OTN Correspondent, Eric Maloney covers the Chicago scene for us. Hewill be reviewing national, regional, and local bands to the midwest.
Amazing Crowns Get Royally Screwed
According to the Ultimate Bands List, There are twenty-eight recording artists usingthe word “Daddy” in their names. In fact, there are 2 bands called DaddyLonglegs, and 2 others called Daddy Cool. Then you’ve got your close similarities,such as Stray Dog and Straydog (and their obvious cousin, the Stray Cats). The list ofrecording artists with strikingly similar names is miles long. For some reason, perhaps toprovide eternal job security for trademark lawyers across the land, swing revivalists theRoyal Crown Revue have set a very controversial precedent that transcends the musicindustry by successfully bringing suit against rockabilly punk artist the Amazing RoyalCrowns
Warner Brothers recording artist the Royal Crown Revue owns the trademark rights to itsname, as most businesses do (Pepsi, Coke, Nike, etc.). A trademark is a brand name, aword, name, symbol, device, or any combination of those, to be used as a way to identifyand distinguish the goods or services sold by one business entity from those sold byothers. Essentially, when a recording artist trademarks its name with the U.S. Patents& Trademarks Office (USPTO) – as the Royal Crown Revue did in 1991 – itsobjective is to prevent some other band from using the same name, intentionally orotherwise. Imagine the confusion that would ensue if there were 2 bands sporting the samename, releasing albums, touring the country! You might run out and buy tickets to see yourfavorite American rock band, the Dogs. You could easily find yourself in the middle if aDogs concert, alright – but it just may be the other Dogs, a French new wave rapquartet.
Who remembers the classic film Spinal Tap? Remember how comical this sounded?“First we were first called the Originals. But then there was another band in theEast End called the Originals. So we changed our name. The New Originals. And then theychanged their name back to the Regulars, and then we thought, maybe we could change ourname back to the Originals, but what’s the point.” And now, in real life and notin a fictional comedy film, this absurdity has come to life – all thanks to WarnerBrothers and the highly motivated legal team for the Royal Crown Revue. What if the 70spunk rock band New Order wanted to re-unite with a record and tour? They might meet someresistance, because they never trademarked their name and the famous Brit-dance-pop bandthat is also called New Order did trademark the name in 1980. Oh boy. However, maybe theoriginal New Order has what is known as “common law” rights to the name –similar to a common law marriage. In fact, according to the USPTO, under common lawrights, “The first to use [the name] in commerce…has the ultimate right to itsuse.” Basically, if you can prove that you used the name first in commerce, then youhave ultimate rights to the use of the name. The original New Order was selling recordsfor RCA in 1977, while the Brit-dance-pop New Order formed in 1980 and released its firstrecord in 1981.
Let’s go left of the business side of this music business topic. In the“music business,” the “business” tends to interfere with the“music” quite often. So, let’s talk about the music. That’s whatit’s all about, right? Musically speaking, both the Royal Crown Revue and the AmazingCrowns are dynamite.
Royal Crown Revue formed in Los Angeles c. 1990 and has emerged as one of the finestartists associated with the swing revival movement. Their music is much richer than whatyou’ll hear from most other neo-swing outfits, as they blend swing with some hip-hop,big band, and traditional dancehall sounds. Vocalist Eddie Nichols is a very charismaticand potent bandleader whose stage presence is simply awesome. Tenor saxophonist MandoDorame and baritone saxophonist Bill Underman are 100% jazz school players, and the bandswings as crisp and energetic as the best of ‘em. 1995’s Mugzy’s Move putRCR on the national swing map, and the live Caught In The Act (1997) made “BarfliesAt The Beach” a cult hit. Royal Crown Revue is currently touring to support itslatest Warner Bros. release, Contender.
The Amazing Royal Crowns formed in Providence, R.I., taking their name from a can ofhair grease made by J. Strickland & Co., and have exploded through the Boston rockscene as the most exciting “fast-swingin’ rockabilly punk” band to comealong since the Revernd Horton Heat. Like the Rev, the Amazing Crowns recipe calls for asmuch Duane Eddy as it does the Clash, as much X as Johnny Cash, and as much Black Flag asHank Williams. As Dickie Barrett of the Mighty Mighty Bosstones so eloquently put it,“They play a wicked hybrid of punk and rockabilly so fierce they sound like the StrayCats on steroids.” The Crowns recently played a few dates on the Vans Warped tour,they have toured opening for the Bosstones and the Cramps, and will hit the road with theRev in November and December in support of their self-titled Velvel debut.
It’s a shame, this particular trademark issue is. Trademark law certainly has itsmeaningful purpose of protecting original names for the sake of product identification anddistinction. But the Royal Crown Revue precedent opens a potentially enormous can ofworms. Now, any artist whose name even remotely resembles another’s is in danger ofhaving to change its name. That means changing its entire scheme, spending countlessdollars on informing fans, re-designing merchandise, and all the other mountainous costsassociated with changing the name of a business. If a band came along and called itselfthe Royale Crowne Review, then the Royal Crown Revue would absolutely have a legitimategripe. But the Amazing Royal Crowns is simply not a name that would cause confusion, notto mention the fact that the artists are playing very different styles of music withlittle audience crossover. Simply put, Royal Crown Revue fans wear zoot suits, take swingdance lessons, drink martinis and smoke cigars; Amazing Crowns fans wear mechanics’shirts, drive muscle cars, grease their hair with pomade, and are more likely to sport amohawk and multiple body piercings. In a world in which Excel Communications, ExcelLogistics, Microsoft Excel, and the 375 (yes, an actual figure) other entities withtrademarks on the word “excel” can live happily together – especially whereone of them is owned by Bill Gates! – why can’t Warner Brothers and its team ofpower lawyers resist the urge of wielding the almighty hand of commerce and interferingwith art?
There are 27 trademarks registered with the U.S. Trademark & Patent Officeprotecting the term “Royal Crown.” The first was Royal Crown Cola in 1906. Afterthat came a host of others, including manufacturers of after-shave, mattress coil, liquor(the Crown Royal brand name), chinaware, an Illinois saddle shop, a trucking company, agarment company in New York City… and, uh, oh yeah, the TWENTY-THIRD patent of“Royal Crown” was a recording artist called Royal Crown Revue. The Amazing RoyalCrowns were forced to drop the “Royal” because Royal Crown Revue had used thewords “Royal” and “Crown” together first. By this standard, there are22 companies with larger bragging rights to the name, 22 lawyers who could charge up asmall fortune – or a very large one for that matter – en route to compelling theRoyal Crown Revue to change its name. And so I pose the simple question: where do they getoff?
Do the fine folks over at Warner Bros. truly think that the names of these artistscould possibly cause confusion? Or were they simply trying to stomp on Velvel, a muchsmaller label with much less legal muscle? Or was the overpriced legal team sitting aroundthe water cooler one day, feeling guilty at how its members had honed their skills in thecomputer game Minesweeper, and pulled this ridiculous matter out from deep within thebowels of legal pointlessness as a means of justifying its existence? Or, was it simply apublicity vehicle to generate more buzz about the Royal Crown Revue before the swingrevival ducks out of the commercial mainstream and back under the less lucrative umbrellaof hardcore roots music fanaticism? I do so remember where swing music dwelled for decadesbefore Mr. Setzer opened the floodgates for the dueling Daddies (Cherry Poppin’ andBig Bad Voodoo). You don’t need to be a fan of the contemporary swing movement toappreciate the fact that it has re-introduced the likes of Count Basie, Duke Ellington,Louis Prima, Lionel Hampton, Glenn Miller, Louis Jordan, Cab Calloway, Benny Goodman, JoeWilliams, Jimmy Rushing, and countless others, to young people. I am too enthusiasticabout the rebirth of roots music into the pop mainstream to sit silently while some recordlabel giant pulls a below-the-belt sophomoric bully stunt on any artist, but especiallyone as formidable as the Amazing (Royal) Crowns. Then again, what do I know? A recent USAToday poll deemed lawyers to represent the least prestigious vocation. Journalists weresecond least prestigious.
The music rocks on both ends, so why all the fuss? Both artists will sweep you off yourfeet both in recording and in performance. The recent Royal Crown Revue v. Amazing Crownscase has nothing to do with the music and everything to do with shoddy publicity andinflated egos. Perhaps one of those 22 companies could sue the Royal Crown Revue as a wayof…. Nah. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Just listen to the music.
Eric Maloney August, 1998
Any comments about Eric's review, you can contact him at ermaloney@aol.com.
