The Softones' Band Name Ownership Dispute Heads to Jury Trial

Two former members of the Baltimore soul group must present their trademark claims to a jury.

Published on Feb. 17, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A federal district court in Maryland has ruled that two former members of the Baltimore-based soul group The Softones must present their trademark infringement claims to a jury to determine who owns the rights to the band's name. The sole surviving founding member, Steven Jackson, argues he never left the group and continued performing under the name, while another former member, Lorenzo Samuels, also claims ownership of the name.

Why it matters

This case highlights the complex legal issues around band name ownership, especially for legacy acts with changing lineups over decades. The outcome could set a precedent for how courts handle disputes over the rights to use a band's name, which is a valuable intellectual property asset.

The details

Judge Adam B. Abelson of the US District Court for the District of Maryland denied cross-motions for summary judgment, ruling that several outstanding factual questions must first be resolved by a jury. The judge determined that there are unresolved issues around whether Jackson or Samuels have stronger claims to the Softones' name and trademark.

  • The Softones were founded in Baltimore in the 1960s.

The players

Steven Jackson

The sole surviving founding member of The Softones, who argues he never left the group and continued performing under the name.

Lorenzo Samuels

A former member of The Softones who also claims ownership of the band's name.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Several outstanding factual questions must first be resolved by a jury.”

— Judge Adam B. Abelson, US District Court for the District of Maryland

What’s next

The case will now proceed to a jury trial where Jackson and Samuels will present their arguments over who has the rights to use The Softones' name.

The takeaway

This dispute underscores the challenges legacy musical acts can face in maintaining control over their brand and intellectual property, especially when lineups change over time. The outcome could set an important precedent for how courts handle similar cases involving the ownership of band names.