Mr Clarke asked for more money. Mr Williams agreed to pay a higher appearance fee. Mr Clarke wanted more.
262.As mentioned above, the evidence relating to the financial discussions between the band members from the spring of 2018 onwards is not satisfactory. There are various accounts of what was discussed and when. The only evidence relating specifically to the changed appearance fee is given by Mr Williams. The Amended Particulars of Claim suggest that there were discussions relating to an increased performance fee in around September or October 2018 and Mr Williams’ written evidence (as mentioned above) states that these discussions took place in or around July.263.The Amended Defence admits only that there were discussions (at an unspecified time) about the division of the band’s profits.264.In the light of the evidence discussed here, and also in the context of the assessment of bad faith above, I find that there were financial tensions within the band and that Mr Clarke was perceived by Mr Williams to be a source of such tensions.(iv)
- OVERVIEW
- PROCEDURAL HISTORY
- THE CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL
- THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND
- THE ISSUES FOR TRIAL
- the Defendants’ Signs
- COMMENTS ON THE EVIDENCE AND THE WITNESSES
- Credit Suisse
- Singh v Jhutti
- Painter v Hutchison
- THE RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES
- Reckitt & Colman v Borden
- Goodwill
- McAlpine
- IRC v Mullers & Co Margarine
- The ownership of goodwill
- Byford v Oliver
- Burchell
- Ad-Lib Club Ltd v Granville
- Star Industrial Co Ltd v Yap Kwee Kor
- Sutherland v V2 Music
- Dent v Turpin
- Parker & Son (Reading) Ltd v Parker
- Starbucks (HK) Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Band
- Misrepresentation / damage
- Phones 4U
- Red Bull GmbH v Sun Mark Ltd and Sea Air & Land Forwarding Ltd
- Red Bull
- THE PRINCIPAL SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL
- The Claimants’ submissions
- The 1994 Agreements
- The Defendants’ submissions
- Ownership of goodwill – the relevant facts and assessment
- owned by Rubettes 1976 Limited
- Ultraframe v Fielding
- Claimants
- Defendants
- Facts
- www.therubettes.co.uk
- British Telecommunications Plc v One in a Million Ltd
- TRADE MARK ISSUES
- Facts and evidence
- Bank St Petersburg PJSC & Anor v Arkhangelsky
- Timing and Mr Williams’ knowledge
- Mr Clarke’s motivations for registering the trade mark
- The Rubettes
- John Richardson
- Michael Clarke
- Registered Trademark & Copyright Owner
- Subject:
- RE: THE RUBETTES
- Mr Clarke’s belief that Mr Williams was retiring and disbanding the band
- Flagrancy
- Up until early March 2018, Mr Clarke did not know or care how much AWEL was charging for gigs.
- Mr Clarke found out in about March 2018 that some of the European gigs were more lucrative than he previously believed.
- Mr Clarke asked for more money. Mr Williams agreed to pay a higher appearance fee. Mr Clarke wanted more.
- On 1 July 2018, Mr Williams sent an email to Mr Clarke sacking him from the band.
- Shortly after the 1 July email, Mr Clarke began a clandestine course of conduct to put together a “Rubettes” band without Mr Williams and invited Mr Richardson and Mr Etherington to join. They accepted.
- The Defendants continued to play with Mr Williams until September. They did not tell him what they were planning. As soon as he was out of the country, they started putting their plans into action.
- The Defendants have gained increased opportunities from their passing off which they would not have had if they had started off under a new name, such as connections with promotors and venues they wouldn’t otherwise have got.
- The position of Mr Etherington
- CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY
- Rahbarpoor & Anor v Suliman & Ors