A
akasha
Guest
What is the name of your state? Ky
Scenario-band splits. No agreements (not even informal) regarding ownership of name,etc. Last remaining founding member fired (with just cause). Three remaining members were all present under the "secondary meaning" definition. 3 remaining don't want to keep the name and let the fired member have it. Fired member forms new band (under the name) with 2 other former members and a new guy. Of the 3 remaining members, one of them was acting manager of the band and was the one who handled all of the bookings and finances. Fired member and his group are trying to "steal" shows that were booked by the remaining member/manager under the guise that the shows were booked with "the band name" and since he has posession of the band name he also gets the shows. Remaining members argue that the shows were booked by one of the remaining members with the contract being with the band members (regardless of name) and that since 3 out of the 4 are the ones still present theyare the ones who hold the contract.
Any takes on this one or does anyone know of any precedences? I can see how this one could swing both ways.
Scenario-band splits. No agreements (not even informal) regarding ownership of name,etc. Last remaining founding member fired (with just cause). Three remaining members were all present under the "secondary meaning" definition. 3 remaining don't want to keep the name and let the fired member have it. Fired member forms new band (under the name) with 2 other former members and a new guy. Of the 3 remaining members, one of them was acting manager of the band and was the one who handled all of the bookings and finances. Fired member and his group are trying to "steal" shows that were booked by the remaining member/manager under the guise that the shows were booked with "the band name" and since he has posession of the band name he also gets the shows. Remaining members argue that the shows were booked by one of the remaining members with the contract being with the band members (regardless of name) and that since 3 out of the 4 are the ones still present theyare the ones who hold the contract.
Any takes on this one or does anyone know of any precedences? I can see how this one could swing both ways.