http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/bla...sitemID=121016


I bet this was Sharron's idea

Someone just needs to put a hit out on that bitch.

Just wondering, what's so wrong about him wanting the brand to be equally divided between the four of them?

Well, he if wants it shared equally, why is he suing for 50%?

It says so in the article. He says he can't sue for the other two but that he hopes they all work it out to equal parts.

I read the whole thing

I'm an intellectual property lawyer and from what I can tell (from the limited information that article gives), Ozzy is in the right. Iommi has no right to take the Black Sabbath brand from the other three guys in the band, and, on the face of it, that's what he's doing.

Statement from OZZY OSBOURNE:

“It is with great regret that I had to resort to legal action against my long term partner, Tony Iommi, but after three years of trying to resolve this issue amicably, I feel I have no other recourse. As of the mid-1990’s, after constant and numerous changes in band members, the brand of "Black Sabbath" was literally in the toilet and Tony Iommi (touring under the name Black Sabbath) was reduced to performing in clubs. Since 1997 when Geezer, Bill and myself rejoined the band, Black Sabbath has returned to its former glory as we headlined sold-out arenas and amphitheatres playing to upwards of 50,000 people at each show around the world. We worked collectively to restore credibility and bring dignity back to the name “Black Sabbath” which lead to the band being inducted into the UK and US Rock & Roll Hall of Fames in 2005 and 2006, respectively. Throughout the last 12 years, it was my management representatives who oversaw the marketing and quality control of the “Black Sabbath” brand through OZZFEST, touring, merchandising and album reissues. The name "Black Sabbath" now has a worldwide prestige and merchandising value that it would not have had by continuing on the road it was on prior to the 1997 reunion tour. Tony, I am so sorry it’s had to get to this point by me having to take this action against you. I don’t have the right to speak for Geezer and Bill, but I feel that morally and ethically the trademark should be owned by the four of us equally. I hope that by me taking this first step that it will ultimately end up that way. We’ve all worked too hard and long in our careers to allow you to sell merchandise that features all our faces, old Black Sabbath album covers and band logos, and then you tell us that you own the copyright. We’re all in our 60’s now. The Black Sabbath legacy should live on long after we have all gone. Please do the right thing.”

That's actually a really good statement. Gotta side with Ozzy on this one.

Obviously Geezer, Tony and Bill haven't had a problem with the way things have been.
So it's Ozzy vs. the rest of the band. Fine, give him 25% not 50.

Considering all the other members sold their interest to Tony (see link below), It will be interesting to see the outcome.

I guess this puts to rest any rumors of a Black Sabbath reunion or new album. That ain't gonna happen now (as if it ever was).

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9023418/Co...-Black-Sabbath

Why would Tony have anything against Tony having 100%?

And if the other two don't care one way or another and these two do, 50% is only fair.

Legally, if Geezer Butler and Bill Ward sold their interest in the name to Iommi, then Ozzy would only be entitled to 25% of the name.

EDIT: If the Complaint in Covenant's post is correct that Ozzy signed an agreement relinquishing any and all rights to the Black Sabbath name and trademark, then Ozzy is 100% wrong. Iommi is the sole owner of the trademark.

But comeon, Black Sabbath wasn't popular at all until Ozzy agreed to get the original lineup back together in 1997. He deserves at least 50% because the band wasn't popular anym... just kidding. This isn't fantasy land.

I'm guessing that Ozzy will contend that he never relinquished any rights to the name. Considering he was fired from the band originally I would think that would make it even more cut and dried, although the reunion does muddy things up a bit. Assuming a court rules in Iommi's favor, would Heaven & Hell revert to the Black Sabbath name?

This is ALL Sharon's doing.

She see's how successful Black Sabb... errr, Heaven and Hell is and knows that Ozzy's last chance to do another Sabbath album and tour are fading. So she's punishing them for reuniting with Dio.

She and Ozzy have no legal standing. Ozzy signed away his rights to the name 30 years ago, presumably for a cash payout. There is a contract and Ozzy's got no legal ground to stand on. What? That the band was more popular with him in it? PUH-LEEEEEZE! Heaven and Hell and Mob Rules were far more successful than any Sabbath release since Sabbath Bloody Sabbath. The band was dying while Ozzy was still a member. And Ozzy wouldn't even show up half the time when they were recording new albums. They started Never Say Die without him and had to finish it without him (Bill Ward sang the last song).

Sharon's just hoping for a nice cash settlement and a chance to show Tony Iommi who's the boss. She is just a greedy, evil, lying, cheating, bitch. She crossed WAY over the ethical line when she had Bob Daisley and Lee Kerslake's performances replaced on Blizzard and Diary, and now she's going for the encore!

I really hope that the judge throws this out of court and Tony countersues her ass for harassment (via this frivolous lawsuit).

Mario Bava's estate should sue them all...and take all the cash.

Iommi may have run the Black Sabbath name into the ground prior to the reunion, but it was his trademarked name to do with as he pleased. Ozzy's got no legal grounds to stand on and hopefully any judge would throw out this lawsuit, which is almost certainly Sharon's idea.

Am interesting side note I learned about The Stones recently. When Mick Taylor replaced Brian Jones he was made a full equal member. Even though he left the band in 74/75 he has received an equal share of the proceeds from all the albums and tours to the present. The other members said "never again". Ron Wood was never made a member of the Stones. He is hired to play on an album for a flat fee and payed a flat fee for touring with them.

i think most bands are set up as LLC's or full corporations where all the members own equal amounts of stock and you have to have language in the incorporation docs to take care of things like people leaving the band and how they are taken care of financially

I did not know that. But I'm glad, the Taylor years were some of the best for the Stones, both in tours and albums. Good for him.

I don't see how Iommi was abusing the Black Sabbath name. He was the only original member in the band for years, and kept plugging away with new material, even though they weren't commercially successful in the United States. It's not like he pimped the name out for a lame music festival where he played the same 10 songs every year, or starred in an embarrassing reality show. If there's any name in music that's been irreparably damaged, it's Osbourne.

Iommi even set aside the name for the original four since he's reunited again with Dio. Hopefully he'll see how unnecessary that was and start using the BS name again.

huh? Ozzy quit. Several times.

If David Lee Roth quits Van Halen (again), does he have the right to take the Van Halen name with him?

WWGSPSD?

What Would Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley Do?

Ozzy's not in the wrong - he isn't doing this, and that, "Statement," clearly wasn't written by him.

SHARON's the one in the wrong - completely wrong. As usual. She has no ethics whatsoever. It's all about what makes her the most money (and who she can push around as a bully).

And isn't it just deliciously ironic that Sharon removes Bob Daisley and Lee Kerslake's performances from Blizzard of Ozz and Diary of a Madman because they sued Ozzy/Sharon for money they were legitimately owed, and for album credits that they should have received but never did, but now she sues Tony Iommi with no grounds whatsoever? "Hello, Pot? This is Kettle calling...."

just because they aren't playing with the band, doesn't mean they don't have any legal rights to the money or trademarks

I'm sure Ozzy gets royalties from the Black Sabbath albums on which he performed, and you know those albums have got to account for 95% of Black Sabbath's total sales. This is an attempt to get money for all those albums with which he wasn't involved, and also to have the right to block any Black Sabbath project that he's not associated with.

Well yeah, but they (meaning one person out of 4) certainly don't have the legal rights to 50 or 100% of the money or trademarks if they quit the band!

Does Pete Willis or Paul Dianno have the rights to 50% of Def Leppard or Iron Maiden?