Name Of Group

[dask]

Just curious. If four guys formed a band and hit it big, raking in so much money they couldn't think straight and called themselves The Beedles, would they get in legal trouble?

[The Ace]

No, but they should. Mind you, nobody objected when John, Paul, George and Ringo looked for an alternative to, 'The Crickets.'

[Alex, The G and T]

My first thought was that this has been done already.

A websearch on "The Beedles" turned up some bizarre results. But nothing that would have made enough money to call attention to itself.

A Harry Potter tribute band?!? Among others. If this is a Harry Potter reference, I missed it; despite having kids the right age to have read all of the books and seen all of the movies.

If the reference refers to the moptops... I guess that If Michael Jackson (estate) doesn't own it; no one will notice.

Which begs the question: Paul McCartney is on tour, lately. Does he have to pay royalties to Michael Jackson (estate) for Beatles "covers?"

[Dozmonic]

The HP reference would be The Tales Of Beedle The Bard. Of course, we only have 5 months left until Rowling mania takes over the land with her new book :-)

[dask]

Actually it wasn't reference to anything, especially Harry Potter. This was a conundrum that's been rolling in the back of my mind since at least the early 80s if not earlier. I was just wondering if a common word slurred as if often the case would have any legal ramifications.

[TheTomG]

I'm thinking (and I might add, thinking with no experience, background or knowledge of the law) that it would depend on whether this move could be claimed to be to increase their profit by trading on an already successful trademark.

If our The Beedles band plays 60s style pop, designing their logos and album covers to look similar to things of that era, and adopt style and clothing that are similar to The Beatles the case can be made (I would guess) that this is indeed a deliberate attempt to trade off the success of another trademarked name.

If they are a hardcore punk band / industrial crossover who all have pink hair, and their album covers are decidedly works of over-modern attempts to be up to the minute and cool, then one would say this is just a name and no intent to pick up on the following, audience etc exists. Most importantly, they wouldn't be trying to exploit the money and time invested in making Trademark A (The Beatles) In fact most likely their choice of name will hinder rather than help them.

But who knows if the law makes sense in that kind of way? Not I.

[Harpo]

The 90s Nirvana had to pay the 60s Nirvana a few grand to use the name. That's the biggest example I know of.

I don't think anyone has to pay any royalties to cover a song live onstage, just for releasing it.

[Ursa major]

Wasn't the bumbling singer** and actor, Harry Secombe, a member of The Beadles...?










** - Secombe described himself as a can belto tenor.