London Sound Survey Crisis

[ahinton]

I wrote
Indeed - but then no one IS telling you that, or anything like it!
and you responded

Really ?

Yes, really! - or at least I'm not telling you that !...

[Dave2002]

Quite. I would actually be surprised, however, were Mr Solomons prepared to fund a lawyer's letter before action and then enter into and fund such litigation but, even if he were, there's no certainty that a lawyer would take on such a case, or that even if one did so he/she'd be able to find counsel willing to accept instructions therein or that, even if all that were possible, a court would be prepared to try such a case (courts are usually quite well versed in sniffing out vexatious litigation that would be a waste of their time); it seems to me that, unless Mr Solomons is indeed bluffing and he wouldn't actually do any of this, he could stand to lose money if he cannot progress his case to trial.

I would expect serious legal action to become expensive on either side quite quickly.

The parties could (each) perhaps start actions in the Small Claims Courts which would be cheaper - and conduct their own cases, but without a clear statement and estimate of what damages have been/would be incurred I would not expect this to be a way forward, as neither has a contractual relationship with the other, and any attempt to initiate a legal case on such a basis would almost certainly fail IMO.

Here I really am writing out of ignorance, as I'm not sure whether the Small Claims Courts deal with this kind of dispute.

[ahinton]

I would expect serious legal action to become expensive on either side quite quickly.

The parties could (each) perhaps start actions in the Small Claims Courts which would be cheaper - and conduct their own cases, but without a clear statement and estimate of what damages have been/would be incurred I would not expect this to be a way forward, as neither has a contractual relationship with the other, and any attempt to initiate a legal case on such a basis would almost certainly fail IMO.

Here I really am writing out of ignorance, as I'm not sure whether the Small Claims Courts deal with this kind of dispute.

Your expectations would indeed be correct. However, if Mr Rawes continues to ignore or fail to comply with Mr Solomons' demands, only Mr Solomons would be in a position to ommence legal action against Mr Rawes, not the other way around (unless Mr Solomons harassed Mr Rawse sufficiently that Mr Rawse felt minded to bring action against him for that, which would of course be an entirely separate issue). There would be no damages due to Mr Rawse as he would not have lost anything; there would be damages payable to Mr Solomons only in the event that he's found to be wholly within his rights and accordingly win his case.

[MrGongGong]

Yes, really! - or at least I'm not telling you that !...

I know you aren't.

I'm really starting to regret posting this in the first place as it seems to have turned into an endless round of legalistic speculation.
My only concern was that someone who I have great respect and admiration for in the work he has done is being threatened and possibly subjected to attempted blackmail.

Some people just want to get on with the things that are their passion without being bullied or having to undertake ridiculous amounts of administration to pre-empt idiots attempting to blackmail them.

Some things (like what many of us do for £) are "businesses" others, even though they might have that legal status, clearly aren't.

[Stillhomewardbound]

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/

[Stillhomewardbound]

I'm really starting to regret posting this in the first place as it seems to have turned into an endless round of legalistic speculation.

I don't think you should regret starting this thread Mr GG at all. It raises a very important issue, but yes, I can understand your frustration that the question has rather brought out the barrack-room lawyer in us all.

You might message the Mods to see if they want to close the thread. I sometimes think that that is an option not applied often enough as most discussions begin to go around in circles after all that can be usefully said has been said.

As they used to say in the Letters pages of the qualities, 'this correspondence is now closed'.

[Stillhomewardbound]

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 counsel of 'Citizens Advice'.

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

[ahinton]

I know you aren't.

I'm really starting to regret posting this in the first place as it seems to have turned into an endless round of legalistic speculation.

Don't worry; unless anyone's in possession of the full facts of both sides, it could hardly have done much else, really!

My only concern was that someone who I have great respect and admiration for in the work he has done is being threatened and possibly subjected to attempted blackmail.

A concern that I'm sure many here share in principle even if they do not know the person concerned.

Some people just want to get on with the things that are their passion without being bullied or having to undertake ridiculous amounts of administration to pre-empt idiots attempting to blackmail them.

Indeed so - and so they should; provided that what they want to do is neither harmful nor illegal, that is a basic human right.

Some things (like what many of us do for £) are "businesses" others, even though they might have that legal status, clearly aren't.

And perhaps other, like that of Mr Solomons, may be genuine bona fide businesses but whose owners are sufficiently unprincipled not to be averse to unbusinesslike activity on the side...

[ahinton]

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/

Good for you. I can only hope that the local Citizens' Advice office hasn't fallen apart like the one local to me...

I think that you've hit the nail on the head here; until and unless Mr Solomons seizes the opportunity to issue proceedings against Mr Rawes (which, as I've suggested, he might think better of doing if he knows that he doesn't have the rights that he seeks to assert because he's not registered what he'd have needed to do in order to secure them - and, in any case, even if he'd done that, it would seem to be very hard to prove that Mr Solomons' business has been adversely affected by Mr Rawse since the latter is not even a business competitor of his).

[Beef Oven!]

Only just seen this thread, glad I spotted it because my friend has a little boat on the River Lea in Hackney and he was going to name it 'London Sound'. He plays sounds from the local environment through speakers on it and has little BBQs, from time to time. He doesn't make much money, barely covers his costs. I better tell him that he can't name his boat London Sound unless he pays Solomons a fee or risk being taken to court for something, or other.

[ahinton]

Only just seen this thread, glad I spotted it because my friend has a little boat on the River Lea in Hackney and he was going to name it 'London Sound'. He plays sounds from the local environment through speakers on it and has little BBQs, from time to time. He doesn't make much money, barely covers his costs. I better tell him that he can't name his boat London Sound unless he pays Solomons a fee or risk being taken to court for something, or other.

Or not! You might tell him about it, of course, but I wouldn't go so far as to make any such recommendation, at least at the present stage!

One might argue that it could be considered unsafe to question the effectiveness of London as UK's capital by asking "is London sound?"...

I wonder what the late lamented Yonty Solomon would have said about this...

[Beef Oven!]

Or not! You might tell him about it, of course, but I wouldn't go so far as to make any such recommendation, at least at the present stage!

One might argue that it could be considered unsafe to question the effectiveness of London as UK's capital by asking "is London sound?"...

I wonder what the late lamented Yonty Solomon would have said about this...

But Solomons appears to have trade-marked/copyrighted those words, unless I've misunderstood this whole discussion, links etc. If I've understood it right, one can now only call one's enterprise 'London Sound' if a fee is paid to Solomons because he got there first (1969, it seems).

[french frank]

But Solomons appears to have trade-marked/copyrighted those words,.

Gotta come back on that. A general point: the UK Copyright Service says you can't 'copyright' a name. The main disputes as far as I can see seems to be large corporations suing small businesses which appear to be passing themselves off as being connected with the larger group.

[Beef Oven!]

Gotta come back on that. A general point: the UK Copyright Service says you can't 'copyright' a name. The main disputes as far as I can see seems to be large corporations suing small businesses which appear to be passing themselves off as being connected with the larger group.

So what is Solomons' argument based on, then? Have I missed something?

[french frank]

So what is Solomons' argument based on, then? Have I missed something?

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.