London Sound Survey Crisis

[Beef Oven!]

He seems to be under the impression that because he registered the name for his business, no one else should be allowed to use even a similar name for their business. He seems to have wrong-footed himself by agreeing that anyone CAN use a similar name if they pay him a regular sum of money.

Then it's a shame that the other bloke doesn't realise all that.

[Flosshilde]

At the risk of giving another opinion based on very little (or no) legal knowledge, I think that if London Sound Survey agreed to paying Mr Solomons a licence fee they would a) be tacitly agreeing that the latter has a legal right to sole use of the name 'London Sound', & therefore not have much of a leg to stand on in any dispute; and b) lay themselves open to paying increased licence fees in the future - it may be a nominal sum now but could suddenly increase substantially. Mr Solomons expresses pious hopes that his 'bullying' hasn't put other organisations out of business, & expresses regrets when it transpires that one of them has ceased trading, but perhaps the increasing burden of the licence fee has been too much for them?

And, if Mr S is worried that organisation or business X might be confused with his because it has a similar name, how would X paying a fee to use the name solve that problem?

[ahinton]

At the risk of giving another opinion based on very little (or no) legal knowledge, I think that if London Sound Survey agreed to paying Mr Solomons a licence fee they would a) be tacitly agreeing that the latter has a legal right to sole use of the name 'London Sound', & therefore not have much of a leg to stand on in any dispute; and b) lay themselves open to paying increased licence fees in the future - it may be a nominal sum now but could suddenly increase substantially. Mr Solomons expresses pious hopes that his 'bullying' hasn't put other organisations out of business, & expresses regrets when it transpires that one of them has ceased trading, but perhaps the increasing burden of the licence fee has been too much for them?

And, if Mr S is worried that organisation or business X might be confused with his because it has a similar name, how would X paying a fee to use the name solve that problem?

All very much to the point! As best I understand it, thoguh ( and I openly admit that this best might not be good enough!), Mr Solomons has not done all that he perhaps could and should have done to register what he'd have needed to register in the proper way in order to acquire the legal rights that he nevertheless claims to possess and, if that is so, then he would, as I've suggested previously, risk finding himself on a sticky wicket legally; the very fact that he seems not yet to have instigated legal proceedings about this against Mr Rawes and/or his organisation might appear to endorse the shortcomings here.

[Zucchini]

The judgement of Solomon would surely be that one party has "London" and the other party "Sound"

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The judgement of Solomon would surely be that one party has "London" and the other party "Sound"

[teamsaint]

[QUOTE=Zucchini;460356]The judgement of Solomon would surely be that one party has "London" and the other party "Sound"[/QUOTE]

Already taken by a post punk genius,I suggest, sadly no longer with us.

[french frank]

Not to mention:

[Petrushka]

I dropped a line to Mr Rawes and told him of my opinion that he should only start to worry about legal expenses once a court summons actually lands on his door mat.

I say that because it seems to me that this other gentleman has never himself been in court on this matter, or at least he makes no mention of any formal attempts to prove his case in any civil action.

He makes claim to be the rights owner of the name 'London Sound' but he does not quote the particular statute by which he has secured that status.

I'm not suggesting that he does not hold rights over 'London Sound', but short of registering that as a trademark, I would suggest that any rights he holds pertain only to 'London Sound' in regard to it as the name of his business.

Now, it's clear Mr Rawes is not acting as a trader of any description. From as far as I can tell he's not selling a product or a service and his web address makes no mention of 'London Sound' and he really should resist any demands to enter into some kind of licensing arrangement.

I have urged him to stand his ground and for further low-cost legal advice he should seek the council of 'Citizens Advice'.

http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/

Having now read the entire thread (phew!) the above seems to me to be spot on. Mr S. doesn't really have a leg to stand on and if I were Mr R. I wouldn't be doing anything at all, and certainly not paying a single penny, until a court summons lands on the mat. Mr S. is indulging in nothing more than a 'try on' in the hope that Mr R. will cough up.

He should ignore it and call Mr S's bluff.

[ahinton]

The judgement of Solomon would surely be that one party has "London" and the other party "Sound"

!!!

[ahinton]

Having now read the entire thread (phew!) the above seems to me to be spot on. Mr S. doesn't really have a leg to stand on and if I were Mr R. I wouldn't be doing anything at all, and certainly not paying a single penny, until a court summons lands on the mat. Mr S. is indulging in nothing more than a 'try on' in the hope that Mr R. will cough up.

He should ignore it and call Mr S's bluff.

Indeed.

[MrGongGong]

Having now read the entire thread (phew!) the above seems to me to be spot on. Mr S. doesn't really have a leg to stand on and if I were Mr R. I wouldn't be doing anything at all, and certainly not paying a single penny, until a court summons lands on the mat. Mr S. is indulging in nothing more than a 'try on' in the hope that Mr R. will cough up.

He should ignore it and call Mr S's bluff.

That's why the London Sound Survey need the support of people who find this unacceptable.

[ahinton]

That's why the London Sound Survey need the support of people who find this unacceptable.

I don't doubt that it already has it in principle but it depends on what you mean by support; if you mean a whip-round for £300, that wouldn't be too difficult, I imagine, but I really don't think that Mr Rawes should make any moves to kowtow toards Mr Solomons and he ought instead to leave the ball entirely in Mr Solomons' court and wait to see if any further action is taken.

[MrGongGong]

I don't doubt that it already has it in principle but it depends on what you mean by support; if you mean a whip-round for £300, that wouldn't be too difficult, I imagine, but I really don't think that Mr Rawes should make any moves to kowtow toards Mr Solomons and he ought instead to leave the ball entirely in Mr Solomons' court and wait to see if any further action is taken.

Sometimes people need to feel that there are other people in the world who share their enthusiasms.

[ahinton]

Sometimes people need to feel that there are other people in the world who share their enthusiasms.

Indeed so; fair comment. I just think that, at this stage, this is what Mr Rawes needs, rather than a "fighting fund", for the reasons that I mentioned.

[MrGongGong]

Indeed so; fair comment. I just think that, at this stage, this is what Mr Rawes needs, rather than a "fighting fund", for the reasons that I mentioned.

But he didn't ask for a "fighting fund" just a bit of help with funding a legal letter.