What lineup changes led to legal disputes over the band's name and royalties?
Executive summary
Lineup changes frequently trigger fights over who “owns” a band name and who gets royalties because law separates trademark control, master ownership and songwriting credits — with courts and trademark boards weighing public association, control and written agreements [1] [2]. High‑profile examples show two recurring flashpoints: former prominent members attempting to reclaim the name after decades away, and management or an entity holding the federally registered trademark that blocks them [3] [1].
1. Why lineup changes become legal tinder: identity, control and the public’s expectation
When members leave or are replaced, disputes center on three legal and factual questions: what the parties intended, who the public associates with the name, and who controls the product’s quality — i.e., the “controller” (manager, bandleader or entity) [1]. The TTAB and courts explicitly apply those three factors in trademark ownership fights; that framework makes lineup churn a legal risk because public perception and internal control can diverge sharply after personnel shifts [1].
2. Who holds the name — people or a paper entity?
A recurring legal separator is whether an individual ex‑member, the surviving performers, or an LLC/manager holds the trademark registration or other contractual rights. Bands that fail to incorporate clear ownership language create leverage for whoever filed or later registered the mark [1] [2]. Billboard’s coverage of The Guess Who litigation highlights how defendants pointed to federal trademark registration and decades of continuing activity as a defense against former stars’ attempts to “take the name” [3].
3. Former stars vs. continuing lineup: the “formerly of” and nostalgia wars
High‑profile departures fuel litigation when a prominent ex‑member claims the name or a right to royalties after leaving. Billboard reports former Guess Who members Randy Bachman and Burton Cummings tried to reclaim the name decades after leaving, prompting a dispute with the lineup that had continued as the band and owned the registration [3]. The legal question is whether fans would reasonably assume the ex‑member performs or whether the current entity’s use is legitimate [3].
4. Master recordings, songwriting credits and separate royalty streams
Lineup changes don’t automatically transfer song ownership or master rights. Masters typically belong to whoever funded the recording or holds a work‑for‑hire contract; songwriting royalties follow credited authors. Absent clear documentation, former performers who appear on masters can have claims to royalties, and session or former members may still be owed shares [4] [5]. Expert guidance therefore urges bands to list performers on each master and clarify splits to head off late claims [4].
5. What disputes look like in practice: trademark filings, injunctions and TTAB fights
Practical litigation tracks include trademark infringement suits, TTAB proceedings and requests for injunctions preventing a group from using a name while ownership is sorted. The TTAB’s recent rulings emphasize objective evidence of public association and control — not merely seniority as a founder — when awarding ownership [1]. Billboard’s reporting shows defendants invoking the commonplace reality of lineup turnover to argue former members’ claims were “a complete farce” where the current entity had federally registered rights [3].
6. How bands avoid these fights: contracts, registrations and clarity
Legal commentators and practice guides converge on prevention: register the band name as a trademark, form a business entity, and execute a written band agreement that allocates name rights, decision‑making authority and royalty splits [2] [6] [1]. The absence of such documents is the most commonly cited cause of protracted, costly litigation [1] [2].
7. Competing perspectives and hidden incentives in these disputes
Sources show two competing narratives: ex‑members asserting moral ownership based on creation and fame, and incumbent lineups or trademark registrants asserting legal ownership through continuous use and formal registration [3] [1]. Hidden agendas matter: managers or companies that hold registrations can monetize touring and licensing; former stars can seek back royalties or leverage publicity. Both sides wield public sympathy and legal tools to shift bargaining power [3] [1].
Limitations: available sources describe legal principles and case patterns and quote specific reporting on The Guess Who and TTAB rulings, but they do not provide exhaustive case law or outcomes for every dispute; for particular legal advice or case outcomes consult court records or counsel [3] [1].