded from the band they helped create. This is no little matter, and it doesn't matter what the behind the scenes facts are. It matters how it looks, and it looks like Mike behaving -- once again -- like his most negative caricatures.

As I've said in another thread, my suspicion is that Al, Brian and Dave are simply peeved because of the press release coming out before the U.K. appearances, and because they (likely) haven't gotten a firm commitment from Mike to do more full-lineup work in the future. They're not actively working (as far as we know) to keep him from playing the October dates. They just don't want the big show, the one that received raves across the country, to be shelved permanently.

And why would anyone want that? This reunion made Brian decide he wants to be a Beach Boy again.

Shouldn't that count for something?

Well said! The October dates were known of for quite some time. Al and Brian (and/or their "people") didn't start making a fuss about things until after the semi-press release. That tells me that, as you say, they had accepted Mike was doing some gigs in October, and that perhaps that press release in their minds seemed a bit more assertive in the old lineup being the lineup going forward for the forseeable future.

But, all they (Al & Brian) had/have to do is ask Mike. It's not they never see each other. I know, I know, this is The Beach Boys we're talking about...

[Nicko1234]

But this has been twisted by some fans into those parties making an equal cut of the revenue. They only get their share of the licensing fee. The licensing fee would presumably be split between Brian, Mike, Al, and Carl's estate. What is the licensing fee? We obviously don't know.

What??? Seriously???

Some fans have made out that all of the members including Mike get an equal share despite the fact that Mike is the only one on stage??? I`ve never seen that and they would have to be slightly backward to believe that would be possible. Of course Mike is going to get more as he is the one working 100+ nights every year. But if they didn`t think the money was going to be ample then Brian and Carl`s estate wouldn`t have allowed him to do it.

[Nicko1234]

As I've said in another thread, my suspicion is that Al, Brian and Dave are simply peeved because of the press release coming out before the U.K. appearances

I think there would have been criticism no matter what the timing had been.

As it happened before the end of the tour as big fuss has been made.

But if it had happened just after the tour had finished (which it would have to have done) then there would have been plenty of people complaining about what a sham the whole reunion had been. Brian and Al would undoubtedly have been asked for quotes anyway.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

If Brian and/or Al tries to revoke the license, they have to know that Mike will fight it, lawsuits will commence, and Mike would probably win.

Why do you think that? I can't see anything that Mike could do if Brian, Al and Carl's estate vote for him not being able to tour under the name. What coul he sue them for? 

The 3-1 vote wasn't for Mike to tour as The Beach Boys, it was to establish the license that grants the name. As long as the terms of said license aren't revised and as long as he adheres to them, he can tour as The Beach Boys.

Over on the Bloo there's currently a mindless witch hunt to strip Mike of the right to tour as the BB, solely, as far as I can see, because he isn't Brian. Just when I think they can't get any stupider over there, they go and prove me wrong. I'm guessing if Brian had put out a press release stating that Mike, Alan, Bruce & David weren't touring with him post 9/28, he'd have got three cheers, the keys to the city and a Nobel Prize.

But AGD, isn't there more to it than that.  Al can't get a license to tour as the Beach Boys, Brian, David and Al can't tour as the Beach Boys.  So in effect, the license was issued for Mike to tour as the Beach Boys?  Mike sued Al for touring as BB Family and Friends.

I think the questions people, like me, want to know is:

1. Is there a time limit on Mike's license?
2. Can it be revoked by a BRI vote.
3. Can a license be issued to "Brian, Al and David" to tour as the Beach Boys?

When you say amended, do you mean that, say for example, that the band has to tour with atleast two, or three, original members? (so Bruce wouldn't count).

[Cam Mott]

I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't all some sort of galo up around that canceled post reunion tour show? A venue got confused about who was what post reunion tour, post reunion tour gig is misrepresented by the venue, misrepresentation leads to cancellation, leads to press release to clear up mistaken expectations, leads to misunderstanding among other members, leads to fan petition and hand wringing and finger pointing etc.. Something like that.

PS. the license fee amount was mentioned  in the lawsuit over Al's attempted coup of the license agreement, it was then something like 20%? It is in the explanation of the appeal.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I think there was a blurb written by somebody online that mentioned that Brian gave over control of the name to Mike at some point during one of the lawsuits. We simply don't know if this is the case or not.

Totally untrue, as Brian has never had sole ownership of the name. Someone's misremembereing the 1976-77 power struggle when Brian would sometimes give his vote to Mike, to avoid confrontations.

[Andrew G. Doe]

But AGD, isn't there more to it than that.  Al can't get a license to tour as the Beach Boys, Brian, David and Al can't tour as the Beach Boys.  So in effect, the license was issued for Mike to tour as the Beach Boys?  Mike sued Al for touring as BB Family and Friends.

If Alan adhered to the terms of the BRI license, he could tour as The Beach Boys (in principle - in reality I just cannot see that happening: cue legal fireworks). Back in 1998, he didn't, and that's when the sh*t hit the fan, repeatedly. And it was BRI who sued Alan (thus he was, strictly speaking, suing himself !), not Mike.

I think the questions people, like me, want to know is:

1. Is there a time limit on Mike's license?
2. Can it be revoked by a BRI vote.
3. Can a license be issued to "Brian, Al and David" to tour as the Beach Boys?

When you say amended, do you mean that, say for example, that the band has to tour with atleast two, or three, original members? (so Bruce wouldn't count).

1 - not that I'm aware
2 - probably, but the income stream would be turned off. You see that ever happening ?
3 - yes, if they adhere to the existing rules. But why would they ?

Er, where did I say "amended" ?

[Lowbacca]

This reunion made Brian decide he wants to be a Beach Boy again.

I seriously doubt that's true (no matter what Brian says in promotional interviews).

[Autotune]

But AGD, isn't there more to it than that.  Al can't get a license to tour as the Beach Boys, Brian, David and Al can't tour as the Beach Boys.  So in effect, the license was issued for Mike to tour as the Beach Boys?  Mike sued Al for touring as BB Family and Friends.

If Alan adhered to the terms of the BRI license, he could tour as The Beach Boys (in principle - in reality I just cannot see that happening: cue legal fireworks). Back in 1998, he didn't, and that's when the sh*t hit the fan, repeatedly. And it was BRI who sued Alan (thus he was, strictly speaking, suing himself !), not Mike.

I think the questions people, like me, want to know is:

1. Is there a time limit on Mike's license?
2. Can it be revoked by a BRI vote.
3. Can a license be issued to "Brian, Al and David" to tour as the Beach Boys?

When you say amended, do you mean that, say for example, that the band has to tour with atleast two, or three, original members? (so Bruce wouldn't count).

1 - not that I'm aware
2 - probably, but the income stream would be turned off. You see that ever happening ?
3 - yes, if they adhere to the existing rules. But why would they ?

Er, where did I say "amended" ?

What would the "existing rules" be?

[HeyJude]

What??? Seriously???

Some fans have made out that all of the members including Mike get an equal share despite the fact that Mike is the only one on stage??? I`ve never seen that and they would have to be slightly backward to believe that would be possible. Of course Mike is going to get more as he is the one working 100+ nights every year. But if they didn`t think the money was going to be ample then Brian and Carl`s estate wouldn`t have allowed him to do it.

Yes, over the years I've seen fans and even a few articles either imply or outright state that "all of the Beach Boys", or various non-touring members, make an equal cut. I agree, you'd have to have some strange reasoning to believe that Mike makes the same even though he plays the gigs and the others don't. But I've seen it assumed/implied/guessed by fans over the years.

[HeyJude]

I think there was a blurb written by somebody online that mentioned that Brian gave over control of the name to Mike at some point during one of the lawsuits. We simply don't know if this is the case or not.

Totally untrue, as Brian has never had sole ownership of the name. Someone's misremembereing the 1976-77 power struggle when Brian would sometimes give his vote to Mike, to avoid confrontations.

Yes, that seemed a dubious bit of reasoning that Brian either ever had full ownership over the name, or that he would ever give up his stake in the trademark. I do think in past years, post-1998, there could be an implicit agreement to vote a certain way based on other factors not pertaining to anything to do with touring. But this would not involve Brian giving up his stake in the name.

[HeyJude]

But AGD, isn't there more to it than that.  Al can't get a license to tour as the Beach Boys, Brian, David and Al can't tour as the Beach Boys.  So in effect, the license was issued for Mike to tour as the Beach Boys?  Mike sued Al for touring as BB Family and Friends.

If Alan adhered to the terms of the BRI license, he could tour as The Beach Boys (in principle - in reality I just cannot see that happening: cue legal fireworks). Back in 1998, he didn't, and that's when the sh*t hit the fan, repeatedly. And it was BRI who sued Alan (thus he was, strictly speaking, suing himself !), not Mike.

I think the questions people, like me, want to know is:

1. Is there a time limit on Mike's license?
2. Can it be revoked by a BRI vote.
3. Can a license be issued to "Brian, Al and David" to tour as the Beach Boys?

When you say amended, do you mean that, say for example, that the band has to tour with atleast two, or three, original members? (so Bruce wouldn't count).

1 - not that I'm aware
2 - probably, but the income stream would be turned off. You see that ever happening ?
3 - yes, if they adhere to the existing rules. But why would they ?

Er, where did I say "amended" ?

Based on my recollection of various legal paperwork that was available to the public, I don't think there was a "non-exclusive" license that Al or Al/Brian/David could adhere to and tour under while Mike also toured under the name. My recollection is that there was an unclear "non-exclusive" license in 1998/1999, but that after that, Al wasn't simply not abiding by any potential license (one of Al's arguments in the paperwork as I recall is that he didn't need a license to tour under the BBFF name, and that if he did, he had one; and don't shoot the messenger anyone regarding those ideas; they were clearly shot down in court), but he did not have a license.

A lot of the assertions in paperwork revolved around "confusion" regarding multiple bands using the BB name, so I don't think the license would be set up for multiple bands to have a chance to use it. It's "exclusive" now as far as I can tell.

[Wirestone]

This reunion made Brian decide he wants to be a Beach Boy again.

I seriously doubt that's true (no matter what Brian says in promotional interviews).

Why do you doubt it?

[Mike's Beard]

But AGD, isn't there more to it than that.  Al can't get a license to tour as the Beach Boys, Brian, David and Al can't tour as the Beach Boys.  So in effect, the license was issued for Mike to tour as the Beach Boys?  Mike sued Al for touring as BB Family and Friends.

If Alan adhered to the terms of the BRI license, he could tour as The Beach Boys (in principle - in reality I just cannot see that happening: cue legal fireworks). Back in 1998, he didn't, and that's when the sh*t hit the fan, repeatedly. And it was BRI who sued Alan (thus he was, strictly speaking, suing himself !), not Mike.

I think the questions people, like me, want to know is:

1. Is there a time limit on Mike's license?
2. Can it be revoked by a BRI vote.
3. Can a license be issued to "Brian, Al and David" to tour as the Beach Boys?

When you say amended, do you mean that, say for example, that the band has to tour with atleast two, or three, original members? (so Bruce wouldn't count).

1 - not that I'm aware
2 - probably, but the income stream would be turned off. You see that ever happening ?
3 - yes, if they adhere to the existing rules. But why would they ?

Er, where did I say "amended" ?

What would the "existing rules" be?

Always wear a hat in public if you are bald.
Send dumbass Facebook msgs baiting other band members.
Steadfastly refuse to accept the fact that John Stamos doesn't deserve the right to exist.
Always downplay Dennis's role in the band when compiling tracklists for compilations.

[hypehat]

But AGD, isn't there more to it than that.  Al can't get a license to tour as the Beach Boys, Brian, David and Al can't tour as the Beach Boys.  So in effect, the license was issued for Mike to tour as the Beach Boys?  Mike sued Al for touring as BB Family and Friends.

If Alan adhered to the terms of the BRI license, he could tour as The Beach Boys (in principle - in reality I just cannot see that happening: cue legal fireworks). Back in 1998, he didn't, and that's when the sh*t hit the fan, repeatedly. And it was BRI who sued Alan (thus he was, strictly speaking, suing himself !), not Mike.

I think the questions people, like me, want to know is:

1. Is there a time limit on Mike's license?
2. Can it be revoked by a BRI vote.
3. Can a license be issued to "Brian, Al and David" to tour as the Beach Boys?

When you say amended, do you mean that, say for example, that the band has to tour with atleast two, or three, original members? (so Bruce wouldn't count).

1 - not that I'm aware
2 - probably, but the income stream would be turned off. You see that ever happening ?
3 - yes, if they adhere to the existing rules. But why would they ?

Er, where did I say "amended" ?

What would the "existing rules" be?

Always wear a hat in public if you are bald.
Send dumbass Facebook msgs baiting other band members.
Steadfastly refuse to accept the fact that John Stamos doesn't deserves the right to exist.
Always downplay Dennis's role in the band when compiling tracklists for compilations.

Rule 4a - Always downplay Dennis' role in anything except how crappy a drummer he was and how much hell he liked to raise, if on television or radio. Interviews for books are alright, no-one reads anymore.
Conversely, if something good happened many years ago, you can probably blame Carl.
Also, if on television or radio, you did not record any music from 1967 until you got to number 1 with Kokomo. If someone dares to mention, for example, Sunflower, say how much you like it and defuse the question. Management will take care of the subsequent beating the journalist will receive.
If a decision is mildly controversial (even if ultimately positive in outcome), blame your wife.
In interviews, remember - all roads lead to The Beatles. How else will you gain musical legitimacy?
You must acknowledge that Kokomo is the Beach Boys' greatest hit. Even you, Brian.

[Cam Mott]

My recollection [warning] from the appeals court document is BRI voted to give an exclusive license to Mike. At some point later Al decided he wanted a license so BRI jerked Mike's exclusive license back and offered a nonexclusive license to Mike, Al and Brian if they abided by the terms that had been negotiated for Mike's previously exclusive license. Apparently Brian never sought the nonexclusive license and Al did but he would not agree to the terms established. BRI negotiated and went as far as to offer Al terms sweeter than Mike had been offered but apparently Al would not agree to terms and did write up his own license with his own terms of which he was the only signatory and began to operate using the trademark without a license from BRI. This was a case of Mike getting jerked around by the bandmates he supposedly  bullys.

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

If you people are truly interested in the License case, it is not hard to find the case:  Brother Records, Inc. v. Jardine, 318 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2003).

Here is just some of the relevant background from Judge Tashima's opinion:

The parties dispute whether BRI and Jardine entered into a non-exclusive license agreement. After the July 1998 BRI board meeting, Jardine began touring with his own band, using a booking agent and manager that were not included in the list approved by the Love license. On October 25, 1998, Jardine's attorney sent BRI a letter saying that Jardine would be performing as “Beach Boys Family and Friends,” and that therefore, “a license from BRI [was] unnecessary.” On October 28, 1998, BRI told Jardine that his unlicensed use of the trademark would be an infringement.
Jardine then proposed a license that included terms different from those included in the Love license. Jardine's proposal contemplated only a five-percent royalty to BRI on the first $1 million of gross receipts and a 17.5 percent royalty thereafter. BRI proposed a 17.5 percent royalty across the board. Love's license required a royalty of 20 percent of the first $1 million and 17.5 percent of receipts thereafter. Also, Jardine wanted to use a booking agent and manager that were not on the approved list. Jardine stated that, whether or not BRI accepted the proposal, he would continue performing as the “Beach Boys Family and Friends.”
The BRI board scheduled another meeting for November 24, 1998 to discuss Jardine's proposal. Before the meeting, Jardine's attorney sent a letter to the board with a proposed license agreement signed by Jardine. At the meeting, the BRI board voted to reject Jardine's proposal. In the months following the meeting, Jardine both attempted to negotiate an agreement and claimed he had a license.
Jardine and his band continued to perform using names that included “The Beach Boys” trademark. The performances were promoted under names such as: Al Jardine of the Beach Boys and Family & Friends; The Beach Boys “Family and Friends”; Beach Boys Family & Friends; The Beach Boys, Family & Friends; Beach Boys and Family; as well as, simply, The Beach Boys. Jardine and his band performed in locations and on dates close to Love's “The Beach Boys” shows. With two bands touring as The Beach Boys or as a similar-sounding combination, show organizers sometimes were confused about what exactly they were getting when they booked Jardine's band. A number of show organizers booked Jardine's *903 band thinking they would get The Beach Boys along with special added guests, but subsequently canceled the booking when they discovered that Jardine's band was not what they thought it was. Numerous people who attended one of Jardine's shows said that they had been confused about who was performing. During this time period, BRI sent Jardine cease and desist letters objecting to Jardine's use of the trademark.
On April 9, 1999, BRI filed its complaint in the district court alleging that Jardine was infringing its trademark. Jardine answered, asserting the defenses of fair use, laches, estoppel, and unclean hands, and counterclaimed for breach of employment agreement, breach of license agreement, and for a declaratory judgment that Jardine could tour as the “Beach Boys Family and Friends.” On March 28, 2000, the district court issued the preliminary injunction prohibiting Jardine from using “The Beach Boys,” “The Beach Boys Family and Friends,” and other similar combinations, but still allowing Jardine to refer to his past membership in the band “in a descriptive fashion.”

[joe_blow]

[

I think the questions people, like me, want to know is:

1. Is there a time limit on Mike's license?
2. Can it be revoked by a BRI vote.
3. Can a license be issued to "Brian, Al and David" to tour as the Beach Boys?

When you say amended, do you mean that, say for example, that the band has to tour with atleast two, or three, original members? (so Bruce wouldn't count).

1 - not that I'm aware
2 - probably, but the income stream would be turned off. You see that ever happening ?
3 - yes, if they adhere to the existing rules. But why would they ?

Er, where did I say "amended" ?
[/quote]

Looking more closely at number 3, instead of Brian or Al getting rights to use the Beach Boys name, could they force Mike into allowing them into his band? I can understand not wanting seperate entities touring as The Beach Boys, but do Al and Brian have the right to join when they want? Is it Mike's right to keep them out until the next BRI vote over the license?

[HeyJude]

But, all they (Al & Brian) had/have to do is ask Mike. It's not they never see each other. I know, I know, this is The Beach Boys we're talking about...

Very true, one would think this would be an easily worked-out (or at least understood) issue within the organization. But they clearly haven't always worked that way in the past. Witness the episode described in Jon Stebbins' David Marks book, where, according to the book, David Marks rejoins the band and Al doesn't even know David is "in" the band full time until he just keeps showing up to gigs and Al asks him why he's back.   

[HeyJude]

My recollection [warning] from the appeals court document is BRI voted to give an exclusive license to Mike. At some point later Al decided he wanted a license so BRI jerked Mike's exclusive license back and offered a nonexclusive license to Mike, Al and Brian if they abided by the terms that had been negotiated for Mike's previously exclusive license. Apparently Brian never sought the nonexclusive license and Al did but he would not agree to the terms established. BRI negotiated and went as far as to offer Al terms sweeter than Mike had been offered but apparently Al would not agree to terms and did write up his own license with his own terms of which he was the only signatory and began to operate using the trademark without a license from BRI. This was a case of Mike getting jerked around by the bandmates he supposedly  bullys.

I guess we could just copy our debates from circa 2000 regarding all of that BB name business. But to suggest Mike was getting "jerked around" is kind of silly. First of all, as we've been told so many times, the legal action was from BRI, not Mike personally. So if Al and Brian were "jerking" anybody around, it was their own BRI company. Similarly, if BRI "jerked" the license from Mike, that was BRI, not any one person.

Another little bit that I'm sure I ended up arguing years ago is that, if Al was offered cheaper/better terms for a license, that would have made sense since he was not calling his band "The Beach Boys", and I don't believe Al ever attempted to go out with a competing band with the exact same name as Mike's "Beach Boys."

Not that it matters (as I often say  ), but I don't think there is any scenario where we would have seen two bands going out as "The Beach Boys" simultaneously, and by mutual agreement. That's why I don't buy that Brian and Al could just go out right now as "The Beach Boys" if they simply abided by terms of an agreement made with Mike.

[HeyJude]

If you people are truly interested in the License case, it is not hard to find the case:  Brother Records, Inc. v. Jardine, 318 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2003).

Here is just some of the relevant background from Judge Tashima's opinion:

The parties dispute whether BRI and Jardine entered into a non-exclusive license agreement. After the July 1998 BRI board meeting, Jardine began touring with his own band, using a booking agent and manager that were not included in the list approved by the Love license. On October 25, 1998, Jardine's attorney sent BRI a letter saying that Jardine would be performing as “Beach Boys Family and Friends,” and that therefore, “a license from BRI [was] unnecessary.” On October 28, 1998, BRI told Jardine that his unlicensed use of the trademark would be an infringement.
Jardine then proposed a license that included terms different from those included in the Love license. Jardine's proposal contemplated only a five-percent royalty to BRI on the first $1 million of gross receipts and a 17.5 percent royalty thereafter. BRI proposed a 17.5 percent royalty across the board. Love's license required a royalty of 20 percent of the first $1 million and 17.5 percent of receipts thereafter. Also, Jardine wanted to use a booking agent and manager that were not on the approved list. Jardine stated that, whether or not BRI accepted the proposal, he would continue performing as the “Beach Boys Family and Friends.”
The BRI board scheduled another meeting for November 24, 1998 to discuss Jardine's proposal. Before the meeting, Jardine's attorney sent a letter to the board with a proposed license agreement signed by Jardine. At the meeting, the BRI board voted to reject Jardine's proposal. In the months following the meeting, Jardine both attempted to negotiate an agreement and claimed he had a license.
Jardine and his band continued to perform using names that included “The Beach Boys” trademark. The performances were promoted under names such as: Al Jardine of the Beach Boys and Family & Friends; The Beach Boys “Family and Friends”; Beach Boys Family & Friends; The Beach Boys, Family & Friends; Beach Boys and Family; as well as, simply, The Beach Boys. Jardine and his band performed in locations and on dates close to Love's “The Beach Boys” shows. With two bands touring as The Beach Boys or as a similar-sounding combination, show organizers sometimes were confused about what exactly they were getting when they booked Jardine's band. A number of show organizers booked Jardine's *903 band thinking they would get The Beach Boys along with special added guests, but subsequently canceled the booking when they discovered that Jardine's band was not what they thought it was. Numerous people who attended one of Jardine's shows said that they had been confused about who was performing. During this time period, BRI sent Jardine cease and desist letters objecting to Jardine's use of the trademark.
On April 9, 1999, BRI filed its complaint in the district court alleging that Jardine was infringing its trademark. Jardine answered, asserting the defenses of fair use, laches, estoppel, and unclean hands, and counterclaimed for breach of employment agreement, breach of license agreement, and for a declaratory judgment that Jardine could tour as the “Beach Boys Family and Friends.” On March 28, 2000, the district court issued the preliminary injunction prohibiting Jardine from using “The Beach Boys,” “The Beach Boys Family and Friends,” and other similar combinations, but still allowing Jardine to refer to his past membership in the band “in a descriptive fashion.”

Was and still is interesting reading for sure. Worth noting, and something that may or may not pertain to that particular case, is that Al sued one of his attorneys for malpractice at a later date: http://top40-charts.com/news.php?nid=3030