Otis on the WAR PATH!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MissTara]

ramzy said:

misstara said:

Ultimately you may be right as far as the legal outcome, but there is no real justice in this thing. Otis reminds me of the little kid who couldnt hit catch or run but he was the one who had the bat ball and gloves. I have lost all respect for the man all respect. To do this to guys who gave as much as Dennis Glenn and Ollie gave is simply ridiculous He may own the right to name but we all know that the group is more than just a name it was the people who made the name.

Oh, I couldn't agree with you more. However, I've done my fair share of "Otis bashing" in my day, but no matter what Otis' voice (or lack thereof) sounds like, the entire sound to the song would completely change if he weren't in it. Not neccesarily for the good either.

I was just telling a friend last night, that from a business side, I completely understand where Otis is coming from. Anyone of us would do the same thing, and you know it. However, from the fan side, the only thing I can think of is "Aint nobody comin' to see you Otis"...So I can relate to both sides of the story here.

[stilltempting21]

i don't think that the statement "ain't nobody coming to see you otis" applies anymore because everyone knows when you see the temptations the real temptations your seeing the real deal the last ORGINAL MEMBER!!! so he is the reason people are coming to see the temptations because he is the real deal like it or not he has been there from day one through all the ups and downs so he deserves the right to the name....he has been with the group for over 40 years...glenn was with the group how long? 7 years... ali was with the group how long...about 11 years i believe, and dennis was with the group how long? 13 years!! all three of them together haven't put the number of miles on the tires as otis has....if it wasn't for otis there would be no glenn or ali or dennis they would just be half of what they are but being in the group the temptations...put them on the highest mountain peak....so what gives them the right to take a advantagae of a privilege they had....if they are such great singers they shouldn't have to use the temptations name people would just want to go see them right? but they can't they know if you put the name temptations infront of there name the people come running and that is wrong they are taking advantage of legacy and taking advantage of eddie paul david melvin and O because Glenn and ali aren't singing songs from when they were in the group but the songs that were made famous by the C5 and none of them were in the tempts at that time. So O has every right to protect the temptations name!!

[MissTara]

(((stilltempting))) I mos def understand what you are saying, as I agreed that I understand his (Otis) point and would do the same as he. However, I don't believe that the average Temptations fan really knows who from who. You and I, die hard tempts fans do. Any show I've been to the average person in the audience doesn't know which of these guys sings what. They just know that they like the familiar songs such as TWYDTTYD, PWARS, JMI, etc

If you were able to understand what songs I just referred to, then you are a die hard temptation fan. The average fan would just look at that and think what?

[DrTemptation "Doc T"]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my opinion, Otis has left a bad taste in the mouth of the former Temptations. I believe that they must be professional, but a professional has to develop good relational skills. The Temptations seem to be a dictatorship. Otis controls everything. Since Eddie and Paul left the Temptations the only ones who had a voice was Otis and Melivin(rest his soul).

The former Temptations contributed to the continued success of the group. Dennis Edwards fought for that right to use the name "Temptation" in some form. The rest of the former Tempts must fight for the same right.

I agree that they can't call themselves the Temptations. But I believe they have the right to use the name in some form. Dennis really paved the way, and right now Dennis' group of Temptations can stand toe to toe with Otis' group.

Otis is on the WAR path because other groups of Temptations are better than his current line-up. WHOSE FAULT IS THAT....OTIS HAS BROUGHT A LOT OF THIS ON HIMSELF......PERIOD.

Ali Woodson, Glenn Lenard set their own standard....and these excellent voices were Otis' loss.

Otis is sueing for total control of the name. If the others follow what Dennis did, Otis will not be able to have total control.

THAT IS A TRUE STATEMENT
"ain't nobody coming to see you Otis" In the movie he shut his mouth.......cause that's the TRUTH

DOCTOR TEMPTATION

[tman2429]

Coming to see Otis by himself?... No. Coming to see him as a Temptation?.....Yes. Especially the die hard fans. Formers may be as good as O's but No real record deal (as far as I Know). Takes less pay ( if that's true). Means to me that there is a gap somewhere. Also, I wonder what Bruce is going to do for the group. He can sing with the best of the leads. I did not say he is better but he brings and energy that the review does not now have IMO. Now how do you leave a group and take the name with you? If you joined a group you are not the group. You Are a member. I think Dennis can name himself DENNIS EDWARD & FRIENDS SING and still make money (if he and his friends are that good) and I know that they are. They don't need to be the Temptations.

[Melody]

(((Beej))), Thanks for breaking things down for me.

I did not think of this until after I read your message. I think if someone is using your name, and you don't like it, you should nip it in the butt right away. To me waiting in essence is telling that person(s) that it is ok to use the name. I know in criminal cases they wait to build a case, but this is different. Now in this situation I do not know if there is any statute of limitations. The group "The Legendeary Lead Singers of the Temptations" have been out for a while. At one point here one of the posters even posted their concert dates. From the result of this suit, the judge may find that the name "Temptations" cannot be used by another group, but I don't think unless (((Otis))) had warn the group that if they did not stop using the name, he was going to sue, I do not think any damages should be awarded - just if it is determined that the name "Temptations" can no longer be used - because by keeping guiet I think Otis was saying it was ok to use the name. TTYL!

[AnnaK]

I agree that it would be wrong for anyone else to use the name "The Temptations." On the other hand, a court has already decided that it is not wrong for Dennis Edwards to use that name in connection with a modifier, such as "Review" attached. The guys -- and their lawyers -- may view this ruling as a precedent. It seems to be pretty obvious that "The Temptations Reunion" is not the same group as "The Temptations." Before Otis Williams can sue someone for using a derivative form of that name, he should have to prove that he actually has the right to do so, in my opinion. Right now, it looks as if he only owns the right to the name "The Temptations."

[janebse]

Melody,
Your point is certainly one factor. I understand that if your neighbor plants bushes on your side of the property line , and you say nothing, eventually that property line has moved and the bushes and the land in which they are rooted becomes his. However, I do not know the time limit for action. I plant bushes around my lot for any house I own, but I have discovered that when someone buys a house on the side of me or behind me, the new owner informs me he was told by the previous owner that those bushes were his. I quickly inform him this is not so. Now I make sure that any new owners around me know from the get-go that I own the land and the bushes.

But using a name which has commercial value in its fame may include different factors. I do not know to whom the blame goes but I have seen on Ticketmaster and in advertisements a picture of THE TEMPTATIONS when the group that is appearing is NOT the Temptations even though one or two may have been former Temptations. And the group is not as sharp and professional as The TEMPTATIONS which results in people being disappointed in the act. Unfortunately they do not know they are not seeing Otis and the real Temptations. In fact, a friend recently saw Bo in Las Vegas with The Drifters and said Bo had still not lost his Temptation sharpness and professionalism.

These groups do not spend the hours The Tempts do practicing and so the result is not good. Theo said the difference between the Tops and the Tempts was that the Tempts worked really hard and practiced and were very disciplined. The Tops were laid back and rarely praciticed, a fact which was also known way back iin the early Motown days.

To my utter surprise, a number of times when I have been at a Temptations' concert, the people sitting next to me had never seen the real Temptations, but they had seen one of the other groups (even Dennis' Review), and their first question to me was and is "Are they professional? The question appears so strange I always ask them whom they previously saw. My response is, "I won't answer your question now, but after the show I want you to tell me what you think." The very fact that they ask that question (after they have asked me if I have seen The TEMPTATIONS before) tells me immediately that they did not find the previous act they saw "professional."
So each time, after the concert and while the guys are signing autographs, I turn to them and say, "Were they professional?" And everytime, in a tone of awe and wonder, they sigh and say, "Oh, my, yes. Now I know why The Temptations are legendary."\

So, in my experience, Otis is correct in thinking that these acts do damage to the reputation of THE TEMPTATIONS. Masny of these people have seen Dennis and the Review and been disappointed. One couple had seen Dennis at Disney World (performance was on streets and free to audience) and were disappointed after a few minutes and walked away; unfortunately they thought they had seen THE TEMPTATIONS. One couple had seen Dennis and the Review in Germany and disappointed in what they saw had decided to see an original Tempt, Otis. They bought seats for $125 each because they were so desperately hoping that THE TEMPTATIONS were real and professional. And they were so excited by the performance. Yes, they found them entirely professional.


Many years ago I saw The Temptations perform in a tent at the New Orleans JAZZFEST. Now there were a lot of famous acts in the tents and, at least, 100,000 people there. The temperature was in the 90's. It was hot outside and even hotter in the tent. The tent the Tempts were performiing in was the largest tent; there were chairs, but all of those had been taken hours before the Tempts appeared; it was SRO. The place was packed, and outside the tent people stood hoping for a glimpse of the Tempts or a bit of the sound. And The Temptations were sensational, in spite of the heat, in spite of the large crowd, they were professional and performed as a legendary group sould perform. ANd that is an understatement.

AS you well know, anyone can have an off night, but with The Temptations you know they have practiced and practiced, and they will be professional. It's a bit like Michael Jordan. If he had an offnight in his shooting, he played such awesome defense that everyone who saw him knew indeed they were seeing the best basketball player in the world. It's the same way with The Temptations.

[AnnaK]

"Your point is certainly one factor. I understand that if your neighbor plants bushes on your side of the property line , and you say nothing, eventually that property line has moved and the bushes and the land in which they are rooted becomes his."

I've never heard of that. I Thought that the property line is where the land surveyor has determined it to be ... not where the neighbor's bushes take roots.

[AnnaK]

"THAT IS A TRUE STATEMENT
'ain't nobody coming to see you Otis" In the movie he shut his mouth.......cause that's the TRUTH'"

((doc)) I am afraid nobody ever said that. It was just one more fictionalized statement put in the mouth of DR ... But the essence of the statement is true. The Temptations were always a group, not a single individual. I totally agree that Glenn, Ali, and Dennis are certainly vocalists of the highest caliber; and mentioning their names in connection with The Temptations must be considered an honor - not a disgrace, in my opinion.
AK

[Beej]

melody said:

To me waiting in essence is telling that person(s) that it is ok to use the name ... Now in this situation I do not know if there is any statute of limitations.

The scenario you're describing is called acquiescence. In a nutshell, it says that if a title holder fails to defend or protect his/her mark or indicates, either implicitly or explicitly, that he/she has no intention of taking action against infringing parties that abandonment of trademark may result.

In other words, the title holder may relinquish any legal rights to the trademark by failing to adequately protect it over time.

Obviously, statutes differ from state to state. I'm sure there is a specified period of time (or, at least, a suggestion) built into the relevant laws of the state where this suit was filed. I'm equally certain that any such time period or degree of inactivity necessary to trigger an abandonment ruling has not been met. Clearly, Otis Williams has demonstrated his continued intent to protect his trademark over the years. Filing suit against anyone and everyone who infringes on a particular trademark or copyright is neither reasonable nor feasible, though. A person in his position has to pick and choose his battles wisely. Most violations are minor by comparison and can be handled with a simple letter of warning from an attorney. It's generally only the egregious examples of abuse that require legal action of this nature.

We have no way of knowing what, if any, communication was going on between the two parties over the last few years. They (Glenn, Ollie and Bo) may very well have been warned that their continued use of either name might result in future legal action. I sincerely doubt that the lawsuit came as a complete surprise to any of them.

Like I said, Otis is no dummy. He's been down this path before and I'm sure he learned from those experiences. Considering the extent of the damages he's seeking, it's obvious he's not taking this lightly.

raggedy said:

On the other hand, a court has already decided that it is not wrong for Dennis Edwards to use that name in connection with a modifier, such as "Review" attached. The guys -- and their lawyers -- may view this ruling as a precedent. It seems to be pretty obvious that "The Temptations Reunion" is not the same group as "The Temptations." Before Otis Williams can sue someone for using a derivative form of that name, he should have to prove that he actually has the right to do so, in my opinion. Right now, it looks as if he only owns the right to the name "The Temptations."

I couldn't disagree more.

The name The Temptations Review featuring Dennis Edwards is not so similar to "The Temptations" that it might cause confusion. It clearly implies that the consumer is getting something other than THE Temptations. A name like The Temptations Reunion, however, is very misleading. Aside from being a lightly veiled reference to the actual 1982 album and tour, it implies the "original" members -- those who recorded such classics as "My Girl," "Ain't Too Proud To Beg" and "The Way You Do The Things You Do" -- have reformed to perform their old hits. In no way does it tell the consumer that he's paying to see three people who had absolutely nothing to do with any of the old classics he's coming to hear.

You have to understand, most people aren't like us...they don't know four of the "Classic 5" are dead.

With regard to your last point, "likelihood of confusion" is the very basis of proving infringement in trademark law. It's not that Otis Williams' legal rights pertain strictly to use of the two words, "The Temptations." They extend to prohibit anything so similar that it might cause the public to be confused or mistaken about the true identity or source of the product being sold. Under dilution statutes, he would only have to show that the distinctive identity of the trademark was somehow "blurred" or "tarnished" by the others' use. He wouldn't even have to show a likelihood of consumer confusion in order for them to be found liable...even though there clearly have been such instances.

It would be like me naming my company General Electric Web Design or Toyota Graphics simply because I once worked for them in a different capacity. I don't own the rights to those names and I'm not allowed to call my company something so similar that people might be misled into thinking that they're actually getting a GE or Toyota-licensed product.

janebse said:

I understand that if your neighbor plants bushes on your side of the property line , and you say nothing, eventually that property line has moved and the bushes and the land in which they are rooted becomes his.

Oh, I wouldn't be so sure of that.

The situation you're referring to is called adverse possession. Again, laws differ from state to state, but there are certain requirements you must meet -- regardless of where you live -- in order to legally acquire property by such means. Generally, you must openly "occupy" that land (treat it as your own) for a specified number of continuous years without contest. In essence, the true owner tacitly relinquishes his rights to the land by failing to eject you from the property in a timely fashion. Here, in Pennsylvania, that time period is 21 years. Some states require that you pay taxes on the land for a specified amount of time before attempting to make a claim. There's a lot more to it than simply maintaining the property and telling everyone else it's yours.

You'd need to check the statutes where you live.

Forgive me if I misunderstood your scenario, but it wasn't entirely clear why the new neighbors believed they owned the bushes. Are you saying that you've planted bushes on your neighbor's side of the property line and now -- after years of passive acceptance on his part -- you believe that land to be yours?

If so, simply having the original owner's tacit or verbal permission to use a portion of his property does not mean any and all future owners of that property must honor that agreement. Your actual property is what's on file with your county's Recorder of Deeds. When that land was initially surveyed for development, a plot was subdivided from a larger tract of land and its boundaries were clearly defined -- in both text form and in a technical drawing -- in a plan book at the county Recorder's Office. You should have copies of those documents in your own records.

Unless you've gone through the proper legal channels -- signed the necessary forms and paid all the related fees -- to modify those boundaries, your claim to the additional property is meritless.

[janebse]

I'm not sure of that. I just heard instances where this occurred. What made me aware of the possibility was at four different time in different houses, I found new neighbors believing that they owned my bushes and my land. So now when I meet a new neighbor, I make sure the conversation covers the fact that I own the bushes and the land on which they stand. I even point to the property marker if that appears to be necessary.

How many law suits have taken place because someone who happens to have a name made famous by someone else wants to start a business using his name? Unfortunately, the person who made the name famous objects. And rightfully so, sometimes. I haven't kept track of all those suits, but I do know that if the business is degrading, the law suit usually favors the person who made the name famous.

Although one case that amused me was hearing about "Thoreau's hot dogs" at Walden Pond. Nothing really objectionable here, but certainly not up Thoreau's line. In fact, there were Motels, etc. at Walden ond and the Thoreau Society (whatever its name) sued because they felt anything that bore his name should also have his outlook on life, and the fact that tourists came to Walden Pond was to inhale or see the environment which Thoreau loved.

[AnnaK]

"... it implies the "original" members -- those who recorded such classics as "My Girl," "Ain't Too Proud To Beg" and "The Way You Do The Things You Do" -- have reformed to perform their old hits. In no way does it tell the consumer that he's paying to see three people who had absolutely nothing to do with any of the old classics he's coming to hear. "

I think that is what "The Temptations" actually do. They even sell their DvD under that false statement. The majority of the "licensed" Temptations neither had to do anything with these recordings. And in my opinion everyone who can read knows that "Temptations Revue" does not mean "The Temptations." In each case the concert-goers/consumers will not get to hear or buy anyting by the group who sang the original songs as you mentioned them ... Did I miss your point?
AK

[Beej]

raggedy said:

I think that is what "The Temptations" actually do. They even sell their DvD under that false statement.

Did you mean to say CD instead of DVD? Personally, I do find the cover of the Back To Front CD a little distasteful. Using a decades-old image of the C5 to sell a new album of covers seems unimaginative and lame. Just because their faces aren't shown doesn't mean we don't know who they are. It looks like something a 12-year-old could've done with Photoshop.

raggedy said:

The majority of the "licensed" Temptations neither had to do anything with these recordings. In each case the concert-goers/consumers will not get to hear or buy anyting by the group who sang the original songs as you mentioned them ...

They are getting Otis Williams, however...the only original member still living. Now, maybe that's not a good enough reason for you or I to go see them in concert, but it is for a lot of other people. As long as Otis is alive, he's the only person who can rightfully lay claim to the history and legacy of the group.

[AnnaK]

Hard to believe. ;D But probably true ...