Guess Who sued by Guess Who?

My best 'guess' is that a cease and desist order will be invoked for the 'images' of Bachman and Cummings used in the advertising, that's deceptive, but the legal ownership of the name? That's a black ink contract agreement, so there will be nothing either can do about that situation.
I own 5 Paul Reed Smith guitars.
That does not make me a lawyer.

1- Bachman left the band in 1970.
2- Cummings left the band in 1975.
3- Kale owns the trademark.
4- End of story.

The false advertising is a separate matter
and should be treated as a separate case.
So who'd you like better?

Guess Who or Bachman Turner Overweight?

Disliked them both about equally.

Was never moved by Burton Cummings schmaltzy vocals.
Last edited:
I get their beef but man, at some point just be happy and cash the checks.
Are they getting any? (Checks, that is).

The dynamics of every band are so different that at some point there is no way to define a “if it has this many original members, they should still be able to use the name” type rules. Some bands just have a member or two that, in my mind anyway, define them. And if those members are missing it “feels” like a cover band no matter how many other originals are in the band. That said, I’ve seen both Yes and Kansas in the last 6 months. Yes had only Steve Howe, Kansas had only Rich and Phil. And Phil only played 2/3 of the show. That said, these are two of my all time favorite bands, and both shows were great.

I know there are naming rights and having those gives you some legal rights to tour using the name, but that doesn’t always make it SEEM like you’re seeing the real band. I wrote Queensryche off after Geoff Tate left, and their last 3 albums are as good as anything they did prior to him leaving. And, to my critical ear, it still SOUNDS LIKE Queensryche!

All that said, there are a lot of “bands” touring with no or maybe one original member and it seems like a cover band money grab to me. Heck, speaking of money grabs, Paul Stanley (or Gene Simmons, can’t remember which one it was) has said publically that Kiss could go on after he and Gene are done because Kiss is more of a corporate thing that could be done with other players. The Kiss Franchise could live on long after they retire. (His words). And in their case, Kiss would be one of the easiest bands to cop the vibe of since it’s simple music and the concerts are very show oriented, not intricate musically.

I just know I saw a few tours recently that I really would have liked to see the actual band, but between the one or maybe two (and maybe not even “main ones) original members and primo ticket prices, I didn’t feel like spending that much to see a cover band version of the band.
Last edited: