Today I heard a DJ mention Steely Dan was named after an item in the novel “Naked Lunch”. Later he mentioned Chicago was originally named Chicago Transit Authority but had to change its name when it was sued by the actual Chicago transit agency. When a band decides its name, how much does it have to worry about violating copyright, trademark, or even defamation law? Do they need to get prior approval from the name’s source? Can band names themselves be trademarked?
They can certainly be trademarked. Here’s a story about the document registering the Beatles trademark.
They can’t be copyrighted just like story titles can’t be. Well possibly you could name your band with a long name of the whole of a short story or poem you’d already copyrighted, I guess. I’m not sure how that would apply.
Band names are too short for copyright, but trademark certainly can apply. The key things to remember about trademarks, though, are, first, that they need to be defended, and second, they’re context-specific. Even if “Steely Dan” was the name of a band in Naked Lunch (I don’t know; I’ve never read it), it’s highly unlikely that the author applied for a trademark for it or defended it, so they’re in the clear. And the actual Chicago Transit Authority doesn’t do business in anything remotely resembling music, so their trademark shouldn’t have stopped a band from taking that name, but it’s possible that their lawyers wrote a scary enough letter to convince them to change anyway.
Now, on the other hand, if I and a few friends tried to start a band called “the Rollyng Stones”, say, that almost certainly would not be allowed, since Mick Jaggar and company almost certainly have a trademark on their name, and my band’s name is close enough and in the same field that there would be a real possibility of someone confusing my product for theirs.
Is trademark really the only problem? I’d heard that, when you sign with a publisher, they often don’t want you to have the same name as another band. I know of at least a couple local bands that, when they were signed, were told to change their name, and at least one of them said it was because there was another band of the same name.
I do know that movie titles can be the same: it happens a lot.
I think it’s a metal dildo.
It’s not trademark per se, but it’s based on reducing confusion. You don’t want someone to buy another band’s album because they think it’s yours.
But it’s it can occur. Back in the early 70s, there were two bands on two different labels, both named “Gypsy.” Gypsy was from the UK (and had a California surf sound) while Gypsy was from Minneapolis (and had a British Invasion sound). The former was sometimes billed as “English Gypsy” in the US, but after their album came out.
Yeah, context. One consideration with bands like “Chicago [Transit Authority]”, or “The Presidents of the United States of America” is whether anybody is likely to confuse them with the other entity. Nobody goes to see the latter expecting Bill Clinton on sax. “Chicago” didn’t want to bother fighting the real CTA, which is another large part of it - if somebody with clout wants to make an issue of it, they’ll probably just change it. I’m going to guess that if the band had dug in their heels, and actually fought it in court, they might very well have won. If I named my band “The Central Intelligence Agency”, it wouldn’t take much complaint from the real CIA to make me change it.
The band “Pogo” got a cease-and-desist letter from the family of Walt Kelly. So they painted out the cross-bar on the “G”.
Then there were the One-Ders, with a name that nobody wanted.
The British alternative band “Bush” ran into problems with this in Canada a few years back:
I think ABBA had some agreement with this company (IIRC they thought it was good advertising), but there is one thing I don’t get. The Beatles’ company Apple Corps allowed Apple Inc. to use that name as long as they did not do anything that involved music, so how do they get away with the recent development? Do they have to pay hefty fees (fines?) or do they think they are so big that they just don’t care? :dubious:
Depending on location, if the brand being infringed is “big enough”, the infringer doesn’t have to be in the same business. In Spain if I tried to open a bookstore called Coca-Cola, the TM Office would refuse the request to register.
It could be fine if it was a tribute band and stated so everywhere, though.
Apple Inc. gets away with it because they’re bigger than the Beatles. (Take THAT, Jesus!)
Apple Corps settled with Apple Inc in 2007 for around 500 million.
The Beatles sued Apple when they went into the music business and Apple did give them some hefty payments over the years. The Beatles sued again when iTunes launched, but the court ruled that the use was not a violation of the agreement between the two.
The Wall Street Journal had a story early this year about how difficult it is for bands these days to come up with unique names. It has become very common for bands to share names with bands.
Yes, there are a lot of concerns surrounding names and titles that aren’t mandated by intellectual property law, such as marketing concerns.
[quote=“Nava, post:12, topic:553380”]
Furthermore, just because Burroughs used the term “Steely Dan” in Naked Lunch doesn’t mean he had trademark rights in the term. Trademark rights have to be earned by using it as a source indicator for goods or services.
Under U.S. law, this falls under the category of “trademark dilution” rather than “trademark infringement.” Only “famous marks” get this level of protection, and, yes, Coca-Cola is probably one of those famous marks.
“Almost certainly”? Trademark rights are earned through use. You don’t even have to know whether they have registered the mark.
They do (I help them protect it) and they have one for the lips and tongue logo, owned by Musidor.
Mick Jagger it too smart a businessman. Here’s their trademark.
Link goes to an expired search, RealityChuck
My brother had a similiar experience with the Jim Henson estate when they tried to name themselves “Riverbottom Nightmare Band”.