in 1967 and ceased recording new material, there is no evidence suggesting that they failed to use the name Kingsmen during the period from 1967 to the present to promote their previously recorded albums. Moreover, the fact that these individuals continue to receive royalties for Kingsmen recordings flies in the face of any suggestion of an intent to abandon use of the name Kingsmen. These plaintiffs have no more abandoned their right to protect the name of Kingsmen than have The Beatles, The Supremes or any other group that has disbanded and ceased performing and recording, but continues to collect royalties from the sale of previously recorded material. 557 F.Supp. at 183 (emphasis supplied); see also HEC Enterprises, Ltd. v. Deep Purple, Inc., 213 U.S.P.Q. 991, 993 (C.D.Cal.1980)(<HOLDING>). This Court is persuaded by the Kingsmen case
holding that failure of indictment to include the defendants name was not fatal because the original complaint that initiated the prosecution properly listed the defendants name and the record indieated that the defendant  knew what he was charged with and what facts the charge was based upon holding that departed members of the platters had no rights to the groups name because the original manager continued to use the name and manage the remaining platters members holding that the original members of the musical group deep purple had not abandoned the name because they continued to receive royalties from the sale of their original recordings holding the sale valid as between the original parties despite noncompliance with the act recognizing original bidders as parties in interest and upholding bankruptcy court determination that judicial sale be overturned where original bidders did not receive notice major question found to be one of common decency