Guns N' Roses Trademarks

[Vincent Vega]

Check this out:

Word Mark GUNS N'ROSES

Goods and Services IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: clothing, namely, T-shirts, shirts, hats, caps, bandannas, sweatpants, and thermal shirts. FIRST USE: 19861200. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19861200

Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING

Serial Number 75088597

Filing Date April 15, 1996

Current Filing Basis 1A

Original Filing Basis 1A

Published for Opposition November 12, 1996

Registration Number 2035815

Registration Date February 4, 1997

Owner (REGISTRANT) Guns N' Roses composed of W. Axl Rose, Michael McKagan and Saul Hudson, all U.S. citizens PARTNERSHIP CALIFORNIA 5900 CANOGA AVE, STE 410 WOODLAND HILLS CALIFORNIA 91367

Attorney of Record HARVEY S. HERTZ

Prior Registrations 1762599;1766309

Type of Mark TRADEMARK

Register PRINCIPAL

Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). SECTION 8(10-YR) 20070720.

Renewal 1ST RENEWAL 20070720

Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

Word Mark GUNS N' ROSES

Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 036. G & S: prerecorded video and audio tapes, prerecorded phonograph records and prerecorded compact discs all featuring music. FIRST USE: 19841200. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19841200

Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING

Serial Number 74295263

Filing Date July 16, 1992

Current Filing Basis 1A

Original Filing Basis 1A

Published for Opposition January 12, 1993

Registration Number 1762599

Registration Date April 6, 1993

Owner (REGISTRANT) GUNS N' ROSES composed of W. Axl Rose, Saul Hudson p/k/a "Slash" and Michael "Duff" McKagan, all U.S. citizens PARTNERSHIP CALIFORNIA 450 N. ROXBURY DRIVE 8TH FLOOR BEVERLY HILLS CALIFORNIA 90210-422

Attorney of Record HARVEY S HERTZ

Type of Mark TRADEMARK

Register PRINCIPAL

Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). SECTION 8(10-YR) 20030504.

Renewal 1ST RENEWAL 20030504

Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

Word Mark GUNS N' ROSES

Goods and Services IC 041. US 107. G & S: entertainment services; namely, performances by a musical group. FIRST USE: 19841200. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19841200

Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING

Serial Number 74295264

Filing Date July 16, 1992

Current Filing Basis 1A

Original Filing Basis 1A

Published for Opposition January 26, 1993

Registration Number 1766309

Registration Date April 20, 1993

Owner (REGISTRANT) GUNS N' ROSES composed of W. Axl Rose, Saul Hudson and Michael "Duff" McKagan, all U.S. citizens PARTNERSHIP CALIFORNIA 450 N. ROXBURY DRIVE, 8TH FLOOR BEVERLY HILLS CALIFORNIA 902104222

Attorney of Record HARVEY S. HERTZ

Type of Mark SERVICE MARK

Register PRINCIPAL

Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). SECTION 8(10-YR) 20030408.

Renewal 1ST RENEWAL 20030408

Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

http://tess2.uspto.gov/

From the US trademark office.

One: I thought Axl owned the GN'R name?

Two: Guns N' Roses wasn't trademarked until 1993? That's pretty fucked up.

[AbominableHoman]

He only owns the name. Slash owns the spirit.

[Vincent Vega]

Given such, I wonder if that means Slash & Duff still collect royalties on GN'R T-shirts and whatnot? And I wonder if they collect royalties for GN'R performances today? The trademark is still "Live".

[moreblack]

how does this play into Axl Rose vs Guitar Hero lawsuit?

[Vincent Vega]

I think it's also interesting that the first use of "GUNS N' ROSES" in commerce was "19841200". I wonder if that's supposed to mean effective 12/1984? That the name Guns N' Roses was first used in commerce in December 1984?

It also makes me wonder: If GN'R didn't trademark the merchandise associated with the name until 1997, who collected money on the stuff prior to 1997? Who "owned" the stuff? And how was it able to be sold?

Edited January 21, 2011 by Indigo Child

[SunnyDRE]

Given such, I wonder if that means Slash & Duff still collect royalties on GN'R T-shirts and whatnot? And I wonder if they collect royalties for GN'R performances today? The trademark is still "Live".

why do you think axl didn't promote cd.

[Vincent Vega]

Compare VR's trademark record:

Word Mark VELVET REVOLVER

Goods and Services IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: Clothing, namely, shirts, tee-shirts, hats, caps, visors, jackets, sweatshirts, sweatpants, sweat shorts, shorts, bandanas, socks, pants, underwear, thermal underwear, and wristbands. FIRST USE: 20040513. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20040513

IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Entertainment services, namely, live performances by a musical group; fan club services. FIRST USE: 20040513. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20040513

Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING

Serial Number 76521199

Filing Date June 9, 2003

Current Filing Basis 1A

Original Filing Basis 1B

Published for Opposition July 6, 2004

Registration Number 2949176

Registration Date May 10, 2005

Owner (REGISTRANT) The Projects, LLC CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 16000 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 212 Encino CALIFORNIA 91436

(LAST LISTED OWNER) VELVET REVOLVER, LLC LTD LIAB CO CALIFORNIA 13343 BEL-RED ROAD BELLEVUE WASHINGTON 98005

Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED

Attorney of Record Deborah L. Benson

Type of Mark TRADEMARK. SERVICE MARK

Register PRINCIPAL

Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

VR's name was first used in commerce on May 13th 2004. So I think that kind of confirms the GN'R name was first used in commerce as a live act in December 1984.

[bangit]

He only owns the name. Slash owns the spirit.

Lol, the spirit of what? extortion?

[Vincent Vega]

Interestingly, legally in 1993, Guns was only composed of Axl, Slash, and Duff. Izzy was given no ownership of the trademark nor Steven. And it seems on subsequent re-registrations of it, this was never changed.

Edited January 21, 2011 by Indigo Child

[Steamboat]

IT'S A CONSPIRACY.

THEY WERE IN IT ALL ALONG I KNEW IT!

[Vincent Vega]

Interestingly, legally in 1993, Guns was only composed of Axl, Slash, and Duff. Izzy was given no ownership of the trademark nor Steven. And it seems on subsequent re-registrations of it, this was never changed.

Stephen signed over his rights and only has publishing and performance royalties I beleive...I thought I read that Izzy sold his right to the others when he left but can't give any citation.

Same with the old GnR logo that Slash designed. I believe he wons the rights to that..thought I read that in his book but can't be sure?

Izzy kept for himself a percentage of everything Guns did until November 1997. After that period he's probably not received anything.

So does this mean whenever GN'R performs, Slash and Duff get a check even if they haven't played?

[moreblack]

So does this mean whenever GN'R performs, Slash and Duff get a check even if they haven't played?

I doubt it. Not for simple performances.

If they released a live cd dvd or that South American doc, you damn right Guns would fork over a percentage of the sales to them...

[axl8302]

So does this mean whenever GN'R performs, Slash and Duff get a check even if they haven't played?

I beleive they are supposed to get royalties anytime an old Guns N Roses song is played live so when NuGnR plays an old song a small fee is paid. Same when Slash plays GnR songs during his solo tour Axl and Duff get paid for that..

Also everytime a GnR song is played on the radio they get a small royalty....................

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/music-royalties7.htm

So does this mean whenever GN'R performs, Slash and Duff get a check even if they haven't played?

I doubt it. Not for simple performances.

If they released a live cd dvd or that South American doc, you damn right Guns would fork over a percentage of the sales to them...

According to the link I provided Axl, Duff and Slash are supposed to get royalties anytime one of their songs is performed live.

For live performances, ASCAP reviews set lists provided by concert promoters, performing artists, and others. In the case of symphony performance information, the printed programs are submitted.

Of course I doubt ASCAP can keep track of every cover band playing GnR songs..........

They wont get a penny for ANY of their songs being played LIVE, unless it is recorded, broadcast and/or SOLD.

If Nu-GNR releases a DVD with performances of songs written by Slash, Duff etc - those guys will get royalties.

Royalties aren't paid for Live performances, unless as above. You can play whatever you want, whenever you want, without obtaining clearance and without financial compensation.

You think the band are paying royalties to EON Productions for playing the James Bond Theme? DEFINITELY NOT, they wouldn't be playing any covers if this was the case. Especially NOT for these little insignificant jams, that could easily be replaced with original material, which would cost them nothing to perform (if this was the case, which it isn't).

Edited January 21, 2011 by axl8302

[axl8302]

So does this mean whenever GN'R performs, Slash and Duff get a check even if they haven't played?

I beleive they are supposed to get royalties anytime an old Guns N Roses song is played live so when NuGnR plays an old song a small fee is paid. Same when Slash plays GnR songs during his solo tour Axl and Duff get paid for that..

Also everytime a GnR song is played on the radio they get a small royalty....................

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/music-royalties7.htm

So does this mean whenever GN'R performs, Slash and Duff get a check even if they haven't played?

I doubt it. Not for simple performances.

If they released a live cd dvd or that South American doc, you damn right Guns would fork over a percentage of the sales to them...

According to the link I provided Axl, Duff and Slash are supposed to get royalties anytime one of their songs is performed live.

For live performances, ASCAP reviews set lists provided by concert promoters, performing artists, and others. In the case of symphony performance information, the printed programs are submitted.

Of course I doubt ASCAP can keep track of every cover band playing GnR songs..........

They wont get a penny for ANY of their songs being played LIVE, unless it is recorded, broadcast and/or SOLD.

If Nu-GNR releases a DVD with performances of songs written by Slash, Duff etc - those guys will get royalties.

Royalties aren't paid for Live performances, unless as above. You can play whatever you want, whenever you want, without obtaining clearance and without financial compensation.

You think the band are paying royalties to EON Productions for playing the James Bond Theme? DEFINITELY NOT, they wouldn't be playing any covers if this was the case. Especially NOT for these little insignificant jams, that could easily be replaced with original material, which would cost them nothing to perform (if this was the case, which it isn't).

And you know this how? Are you laywer or have experience in this area or is it just your opinion..........According to the site I provided bands are supposed to get royalties.

Here is another site which seems to confirm that artists are supposed to get paid then their music is played by other artists..

http://futureofmusic.org/issues/artist-compensation/performance-royalties

and

Performance rights and royalties - A performance-rights license allows music to be performed live or broadcast. These licenses typically come in the form of a "blanket license," which gives the licensee the right to play a particular PRO's entire collection in exchange for a set fee. Licenses for use of individual recordings are also available. All-talk radio stations, for example, wouldn't have the need for a blanket license to play the PRO's entire collection. The performance royalty is paid to the songwriter and publisher when a song is performed live or on the radio.

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/music-royalties4.htm

So unless you have credible information to the contrary I am going to assume this is your opinion

It's NOT my opinion, I work in the film industry and deal with sync and performance rights regularly.

"You can play whatever you want, whenever you want, without obtaining clearance and without financial compensation."

What you may be getting confused with is the fee that the promoters/site owners must pay in order for a copy-written materials to be performed in their venues -they pay for this by purchasing a blanket license.

"In order for the venue where these copyrighted songs were publicly performed to not infringe upon the songwriters’ exclusive right to publicly perform their copyrighted works, they (THE VENUES) have to pay a license fee to the PROs who represent the songwriters." This is common for any PUBLIC place where copy-written material is performed or screened.

"For instance, club owners pay the PROs a flat annual license fee that allows artists to perform copyrighted music in their club. This is how any artist is able to stand up on any stage (assuming the owner of that stage has paid the PROs their license fee) and sing a Bob Dylan song. The PROs use a variety of methods (including visiting clubs) to determine which songs are being publicly performed."

Edited January 21, 2011 by axl8302

[plonker88]

Wait, does this mean Slash and Duff got money from Chinese Democracy sales for both album and tour?

[axl8302]

Wait, does this mean Slash and Duff got money from Chinese Democracy sales for both album and tour?

Why would they get money from Chinese Democracy sales?

Edited January 21, 2011 by axl8302

[SunnyDRE]

Wait, does this mean Slash and Duff got money from Chinese Democracy sales for both album and tour?

I threw this theory out there more than a year ago. It would make sense, to as why Axl didn't promote CD.

[plonker88]

Wait, does this mean Slash and Duff got money from Chinese Democracy sales for both album and tour?

Why would they get money from Chinese Democracy sales?

I read the first post and got confused

So that's a no?

Sunny, I agree, I always had feeling a big hold up for this album was Axl trying to make sure they got no money from the album. Don't have any proof for it though.

Edited January 21, 2011 by plonker88

[axl8302]

Wait, does this mean Slash and Duff got money from Chinese Democracy sales for both album and tour?

Why would they get money from Chinese Democracy sales?

I read the first post and got confused

So that's a no?

Sunny, I agree, I always had feeling a big hold up for this album was Axl trying to make sure they got no money from the album. Don't have any proof for it though.

Of course it's a no, they weren't the song writers and they weren't the performance artists on the album- they get nothing, obviously.

[ThinkAboutYou]

Didn't bumble in one of the interviews talk about the live royalty percentage?

Also I have Alan Niven's copy of the 1 million dollar bravado checkGNR got in 1988 and the other fat check management got

So they did get merchandise money back then

Edited January 21, 2011 by ThinkAboutYou

[plonker88]

Wait, does this mean Slash and Duff got money from Chinese Democracy sales for both album and tour?

Why would they get money from Chinese Democracy sales?

I read the first post and got confused

So that's a no?

Sunny, I agree, I always had feeling a big hold up for this album was Axl trying to make sure they got no money from the album. Don't have any proof for it though.

Of course it's a no, they weren't the song writers and they weren't the performance artists on the album- they get nothing, obviously.

That's what I always though, I just got a bit confused by all this copyright/ownership jargen.

[droezle]

Two: Guns N' Roses wasn't trademarked until 1993? That's pretty fucked up.

Not fucked up if you took the time to read one of my previous posts. In other words, old news.

[seely]

Wait, does this mean Slash and Duff got money from Chinese Democracy sales for both album and tour?

Why would they get money from Chinese Democracy sales?

I read the first post and got confused

So that's a no?

Sunny, I agree, I always had feeling a big hold up for this album was Axl trying to make sure they got no money from the album. Don't have any proof for it though.

They get paid for sales of albums/recordings they appeared on, and any use of those songs (e.g. selling it to a film for use in the soundtrack). They don't get anything for Chinese Democracy or other Guns material.

[rockerman]

So does this mean whenever GN'R performs, Slash and Duff get a check even if they haven't played?

I beleive they are supposed to get royalties anytime an old Guns N Roses song is played live so when NuGnR plays an old song a small fee is paid. Same when Slash plays GnR songs during his solo tour Axl and Duff get paid for that..

Also everytime a GnR song is played on the radio they get a small royalty....................

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/music-royalties7.htm

So does this mean whenever GN'R performs, Slash and Duff get a check even if they haven't played?

I doubt it. Not for simple performances.

If they released a live cd dvd or that South American doc, you damn right Guns would fork over a percentage of the sales to them...

Our band was told that in order to play any Bruce Springsteen..we would have to ask permission and then pay a percentage of our take to the music company. We just dropped his songs but technically...i guess there are some bands that have to.

ive oten wondered if the old banddoent make some take

According to the link I provided Axl, Duff and Slash are supposed to get royalties anytime one of their songs is performed live.

For live performances, ASCAP reviews set lists provided by concert promoters, performing artists, and others. In the case of symphony performance information, the printed programs are submitted.

Of course I doubt ASCAP can keep track of every cover band playing GnR songs..........

[FaridBak]

I used to be in quite a few cover bands and not once did we had to pay a cent, we did had to pay to the musicians Syndicate lol