OVERVIEW
1.The claim relates to the name ‘the Rubettes’ which was first used by a pop band in 1974.2.The First Claimant (‘AWEL’) was incorporated in March 1976. It is owned and controlled by the Second Claimant (Mr Williams) and his wife. They are the sole shareholders. Mr Williams and the First and Second Defendants (Mr Clarke and Mr Richardson respectively) were all involved with the original band known as the Rubettes at around the time of the band’s formation or during its initial period of success. The Third Defendant (Mr Etherington) began performing with the other parties at a later date.3.In summary, the Claimants’ pleaded case is that:•AWEL (or AWEL and Mr Williams) is the owner of goodwill in the name ‘the Rubettes’ and in the name ‘the Rubettes featuring Alan Williams’ (the ‘Rubettes Names’) when used in relation to live music events, merchandising, music sales and associated goods and services such that when used in relation to those goods and services they denote goods and services authorised by one or both of the Claimants; and•none of the Defendants owns any goodwill associated with the name ‘the Rubettes’.4.The Claimants’ principal claim is that since late 2018 the Defendants’ involvement in a band using, or being promoted under, the name ‘the Rubettes’ amounts to passing off.5.In addition, the Claimants plead that Mr Clarke’s application for a trade mark for the word mark ‘the Rubettes’ in October 2018 (subsequently granted in January 2019):•was made in bad faith contrary to section 3(6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (‘the 1994 Act’);•was in contravention of section 5(4)(a) of the 1994 Act; and•the UK registered trade mark in classes 9, 35 and 41 for the word mark ‘The Rubettes’ (the ‘UK TM’) is consequently invalid under section 47(1) of the 1994 Act.6.The Defendants’ case is, in summary, that there was no agreement as to how the goodwill generated by the band should be owned and that the goodwill was therefore owned by the members of the band jointly and severally.
- 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
