Hall & Oates Suing Breakfast Company Over Haulin' Oats Granola... And For A Pretty Good Reason

from the under-oats dept

As someone with only a mild and very uneducated interest in music, I am of course a huge fan of the band Hall & Oates. Private eyes, man, they're watching you, and all that. Hall & Oates, can apparently get very unhappy when things are named after them, as we saw when a bunch of drunken weirdos decided to name a SuperPAC after the band. The band, of course, couldn't go for that and got them to shut the whole thing down. And, now, according to the Guardian, the famed rocking duo are going one-on-one with the most unlikely foe: granola. Cue outrage about rockers feeling entitled:

Rather than being flattered by the promise of rolled oats and maple syrup mix that, Early Bird insists, is “perfect by itself or as the base for a breakfast parfait creation”, Daryl Hall and John Oates claim “the name and mark Haulin’ Oats is an obvious play upon Plaintiff’s well-known Hall & Oates mark, and was selected by defendant in an effort to trade off of the fame and notoriety associated with the artist’s and plaintiff’s well-known marks.”

The pair have brought the case in the Brooklyn federal court, where they claim the food company have infringed their trademark with a “phonetic play on Daryl Hall and John Oates’ well-known brand name”.

Now, if you hadn't noticed, two bandmates from the 80's and a freaking granola company probably aren't in the same industries, aren't competing with one another, and customers won't be confused at all into thinking a granola parfait is either Daryl or John, their personalities notwithstanding. So it seems like this should be tossed out, right? Well, maybe not.

Deep within the lawsuit (but not in the Guardian article linked above) is another bizarre tidbit. Apparently, a few years ago, someone else registered a "Haulin' Oats" trademark and started selling oatmeal with that brand. Rather than freak out and sue, representatives for Daryl and John resolved the whole thing amicably, with the other company agreeing to assign the trademark to the rockers and continue to sell their Haulin' Oats oatmeal -- in exchange for a royalty based on sales. You can see that trademark here. As Hall & Oates note in their lawsuit:

Plaintiff is the owner, via assignment, of the mark HAULIN’ OATS that is used in connection with the sale of oatmeal and the provision of food delivery services. Plaintiff is the owner of United States Trademark and Service Mark Reg. No. 4,345,444 for the mark HAULIN’ OATS in International Class 30 for oatmeal and in International Class 39 for food delivery, which mark has been in use since March 1, 2012.

And here's how it all came about:

In 2014, Plaintiff became aware that an entity named Haulin’ Oats, a partnership organized under the laws of California and based in Nashville, Tennessee, was also utilizing the mark HAULIN’ OATS in connection with the sale of oatmeal and the provision of food delivery services.

Thereafter, Plaintiff and Haulin’ Oats entered into a business relationship whereby Haulin’ Oats assigned to Plaintiff its trademark and service mark rights in and to the mark HAULIN’ OATS (including the United States Trademark and Service Mark Registration identified above) and Plaintiff granted a royalty-based license back to Haulin’ Oats.

Based on that, the lawsuit actually makes a lot of sense -- though you wouldn't get any of that from the Guardian's coverage.

There are some bizarre parts in the lawsuit, such as Hall & Oates arguing that because they once put oats on an album cover there might be confusion: That seems difficult to take seriously. But, rather than this just being a case of the rockers freaking out over someone making a play on their name (as implied in the Guardian piece), this actually has a legitimate basis: two different companies came up with the same play on the duo's name, and the rockers actually worked out a reasonable deal with the first, and now that they own the trademark, they're the ones who have to file against the other company using the same name.

Filed Under: daryl hall, granola, hall & oates, haulin' oats, john oates, journalism, reporting, trademark

Hall & Oates Convince Super PAC Named After Them To Shut Down

from the but-now-where-will-the-hall-&-oates-fans-put-their-money? dept

There's been plenty of talk this election season about the rise of PACs and SuperPACs -- and the ease of creating them. Of course, that can lead to some bizarre situations. Take, for example the creation of the Hall and Oates Fans for America SuperPAC, which was recently approved by the Federal Election Commission (found via On the Media). The thinking behind it might not surprise you very much:

“It was really just kind of a joke a couple of us came up with drunk one night. I wish I could say there was more to it, but that’s about it,” said [William] Hansmann.

Hansmann stated that the goal of the SuperPAC was "to create parody videos on YouTube." Seems like as good a use of a SuperPAC as any. As for why they chose famed rock duo Hall & Oates? Well, that was easy:

“When we hit on Hall & Oates, we were just like, who doesn’t love Hall & Oates?” Mr. Hansmann explained.

That may be true... but while everyone may love Hall & Oates... it turns out that Hall & Oates don't really love being associated with a SuperPAC. They had their people "get in touch" with Hansmann and convince him to shut down the SuperPAC, which had raised all of $0. According to Hall & Oates' manager, the duo was wary of any political connection whatsoever, even one involving parody videos:

"Daryl Hall and John Oates recognize that the personal view points of their fans cross all political spectrums and are honored to be supported by their fans everywhere regardless of political affiliation... The PAC's founders recognize that the use of the ‘Hall’ and ‘Oates’ names for the purpose of raising funds is not an appropriate fan activity no matter what the goal of the fund raising activities might be.”

Thankfully, it appears that the dynamic duo and their manager resolved this in a friendly manner, rather than the all-too-typical reaction of some to immediately rush to legal nastygramming.

"Daryl Hall and John Oates are pleased that the amicable dialog with the founders of the Super Pac have brought an expedient resolution to this matter and achieved a result both sides are pleased with."

Of course, what's unclear is if the SuperPAC has just been shut down, or is being renamed. Any suggestions on what else it might be called?

Filed Under: hall & oates, jokes, superpac, videos

Michael Jackson, Pirate Remixer

from the but-of-course dept

We always hear stories about how copyright has to be protected to "protect the artists," and yet time and time again we learn that some of the biggest name artists will often copy directly from each other without credit or payment. It's the way music is made. In James Boyle's excellent book, The Public Domain, there's a really fantastic chapter giving plenty of examples of this in practice. However, Rob Hyndman recently pointed us to another such example, found via Wikipedia, but backed up via its sources of course. The discussion? It's about where Michael Jackson's famous song Billie Jean came from. Turns out, Jackson himself admitted to copying the bass line directly from a Hall and Oates song:

According to Daryl Hall, when Jackson was recording “We Are the World,” Jackson approached him and admitted to lifting the bass line for "Billie Jean" from a Hall and Oates song (apparently referring to Hall’s "I Can't Go For That (No Can Do)" from the 1981 album Private Eyes): "Michael Jackson once said directly to me that he hoped I didn't mind that he copped that groove."

Of course, the really amusing part? Hall responded to Jackson... by telling him he had done the same thing himself to get that bassline in the first place! "It's something we all do," Hall later explained.

Indeed. And yet, under today's laws, it's still considered infringement, and we still hear people looking down on "remixing" or people who create works in this manner, by building on the works of others. And yet, this is one of the most successful pop songs of all time. And the bass was a big part of that. Elsewhere in the Wikipedia article, there's a discussion of how the producer of the song, Quincy Jones, hated the song, and specifically the bass line. Yet Jackson insisted that the bass line was the key to the song, and the two of them fought over it until Jackson won. And the bassline was completely copied.

It's stories like this that make us wonder how people can say with a straight face that copying something can't help to create something new.

Filed Under: bass line, billie jean, copying, copyright, daryl hall, hall & oates, michael jackson, music, remix