UK Foo Fighters

prowla

The search facility on the sight is just a plain text search, so if you search for "fighters" you also get the "Four Fighters", who are another Foo Fighters tribute band.

I really don't think there is an intent to deceive on the part of anybody there; it's just that tribute bands will have names very similar to the real band they are based on.

unholyangel

JReacher1 wrote: »

Yeah you are one of the posters I was referring to

Can refer to anything you want. Its quite clear you don't operate in the real world.

I noticed you didn't reply to the bit in my post about other people on the ticket sellers site. Or is that just because it doesn't fit in with your version of reality?

7.10 Commercial practices are also prohibited as misleading
actions if they:
• market a product in a way which creates confusion
with any products, trade marks, trade names or other
distinguishing marks of a competitor

Example:
A trader names or brands his new sunglasses so as to
very closely resemble the name or brand of a competitor’s
sunglasses. If the similarity is such as to confuse the average
consumer making him more likely to opt for the new
sunglasses when he otherwise would not, this would breach
the CPRs.

And also:

Misleading information generally
7.6 These are actions that mislead by:
• containing false information OR deceiving or being likely
to deceive the average consumer (even if the information
they contain is factually correct),

As I said in my original post, it all comes down to whether its likely to mislead the average consumer.


Further to that, you can't register a company with a name that is too similar to another registered company. I wonder why that is?

Example

‘Hands UK Ltd’ and ‘Hand’s Ltd’ are the same as ‘Hands Ltd’, and ‘Box.com Ltd’ is too similar to ‘Box Ltd’.

JReacher1

unholyangel wrote: »

Can refer to anything you want. Its quite clear you don't operate in the real world.

I noticed you didn't reply to the bit in my post about other people on the ticket sellers site. Or is that just because it doesn't fit in with your version of reality?

This is not the real world, it is the Internet....

You're not really disproving my statement of "people love to argue on this site"

Plus you've done the annoying thing of editing your post after I have replied to put irrelevant information on it. you appear to be claiming that all tribute bands can't have names similar to the band they are copying because you can't register a company name that is similar to another company...

If that is not what you are claiming the your point is completely irrelevant...

unholyangel

JReacher1 wrote: »

This is not the real world, it is the Internet....

You're not really disproving my statement of "people love to argue on this site"

Yep because the internet doesn't exist in the real world, does it?
Only in peoples minds.

JReacher1

unholyangel wrote: »

Yep because the internet doesn't exist in the real world, does it?
Only in peoples minds.

The Internet is not the real world which is why it's sometimes referred to as the virtual world.

Anyway we seem to be going off topic.....

unholyangel

JReacher1 wrote: »

This is not the real world, it is the Internet....

You're not really disproving my statement of "people love to argue on this site"

Plus you've done the annoying thing of editing your post after I have replied to put irrelevant information on it. you appear to be claiming that all tribute bands can't have names similar to the band they are copying because you can't register a company name that is similar to another company...

If that is not what you are claiming the your point is completely irrelevant...

And what have you just done yourself?

I'm claiming no such thing. What I am claiming is that if you can't have a company name as Uk foo fighters ltd when a company is called foo fighters ltd so as not to mislead, then theres a definite strong argument that calling a band UK foo fighters when there is one called foo fighters is also misleading.

Theres also the earlier part of my post which says you cannot market a product in a manner which creates confusion with any products, trade marks, trade names or other distinguishing marks of a competitor.

How about actually looking for something reliable to back yourself up instead of voicing nothing more than your personal opinion (and when that is questioned, resorting to trying to insult other posters just because they dare to disagree with your point of view)

JReacher1

unholyangel wrote: »

And what have you just done yourself?

I'm claiming no such thing. What I am claiming is that if you can't have a company name as Uk foo fighters ltd when a company is called foo fighters ltd so as not to mislead, then theres a definite strong argument that calling a band UK foo fighters when there is one called foo fighters is also misleading.

Theres also the earlier part of my post which says you cannot market a product in a manner which creates confusion with any products, trade marks, trade names or other distinguishing marks of a competitor.

How about actually looking for something reliable to back yourself up instead of voicing nothing more than your personal opinion (and when that is questioned, resorting to trying to insult other posters just because they dare to disagree with your point of view)

You have provided no evidence that proves you can't have a company called UK Foo fighters limited and a company called Foo fighters limited. You've just posted an un referenced quote of a box company...

In fact for tax reasons I wouldn't be surprised if they were both company names.

I don't think I have insulted you. Unless saying that you like to argue is an insult (which in fairness you're not disapproving).

unholyangel

JReacher1 wrote: »

You have provided no evidence that proves you can't have a company called UK Foo fighters limited and a company called Foo fighters limited. You've just posted an un referenced quote of a box company...

In fact for tax reasons I wouldn't be surprised if they were both company names.

I don't think I have insulted you. Unless saying that you like to argue is an insult (which in fairness you're not disapproving).

I did provide the evidence, I just forgot to include the source (and apologies for that, i thought i had). Here it is: https://www.gov.uk/choose-company-name

They can only both be company names if part of the same group (ie tesco aqua, tesco blue, tesco plc etc) or if they have the express consent of the original company (although if someone objects that they are too similar, they may be made to change it).

ETA: And btw, the virtual worlds contained in the internet are still part of the real world - else they wouldn't exist.

keyser666

Faith177 wrote: »

I'm sorry but I honestly can't see how much clearer they could have made it. I've never bought a ticket for a show where the country the tour is in is before the band name the venue normally indicates where the show is not the band name. Also again a BIG indicator on this was the price of the tickets and the venues.

Their last show recently was WELL advertised in most national media and on their various media pages as being at the MK bowl to replace the show at the Wembley Stadium. Plus that show was weeks before the dates on the tickets on offer for the UK FF's so how you could not query going from a Stadium tour to a tiny venue in which ever city OP picked I don't know

What a ludicrous statement, I have seen loads of world famous bands with massive followings as well as solo artists play intimate gigs and do intimate tours..

It is misleading and the OP should get a refund. The word trinute should be sed in the title to distinguish

prowla

I'm sure that if there were a trademark issue, the band would have taken action.