Members wheresgrant3 Posted December 3, 2013 Members Share Posted December 3, 2013 As most of you know... 2013 was a year of rebuilding for my band. We lost our frontman of 11 yrs a year ago (Dec 2012) and spent most of the year using sub singers while auditioning new talent. Phoenix Rising From The Ashes We experienced some of the lowest period I've experienced in this band over the spring and summer. but we were not only able to regroup but also come out with a lineup that not only eclispes the former show but takes things to a new level. I also mentioned the possibility of a name change... this was not something we wanted to do but we felt it may be neccesary to give people a reason to see the new band... to give the new lineup a chance. There were other details I left out of the explanation... legally we had to change the name. I'll explain why below. Our band was founded with both our bass player and our singer. Our singer left a year ago largely b/c he could no longer get along with our bass player. They were like oil and water, ying and yang, Simon and Garfunkle. They had been friends for over 25 years and played in three bands together for more than 20 years. When our singer left he said that he would only consider returning IF our bass player was no longer part of the band. We had faced this 'it's either him or me' situation many times with our singer and it always resulted in the band siding with the singer and a lineup change ensuing. This time we firmly told him aboslutely not and he felt it was best to part ways. He promised it would be peaceful and that he would help tranisition our website and some other details. (10 year Anniversary Video) In January, after we notified him that we had gotten a substitute singer to cover future shows he changed his mind. He felt since he came in with the name of the band and was recognized as the 'face' of the band he was entitled to some money for the use of the name... alot of money. He proposed that we would pay him $800 per month for two years to buy the name or $400 per month to just lease it. It was absolutely ridiculous and after several weeks of negotiating back and forth we found out why he was so confident in giving us this proposal: In march we heard from a Trademark Attorney that he had trademarked the name and logo for Nuts In A Blender and was in full ownership of it's use. The date he trademarked the name... Dec 19th 2012. Two weeks after he left the band. So yeah... he sniped the name. Throughout the spring and summer both sides were low key about the situation.. but as soon as word broke that we had found two new singers and we had heavy radio airplay (https://vimeo.com/77566354) promoting the station's Halloween show that we were performing at then he came on with a full court press. He explained we needed to agree to his terms or he would 'sell the name' to another interested party. LOL A Laughable idea... however we decided at that point he was never going to sell us the name or allow us to use it to keep the business running. We made an offer to buy the name for $2400 and he balked... we could lease the name for two years at that price but he would never sell it for that price. Then he sent the first salvo.... he closed our Facebook Group by filing a trademark infringement. Hello, We Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members StratGuy22 Posted December 3, 2013 Members Share Posted December 3, 2013 What a piece of s*** I hope you told him to f himself. The new name sounds great, and now asshat has nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dan88z Posted December 3, 2013 Members Share Posted December 3, 2013 StratGuy22 wrote: What a piece of s*** I hope you told him to f himself. The new name sounds great, and now asshat has nothing. This ^^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jeff42 Posted December 3, 2013 Members Share Posted December 3, 2013 I have to say that forcing you to change the name with threat of legal action was a very crappy thing to do. I think the whole if you quit you get nothing rule you guys had was a great one. I guess he didn't care.But congrats to you and the rest of the guys for getting through it! so what are the odds an imposter/evil NIAB will pop up in a few months lead by the singer with a bunch of young kids backing him up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nchangin Posted December 3, 2013 Members Share Posted December 3, 2013 Wow. Cheap. All I can say. That high on himself huh. I assume he wouldn't settle for 2400 cause he probably got a lot of $ tied up in attorney fees. I don't know about him "taking" the name after he was ousted from the organization. I would think there would be legal recourse as it sounds like the name was not copyrighted before he was asked to leave the business. Next question did you have a LLC or anything formed under the business name for reporting taxes? Would that not establish name recognition thus falsifying his claim? Did the band come up with the name or was it all his idea? Good luck, with all this, sounds like you were a founding member, and if so, you been through the bad the good and the ugly already so I think you will know what it takes to succeed again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wheresgrant3 Posted December 3, 2013 Author Members Share Posted December 3, 2013 nchangin wrote: Wow. Cheap. All I can say. That high on himself huh. I assume he wouldn't settle for 2400 cause he probably got a lot of $ tied up in attorney fees. I don't know about him "taking" the name after he was ousted from the organization. I would think there would be legal recourse as it sounds like the name was not copyrighted before he was asked to leave the business. Next question did you have a LLC or anything formed under the business name for reporting taxes? Would that not establish name recognition thus falsifying his claim? Did the band come up with the name or was it all his idea? Good luck, with all this, sounds like you were a founding member, and if so, you been through the bad the good and the ugly already so I think you will know what it takes to succeed again. Truth... I don't think he'd ever sell the name period! Not for any amount. I think he will just shut it down. The fact leaving this band was a huge ego blow and I think he just doesn't want it to be successful beyond his legacy. Of course everyone has their price, but I don't believe his intention was to ever sell it. He has more fun trying to hold it over our heads. I figure between the trademark and the initial legal expenses he's out of pocket $3500 minimum. We spent $500 on a lawyer to draft a response for hios attorney's initial contact and this was the response we received: Our client has expended substantial funds, time, and effort in the development and protection of its valuable trademark and thus, the mark is well established and well known. We both know that the courts are resolving band break ups in the area of trademark ownership, unpredictably and inconsistently. Dissolution of formerly cooperative relationships has always been problematic to resolve, especially when there are trademark claims. For this reason, we think it is best to resolve the matter amicably amongst the parties rather than seeking court intervention that can continue for years and be quite costly, although our client has indicated that he is prepared to do so if necessary. We look forward to hearing back from you once you have consulted with your clients. So we could have spent a ton of $ fighting it and we would both be out of money. We could see this quickly becoming a money pit. Why fight for the house... let's just build a new one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Nijyo Posted December 10, 2013 Members Share Posted December 10, 2013 Just posting to say that I agree with the folks here that you did the right thing *and* that "About Last Night" is a pretty great band name. I wish I'd thought of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members StratGuy22 Posted December 10, 2013 Members Share Posted December 10, 2013 Again, trademark it before captain butthurt tries to parlay the fact that it was on all the NIAB's videos and therefore his as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wheresgrant3 Posted December 11, 2013 Author Members Share Posted December 11, 2013 Well there is no trademarking the name for our commercial use. About Last Night is a property owned by Columbia pictures and CBS. Remember there was a movie called About Last Night in 1986 and it's being remade in 2014. I doubt we would be a target of their legal dept though... There's a band in BC Canada called About Last Night that has been playing for a few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SLScott86 Posted December 12, 2013 Members Share Posted December 12, 2013 The Devil Wears Prada would not be mistaken for the movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.