 |
Bulletins Story:
SPLINTER BANDS TRADING AS A HERITAGE ACT: ALAN WILLIAMS
ENTERTAINMENT v HURD, BINES AND BREWER
|
Date:
14.02.2006
|
A decision was handed down by the High Court last week dealing
with the use of references to the well-known 1970s group The
Rubettes - responsible for the 8 million record selling "Sugar Baby
Love".
This was the culmination of a long simmering dispute which the
various parties had attempted to settle by agreement over three
years ago. The settlement agreement had provided that there could
be two Rubette bands: one "The Rubettes Featuring Alan Williams"
and the other "The Rubettes Featuring Bill Hurd". These individuals
were two of the original members of the group. The agreement also
specified that neither band would trade as The Rubettes from an
agreed date. Both parties then alleged that the other had been in
breach of the agreement by allowing the impression to be given on
websites, in advertisements and other promotional material that
they were the original Rubettes. The court held that there were
breaches on both sides.
The case related specifically to the groups' circumstances and
the terms of their settlement agreement, so it is difficult to draw
too much general guidance from the decision. But there are useful
pointers for managers, agents and lawyers dealing with the not
infrequent phenomenon of two bands either agreeing or being
entitled to use names which refer to their previous
glories.
In a lengthy judgment the court considered the distinction
between trading as The Rubettes and trading off the reputation of
the original band. It was clearly the intention of both sets of
Rubettes to trade by association with the original band's
reputation but neither wanted the other to be able to give the
impression that it was the original band. The former was
permissible within the boundaries to be agreed but the latter would
defeat the object of the settlement. So when a band splits up and
the band members try to agree how they can continue to benefit from
goodwill associated with their previous careers, careful
consideration and drafting is needed to spell out exactly what is
and is not permissible.
The court also made clear in its judgment that band members in
such circumstances did have some responsibility to control the
activities of third parties such as agents, promoters and those
running authorised websites. The judgment was that each band should
have taken reasonable steps in advance of any promotion to prevent
the description of their band as the original band - and if they
were so described, then they should take reasonable steps to
correct the errors. The judge stopped short of insisting that
contracts with agents and promoters in this case should have
spelled out the restrictions but clearly it would have assisted
both parties if they had.
Julian Turton
Music
e-bulletins are for general guidance only. Legal advice should
be sought before taking action in relation to specific matters.
Where reference is made to Court decisions facts referred to are
those reported as found by the Court. Please note that past
bulletins included in the Archive have not been updated by any
subsequent changes in statute or case law.
<< back to ebulletins
|