| 12yrslouetta 22.09.2008 19:19 |
what would happen If John Deacon came out of retirement today and decided hed get a band together, could he call that band Queen?? |
| Mr Mercury 22.09.2008 19:59 |
Yes, provided that he hasnt signed a legal agreement with Brian and Roger (and maybe even Freddie's estate) saying that he doesnt want to or wont use it. |
| Cwazy little thing 22.09.2008 20:28 |
Mr Mercury wrote: Yes, provided that he hasnt signed a legal agreement with Brian and Roger (and maybe even Freddie's estate) saying that he doesnt want to or wont use it.Which I might suggest he probably has. Its almost certainly irrelevant anyway - John Deacon is as likely to make a return as Freddie - I genuinely dont see it! |
| AlexRocks 22.09.2008 20:44 |
No he cannot because BRIAN MAY owns the name. I really don't understand the never ending incompetance with the people concerning this. |
| Winter Land Man 22.09.2008 21:34 |
AlexRocks wrote: No he cannot because BRIAN MAY owns the name. I really don't understand the never ending incompetance with the people concerning this.Brian May certainly does not own the Queen name. Brian, Roger, John, AND Mary Austin own it. |
| Adam Baboolal 22.09.2008 23:23 |
Uhm...Queen is a company. It's like me setting up a business called Starbucks when it already exists and is currently trading. No go. I don't know what body holds the name - I would hope it's just Brian and Roger. But I dare say, it probably does have some managerial involvement. Adam. |
| Lester Burnham 22.09.2008 23:45 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: I don't know what body holds the name - I would hope it's just Brian and Roger. But I dare say, it probably does have some managerial involvement.I can almost guarantee that Jim Beach has a huge say in many of the decisions... |
| Micrówave 23.09.2008 11:54 |
John Deacon came out of retirement and formed a new band called Queene. Of course, John wanted to be the frontman this time... so they were all instrumentals. They briefly toured the Elibiary coast and had the Freddie Mercury Photgraph Exhibition open for them. John would constantly rant in between songs about how he HAD to change the name cause Freddie wasn't in the band anymore, so he added an "e". He would also tell Paul Rodgers jokes: How many Paul Rodgers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Just one. He sticks it in the socket and the world revolves around him. I'm sure you've heard the lot. Anyhow, they sucked. Real bad. All they would play is funk hits and ballads, but of course no one would sing. John started doing a lot of pelvic thrusts at this point as well, which really didn't go over well. And he brought out the Magic shorts, which don't look good this side of 60. But he did let his nuts hang, so I have to give him credit there. Until the next hater thread! Mic |
| Headlong24 23.09.2008 13:11 |
Is this a real post??? Or actually John Deacon himself wanting to know if he can use the name! |
| ok.computer 23.09.2008 17:58 |
Interesting point about Queen "the company" as opposed to the band. Wonder if John is still a director in any shape or form with any of the Queen "interests".... |
| Cwazy little thing 23.09.2008 18:19 |
ok.computer wrote: Interesting point about Queen "the company" as opposed to the band. Wonder if John is still a director in any shape or form with any of the Queen "interests"....Im not sure about this company idea. A band is not normally a company - its actually in essence a partnership, which is a different thing legally. There are certainly companies involved with Queen, but these are things like Queen Productions Ltd. Im not convinced the band itself is a company of which the band are directors - this is a strange thing to do if you ask me. More likely the band name is owned by the surviving three and Freddie's estate, unless some agreement has been drawn up giving it to just one of them, or Bri and Rog as the two practising members. The Queen companies, of which there are a few (including Queen Touring Limited, which is the company which owns the new album) are probably owned by the sorts of people mentioned on this thread, including the band. However, it is possible, perhaps even very likely that "Queen" is a registered trademark, and as such anyone using the same name would be in trouble and have to stop. This seems more likely to me. I could search the registry now, but I dont think I can be bothered at this time of night! |
| Cwazy little thing 23.09.2008 18:51 |
In fact, it was foolish of me to use any other word than definately - I got bored, so I've just checked after all, and the Queen name, and every version of the Queen logo and way of drawing the name used to date are registered trademarks for all manner of products and gubbins. In short, no one else can use the name or logos for any of the things they have been registered against. John, although possibly still a director/shareholder of Queen Productions Limited cant use the name unless the company agrees/licenses it to him, which it wouldnt. So he cant. I havent yet found anything registered for Queen+ Paul Rodgers, so Id like to venture at this point that John COULD possibly call himself THAT, and not breach any trademark, but there are unregistered rights which the others could rely on - theres a thing called passing off which they could probably use against him. Still, I think it would be hilarious if John came back under the name Queen+ Paul Rodgers. |
| Ray D O'Gaga 23.09.2008 19:05 |
ok.computer wrote: Interesting point about Queen "the company" as opposed to the band. Wonder if John is still a director in any shape or form with any of the Queen "interests"....I'm sure he's still cashing checks from Queen Productions Ltd., et al. As I believe Brian said in a recent interview, "he talks to our accountants more often than he talks to us." John has always had his mind on his money and his money on his mind, yo. I also believe John and Roger played a charity gig in '94 in which they were billed as "Queen", which was the first instance, post-Freddie, of two members of the band holding themselves out as "Queen" as a live act. So you folks who think John is a saint for not being involved with Brian and Roger these days, you've got no one to blame but John for starting the whole thing. And Roger. So maybe you can all start hating Roger instead of Brian. Or better yet, just hate all three of them. Thou shalt not speak ill of St. Fred. |
| shieldmatron 23.09.2008 19:37 |
Ray D O'Gaga wrote: Thou shalt not speak ill of St. Fred.Now this made me laugh. :D |
| Brianmay1975 23.09.2008 19:43 |
Ray D O'Gaga wrote:Why not hate Freddie too? After all, he was the one who died and created this situation. He is to blame for the unhappiness the Q+PR haters feel so strongly!ok.computer wrote: Interesting point about Queen "the company" as opposed to the band. Wonder if John is still a director in any shape or form with any of the Queen "interests"....I'm sure he's still cashing checks from Queen Productions Ltd., et al. As I believe Brian said in a recent interview, "he talks to our accountants more often than he talks to us." John has always had his mind on his money and his money on his mind, yo. I also believe John and Roger played a charity gig in '94 in which they were billed as "Queen", which was the first instance, post-Freddie, of two members of the band holding themselves out as "Queen" as a live act. So you folks who think John is a saint for not being involved with Brian and Roger these days, you've got no one to blame but John for starting the whole thing. And Roger. So maybe you can all start hating Roger instead of Brian. Or better yet, just hate all three of them. Thou shalt not speak ill of St. Fred. |