Hawkwind Trademark Wars

[Paul Mather]

On Apr 15, 2013, at 8:23 AM, Carl Edlund Anderson <cea at CARLAZ.COM> wrote:

> Yet I can't help but think that it doesn't matter too much.  So what Nik (or anyone) trademark's "Nik Turner's Hawkwind"? Is it really going to generate any appreciable quantity of money, or take away any appreciable revenue from Hawkwind "proper"? I doubt it.  Is it really legit, and have Brock & Co. the right to object? Sure, I can see that too.  Seems fair that Nik could call himself "ex-Hawkwind" yet also that he should not use the term "Hawkwind in his organizational name. OK, fine. But ... seriously, even as a fan of "Hawkwind music", I just can't get emotional over yet another spat -- whoever's justified -- between different members, ex-members, etc.  Whatever, guys: sort it out ... or not.  


I thought this was now de rigeur in Geezer (or Classic or Dinosaur or whatever) Rock bands?  It seems to me to be standard practice nowadays to tour under the name "${FORMER_MEMBER}'s ${NAME_OF_BAND}", usually where ${FORMER_MEMBER} is a generation older than the rest of the touring band. :-)  Come to think of it, it's not just rock bands: it's soul, R&B, do-wop, and anything that has enough age on it to attract the disposable income of the Baby Boomer (or even Generation X) crowd.

Personally, I think it's a simple, healthy warning to the ticket-buying public.  It lets them know that, yes, technically, they will be seeing a small subset of their once-favourite band, but, when it comes down to it, it won't be the authentic experience from the halcyon days they remember.  I mean, if you saw a poster for "Ringo Starr's Beatles" or "Ronnie Wood's Rolling Stones," how could you NOT be forewarned that you weren't getting the real deal from bygone years? :-)

I'm not entirely sure of the need to trademark, but maybe it is to have a clear case against bootleg t-shirt vendors and the likes?  IANAL.

Cheers,

Paul.