London Sound Survey Crisis

[MrGongGong]

The wonderful Ian Rawes who used to work for the British Library sound archive and has, for many years run the London Sound Survey which is a wonderful source of sonic history has just posted this on social media.

The London Sound Survey is worth a visit here http://www.soundsurvey.org.uk/

But more importantly I think he needs the help of friends.

This from Ian

The London Sound Survey desperately needs your help right now. Its continued existence is under threat.
It's a bit of a long story, so please bear with me. In December 2011 I received an email from a man named Michael Solomons, who for many years has run a small hifi repair business in north-west London called London Sound.
Mr Solomons stated that he owned the name London Sound and that I would need to either change the name of the London Sound Survey or pay him an undisclosed sum of money as a 'licence' in order to keep my website name. He alluded to unspecified consequences if I did not.
I sought legal advice from three separate professional sources and each told me the same thing: Solomons didn't have a leg to stand on. They stated that Solomons had no right to make any such demands on me, since there was no possibility of confusion between his business and my venture. I emailed him back, refusing to comply with his demands.
I heard nothing back from him, but he added a short piece about the London Sound Survey on a page of his website in he which lists all the scalps he's allegedly taken over the years (http://www.londonsound.org/londonsound.htm). He falsely implied that I had violated copyright too - but you can't copyright a name. Solomons doesn't hold copyright over 'London Sound' and he hasn't registered it as a trademark either. He says he has rights because his business has been established for a long time.
Just a few days ago, I received another email from Solomons, restating his original demands. I again rebutted him, and pointed out that in the intervening period I had registered The London Sound Survey as a trademark, and London Sound too. I think it's fair to say he went ballistic. The threats started coming in thick and fast.
He would get Google to remove all listings of my website. He would get the government agency that registers trademarks to remove mine. And, without saying so directly, he continually suggested that I would somehow end up in court. Then, supposedly as an olive branch, he suggested all this could be avoided if I'd only pay him a regular licence fee and place a small notice on each and every webpage on my site. I regard his whole approach as one of bullying, pure and simple.
Solomons is still very much in the wrong, and appears to know little about intellectual property law, but I need to prepare for a battle. The first step is to get a solicitor to write to him, outlining the legal position in clear terms.
This alone will cost me around £300, money I don't have - and I have to act fast. Please help me out by visiting the London Sound Survey homepage at http://www.soundsurvey.org.uk and clicking on the Donate button near the top.
All donations will be received with lasting gratitude. I need your help now.

[Gordon]

Hm, I sympathise. I am not an IP lawyer but have spent the best part of 30 odd years dealing such people and with such people as Solomons. This is not an uncommon situation and its solution could be messy, time consuming and expensive because it could drag on if both sides keep up the fight. Only the lawyers win.

Solomons may well only be “trying it on” so let’s hope that this £300 letter will stop the harassment.

[Stillhomewardbound]

I'm going to email this chap and urge him to do absolutely nothing and certainly not to be looking for funds for solicitors letters.

It seems this harrow based business has been in dispute with Capital Radio since 2006 and they apparently have not entertained his entreatments.

Brand name disputes are increasingly commonplace these days, especially among the internet traders, but this gentleman would have to establish and prove that the use of 'London Sound Survey' was creating confusion amongst those in need of hifi repair in the North East London area, and particularly that it was depriving him of business.

Given that 'London Sound Survey' is clearly not in the hi-fi repair business and has the website address of 'soundsurvey.org.uk', anyway, I think the case would end there.

The cited disputant in this case claims on a variety of web postings: "The name London Sound is my established trade mark, registered Business Name, and is Copyright".

Now, I am not a lawyer, but presumably such rights as he claims to have pertain to his specific business and do not have any universal application whatsoever.

Whatever, in the interests of due balance here's his side of the story:

http://www.londonsound.org/londonsound.htm

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I'm no expert, but it sounds a bit like the Americans who try to patent DNA.

[french frank]

This might be useful: http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/co...opyright_names

"Enquiries such as ‘Can I copyright a name?’ are one of the most common questions we are asked, and this seems to be one of the most misunderstood aspects of copyright law.

The short answer is to simply say that names, titles, short phrases, (and also colours), are not considered unique or substantial enough to be awarded copyright protection in their own right, but as this is such a common question, it is perhaps worth explaining the logic behind this.

[...]

"How are names protected?

When people ask about protecting names, they are typically referring to a trading name or the name of a product, and the primary focus is on preventing a competitor using the name.

Passing off

‘Passing off’ is a term used when a company or individual represents themselves in a way that may mislead potential customers into believing that they are dealing with an [sic] different, more established company.

If a competing company sets up with a similar or identical name to an establish[ed] company, or portrays themselves in a way that implies that they are associated with the established company, they may be guilty of passing off. The original company can take action to defend their identity.

Passing off is not always as simple as determining who was using the name first, and public perception of who the name is associated with should also be taken consideration."

From his example, it appears that people who wanted London Sound Survey confused it with London Sound. So that wouldn't be an example of his business suffering, would it?

[My bolds]

[MrGongGong]

From his example, it appears that people who wanted London Sound Survey confused it with London Sound. So that wouldn't be an example of his business suffering, would it?

No

It doesn't seem to be harming him in any way and could even be useful as many of the folks who visit the London Sound Survey are interested in the kind of kit that he repairs.

It seems that Mr "London Sound" is a rather pedantic and unpleasant piece of work.

What hope is there for the "Classical Brits" ?

[french frank]

No

It doesn't seem to be harming him in any way and could even be useful as many of the folks who visit the London Sound Survey are interested in the kind of kit that he repairs.

It seems that Mr "London Sound" is a rather pedantic and unpleasant piece of work.

Most relevant, I would have thought, in law: he isn't a competitor since he isn't offering the same service. Ergo he is hardly likely to 'poach' customers, and has nothing to gain by 'passing off' his company (London Sound Survey) as a hi-fi repair service.

[gradus]

LSS is a wonderful site for anyone hailing from or interested in London. I have sent a small donation and wish the site well and hope that it defeats any attempt at attack.

[Gordon]

Some further comments to my #2 on Ian’s piece, all given without prejudice:

The London Sound Survey desperately needs your help right now. Its continued existence is under threat.
It's a bit of a long story, so please bear with me. In December 2011 I received an email from a man named Michael Solomons, who for many years has run a small hifi repair business in north-west London called London Sound.

Here the first problem. Mr Solomons may be a bully and he may not have formal rights to the name London Sound BUT he has, it seems, been trading under that name for some time and so he will have some “common law” rights WITHOUT having to register the name with the UK P&TMO. To get full protection for a name one needs to Register [and pay the fees] the Mark and Name and business context and then one is entitled to declare that by putting the little ® sign against the Mark or Name each time it is used in public. The context for his trading is HiFi Repair which is not what your business is so there is no clear conflict or attempt at “passing off” even though they are both involved with “sound” in some manner.

There is another stage in the Trade Mark business: one can still claim rights of use WITHOUT going the full Registration route by using the ™sign each time the company Mark or name is used in public. There is no formal legal protection in this case; the ™sign means you are claiming the Mark or Name but it is not Registered but will count as “legal ammunition” in case of a dispute.

Mr Solomons stated that he owned the name London Sound and that I would need to either change the name of the London Sound Survey or pay him an undisclosed sum of money as a 'licence' in order to keep my website name. He alluded to unspecified consequences if I did not.

Mr Solomons does not fully and formally “own” the names UNLESS he has Registered it or at least made an informal claim via use of the ™sign. What he has are rights by usage BUT ONLY IF the two businesses are sufficiently similar that an ordinary person could confuse them for the same one. You’d do well to do as much as possible to your web site look and feel to make sure it’s as different from his as possible.

I sought legal advice from three separate professional sources and each told me the same thing: Solomons didn't have a leg to stand on. They stated that Solomons had no right to make any such demands on me, since there was no possibility of confusion between his business and my venture. I emailed him back, refusing to comply with his demands.

Your lawyers [presumed to be IP lawyers not High St solicitors who in my experience are not necessarily clued up on practical IP law] have all confirmed their opinions based on the fact that they think there is no conflict between your business and that of Mr Solomons. They must have explained the issues outlined above.

I heard nothing back from him, but he added a short piece about the London Sound Survey on a page of his website in he which lists all the scalps he's allegedly taken over the years (http://www.londonsound.org/londonsound.htm). He falsely implied that I had violated copyright too - but you can't copyright a name. Solomons doesn't hold copyright over 'London Sound' and he hasn't registered it as a trademark either. He says he has rights because his business has been established for a long time.

Solomons claims: "The name London Sound is my established trade mark, registered Business Name, and is Copyright".

See above about his “rights”. By “established” he means that he has been trading in that name for some time. “Established” does not, it appears, mean that he has formal recognition and hence protection.

Copyright, denoted by © is not the part of IP law that is invoked here. The text contents of any web sites are covered by copyright.

Just a few days ago, I received another email from Solomons, restating his original demands. I again rebutted him, and pointed out that in the intervening period I had registered The London Sound Survey as a trademark, and London Sound too. I think it's fair to say he went ballistic. The threats started coming in thick and fast.

If you have been through the UKP&TMO then they will have searched databases for usage of the Name or Mark that you wish to register. They MAY not come have across Mr Solomon’s company in those searches, they are not guaranteed to find everything but are usually pretty thorough. Nevertheless you have them on your side otherwise they would not have issued the Mark to you.

He would get Google to remove all listings of my website.

He’d find that very difficult! He’d have to justify his position and they would not be so stupid as simply to act on his say so.

He would get the government agency that registers trademarks to remove mine.

This agency is the UK P&TMO who have already issued the Mark to you and will have to have a very good reason to revoke it – it isn’t unknown but is hard to do. IF he is so fussed about “his” Mark he should have registered it himself and also have watched the P&TMO office bulletins [as most big companies do regularly – we paid an IP firm to do just that for us to avoid being caught unawares] and the P&TMO would expect him to have done so and to have raised objections at the time you registered the Name.

And, without saying so directly, he continually suggested that I would somehow end up in court.

By raising the first £300 for a first step you are possibly setting off on a road that may well end up in court and by that time a lot more than £300 will have been spent. The principle is, however, I think, not to give in to threats.

Then, supposedly as an olive branch, he suggested all this could be avoided if I'd only pay him a regular licence fee and place a small notice on each and every webpage on my site. I regard his whole approach as one of bullying, pure and simple.

Yes he’s a bully trying it on but, as he has apparently won in the past, why should he stop now? You have either to fight or to avoid the palaver of fighting by changing your name [too late if you’ve spent on its registration] which may well be the cheapest thing to do in the long run.

Solomons is still very much in the wrong, and appears to know little about intellectual property law, but I need to prepare for a battle. The first step is to get a solicitor to write to him, outlining the legal position in clear terms.
This alone will cost me around £300, money I don't have - and I have to act fast. Please help me out by visiting the London Sound Survey homepage at http://www.soundsurvey.org.uk and clicking on the Donate button near the top.
All donations will be received with lasting gratitude. I need your help now.

You could simply ignore him - what is he going to do that he has not already done? Why not wait for him to issue court proceedings? Solomons may well only be “trying it on” but if he is up for a fight too then £300 might only be the start of it. Ultimately your legal advice must rule your actions.

[ahinton]

Some further comments to my #2 on Ian’s piece, all given without prejudice:



Here the first problem. Mr Solomons may be a bully and he may not have formal rights to the name London Sound BUT he has, it seems, been trading under that name for some time and so he will have some “common law” rights WITHOUT having to register the name with the UK P&TMO. To get full protection for a name one needs to Register [and pay the fees] the Mark and Name and business context and then one is entitled to declare that by putting the little ® sign against the Mark or Name each time it is used in public. The context for his trading is HiFi Repair which is not what your business is so there is no clear conflict or attempt at “passing off” even though they are both involved with “sound” in some manner.

There is another stage in the Trade Mark business: one can still claim rights of use WITHOUT going the full Registration route by using the ™sign each time the company Mark or name is used in public. There is no formal legal protection in this case; the ™sign means you are claiming the Mark or Name but it is not Registered but will count as “legal ammunition” in case of a dispute.



Mr Solomons does not fully and formally “own” the names UNLESS he has Registered it or at least made an informal claim via use of the ™sign. What he has are rights by usage BUT ONLY IF the two businesses are sufficiently similar that an ordinary person could confuse them for the same one. You’d do well to do as much as possible to your web site look and feel to make sure it’s as different from his as possible.



Your lawyers [presumed to be IP lawyers not High St solicitors who in my experience are not necessarily clued up on practical IP law] have all confirmed their opinions based on the fact that they think there is no conflict between your business and that of Mr Solomons. They must have explained the issues outlined above.



Solomons claims: "The name London Sound is my established trade mark, registered Business Name, and is Copyright".

See above about his “rights”. By “established” he means that he has been trading in that name for some time. “Established” does not, it appears, mean that he has formal recognition and hence protection.

Copyright, denoted by © is not the part of IP law that is invoked here. The text contents of any web sites are covered by copyright.



If you have been through the UKP&TMO then they will have searched databases for usage of the Name or Mark that you wish to register. They MAY not come have across Mr Solomon’s company in those searches, they are not guaranteed to find everything but are usually pretty thorough. Nevertheless you have them on your side otherwise they would not have issued the Mark to you.



He’d find that very difficult! He’d have to justify his position and they would not be so stupid as simply to act on his say so.



This agency is the UK P&TMO who have already issued the Mark to you and will have to have a very good reason to revoke it – it isn’t unknown but is hard to do. IF he is so fussed about “his” Mark he should have registered it himself and also have watched the P&TMO office bulletins [as most big companies do regularly – we paid an IP firm to do just that for us to avoid being caught unawares] and the P&TMO would expect him to have done so and to have raised objections at the time you registered the Name.



By raising the first £300 for a first step you are possibly setting off on a road that may well end up in court and by that time a lot more than £300 will have been spent. The principle is, however, I think, not to give in to threats.



Yes he’s a bully trying it on but, as he has apparently won in the past, why should he stop now? You have either to fight or to avoid the palaver of fighting by changing your name [too late if you’ve spent on its registration] which may well be the cheapest thing to do in the long run.



You could simply ignore him - what is he going to do that he has not already done? Why not wait for him to issue court proceedings? Solomons may well only be “trying it on” but if he is up for a fight too then £300 might only be the start of it. Ultimately your legal advice must rule your actions.

This is all good and wise advice, not least the final sentence in which you suggest that ignoring Solomons and leaving the ball of prosecution firmly in his court (if you pardon the use of the word "court in the present context!) as this would, at least in the first instance, not only call his bluff but also be the cheapest option and leave Solomons having to invest funds in legal proceedings should he so choose; thne time to consider starting to spend money on lawyers is when Solomons issues such proceedings, if indeed he does so but, if his own legal advisers are worth their salt, he may well be advised that he might lose and, if he does, find himself liable not only for his own legal costs but also those of the defence. He would be most unwise to fail carefully to consider his position on that front alone before barging ahead with proceedings.

[french frank]

he suggested all this could be avoided if I'd only pay him a regular licence fee

Um, doesn't that sound rather more like blackmail than bullying?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

This is all good and wise advice, not least the final sentence in which you suggest that ignoring Solomons and leaving the ball of prosecution firmly in his court (if you pardon the use of the word "court in the present context!) as this would, at least in the first instance, not only call his bluff but also be the cheapest option and leave Solomons having to invest funds in legal proceedings should he so choose; thne time to consider starting to spend money on lawyers is when Solomons issues such proceedings, if indeed he does so but, if his own legal advisers are worth their salt, he may well be advised that he might lose and, if he does, find himself liable not only for his own legal costs but also those of the defence. He would be most unwise to fail carefully to consider his position on that front alone before barging ahead with proceedings.

[Zucchini]

Yes, I completely agree with ahinton too.

Is this thread appropriate for this Forum? This is an active legal dispute which could perhaps end in court proceedings. It's a sensitive matter.

[MrGongGong]

Yes, I completely agree with ahinton too.

Is this thread appropriate for this Forum? This is an active legal dispute which could perhaps end in court proceedings. It's a sensitive matter.

(For what it's worth)
I think it's most appropriate.
Ian Rawes has spent many years developing an extraordinary resource of recordings and making them available to everyone. This is an attempt to blackmail and bully him by someone who seems to be petty and malicious.
It needs all the publicity it can get which is why I posted it in the first place.

[Gordon]

#13 Zucchini: Yes, I completely agree with ahinton too.

Is this thread appropriate for this Forum? This is an active legal dispute which could perhaps end in court proceedings. It's a sensitive matter.

(For what it's worth)
I think it's most appropriate.
Ian Rawes has spent many years developing an extraordinary resource of recordings and making them available to everyone. This is an attempt to blackmail and bully him by someone who seems to be petty and malicious.
It needs all the publicity it can get which is why I posted it in the first place.

Both these opinions have merit, one moral, as it were, one practical. Mr Solomons does seem a bit mean spirited but that doesn't mean he's got no rights. In this case I think they are very weak at best and he is being petty, but he has the right to argue his case and press it as far as he thinks appropriate. Similarly Mr Rawes has some rights too.

The Law and Justice are not always the same thing so, whatever the rights and wrongs of this case, it may eventually go to law and then a sharp lawyer acting for Mr Solomons would be failing in his duty to his client if he were to ignore this thread, having found it. In its small way it could be construed as conspiracy by Mr Rawes [through agents here present] to defame and to prejudice Solomons' rights [yet to be confirmed in law] accompanied by incitement to raise funds to support that conspiracy. Pedantic? yes, it is but that's the law as practiced by lawyers. One would hope that legal advisers on both sides would see sense?

It's one thing to seek proper legal advice another to advertise publically and get amateur advice and seek financial support. We aren't yet in a formal sub judice situation. Mr Rawes has done what he has in good faith but perhaps has been - in hindsight of course - a little naive but no more naive than thousands of others who do this sort of thing in good faith. Few of us would think of these matters when naming a web site or a small business.

The thread has so far been varied in its content and doesn't seem to me to be biassed against Solomons although there is a sense of sympathy with Mr Rawes. Care and balance all round I think.