Mary Wilson Robin Alexander Karen Jackson

[jobeterob]

I got this off Facebook, circa 1983

So it was Karen Ragland that went on to appropriate her Supreme time, not either of these women?

I notice all 3 were upfront and in a line, no Mary upfront.

[jim aka jtigre99]

Kaaaren Ragland was the only one of Mary Wilson's background singers to try to use the Supremes name. Karen Jackson was with Mary for quite some time in the 1980's. I saw her and Robin Alexander back Mary up in person and they did a very good job. Ragland had some sort of degree in entertainment law and I believe she used it to her advantage. None of them were ever signed to Motown as a Supreme. But since Mary billed herself as the Supremes' Mary or Mary Wilson of the Supremes Kaaaren used that type of billing tom say she was a Supreme. This group of backing singers like Mary's final two were very good and professional. I wonder if anyone here knows what Kare Jackson and Robin Alexander are doing now.

[milven]

... I wonder if anyone here knows what Kare Jackson and Robin Alexander are doing now.

I was curious and did a search with both of their names together and came up with this. I am sure that it is just a coincidence and they were not the same ladies that performed with Mary

.... Karen Jackson and Robin Alexander, ... are two candidates running for the Bangor City Council in Maine. They are both concerned about the issues of homelessness, affordable housing, and economic development in their city. , ...

[marybrewster]

The above photo was taken by Carl, Mary's Fan Club President of many years. He is still in touch with Karen, but not Robin.

If I remember correctly, Karen appeared on social media after Mary's passing, with a nice message.

[jobeterob]

Kaaaren Ragland was the only one of Mary Wilson's background singers to try to use the Supremes name. Karen Jackson was with Mary for quite some time in the 1980's. I saw her and Robin Alexander back Mary up in person and they did a very good job. Ragland had some sort of degree in entertainment law and I believe she used it to her advantage. None of them were ever signed to Motown as a Supreme. But since Mary billed herself as the Supremes' Mary or Mary Wilson of the Supremes Kaaaren used that type of billing tom say she was a Supreme. This group of backing singers like Mary's final two were very good and professional. I wonder if anyone here knows what Kare Jackson and Robin Alexander are doing now.

If Mary did sign inappropriate agreements that were used against her later, by this time she should have known better but she also was probably pretty desperate to make things work for herself - so she signed

[lakeside]

Looks like the Rag is still around, at least as of last year.

The Sounds of The Supremes with '70's/'80's "Supreme" Kaaren Ragland - Universal Attractions Agency

The Sounds of the Supremes | Facebook

[marybrewster]

Looks like the Rag is still around, at least as of last year.

The Sounds of The Supremes with '70's/'80's "Supreme" Kaaren Ragland - Universal Attractions Agency

The Sounds of the Supremes | Facebook

What I'll never understand about Kaaaaaren is her need to deceive the public into thinking she was a Supreme. She's seemingly an intelligent woman, that knows she was a backup singer for Mary Wilson of the Supremes in the 70s and 80s. What's wrong with that? Why not build a career off that? We can dissect contracts and billings all day long, but at the end of the day, this woman knows she wasn't no Supreme. Didn't she even accept an award in their honor? That's fraud as far as I'm concerned. But anyway, her one gig every three years at an opening for an envelope ain't gonna pay for much more than her internet bill to advertise her phony group.

[jobeterob]

What I'll never understand about Kaaaaaren is her need to deceive the public into thinking she was a Supreme. She's seemingly an intelligent woman, that knows she was a backup singer for Mary Wilson of the Supremes in the 70s and 80s. What's wrong with that? Why not build a career off that? We can dissect contracts and billings all day long, but at the end of the day, this woman knows she wasn't no Supreme. Didn't she even accept an award in their honor? That's fraud as far as I'm concerned. But anyway, her one gig every three years at an opening for an envelope ain't gonna pay for much more than her internet bill to advertise her phony group.

I don’t want to appear to defend her especially to committed fans, but in the background of this, if she was a knowledgeable person that signed a contract with Supremes Inc or Mary and the contract spelled out certain agreements, while it will seem very odd to fans, it’s the deal they made and they get stuck with it.

I know Otis often is not very popular [[and maybe Duke isn’t either) but he seems to have had the street smarts in all of this for 40 or 50 years and while he might be cutthroat and unfair, he’s looked after business much like Berry and Diana and Smokey.

For some reason, for all the potential, the Supreme stuff never worked - so you had Mary out there, the FLOS continuing out there and seeming to work a reasonable amount and then quite an oddball group of Kaaren’s and tribute groups.

As usual, I always wonder why this happened.

[RanRan79]

One thing to keep in mind: just because a court ruled in her favor does not mean the ruling was right. Courts get it wrong all the time. Judges and juries aren't infallible either. So without being able to look at the evidence that Kaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrreeeeeeennnnnn produced to make her claim, I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that this was all on Mary. Especially knowing Kaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrreeeeeeennnnnn had a legal background. She could have come up with any number of shenanigans to make that claim and happened to get one to stick. She's trash.

[RanRan79]

What I'll never understand about Kaaaaaren is her need to deceive the public into thinking she was a Supreme. She's seemingly an intelligent woman, that knows she was a backup singer for Mary Wilson of the Supremes in the 70s and 80s. What's wrong with that? Why not build a career off that? We can dissect contracts and billings all day long, but at the end of the day, this woman knows she wasn't no Supreme. Didn't she even accept an award in their honor? That's fraud as far as I'm concerned. But anyway, her one gig every three years at an opening for an envelope ain't gonna pay for much more than her internet bill to advertise her phony group.

She was looking to get over. She couldn't make it on her own, apparently, so why not co-opt someone else's legacy. She's a disgusting human being for that.

[marybrewster]

She was looking to get over. She couldn't make it on her own, apparently, so why not co-opt someone else's legacy. She's a disgusting human being for that.

I couldn't agree more. I know folks are VERY quick to point their finger at Mary, and while I do think she had some hand in this, I do truly believe that a lot of this was out of her control. Am I to believe that Mary had power of how she was billed for every single performance in the late 70s and 80s? Nope. That's why you see many different variations. Mary Wilson of the Supremes. The Supremes' Mary Wilson. Do I think Mary Wilson and the Supremes is correct? Absolutely not. But does being referred to as a Supreme on a flyer for an appearance at casino show lounge in New Jersey in 1982 for a $8 cover give you rights to a then 30 year legacy? Girl bye.

The judge may saw it as fair, but fair isn't always right. Again, Kaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaren knows she wasn't a Supreme. That says everything about her character.

[Spreadinglove21]

I seem to recall hearing that the contract Ragland signed when she went to work for Mary as a background singer had the name Supremes Inc on it. That's the company Mary and Pedro started in the mid 70s before Mary left the Supremes and that's the contract Kaaren presented as evidence before the court. I could be wrong and defer to anyone here who knows more.

[jobeterob]

I couldn't agree more. I know folks are VERY quick to point their finger at Mary, and while I do think she had some hand in this, I do truly believe that a lot of this was out of her control. Am I to believe that Mary had power of how she was billed for every single performance in the late 70s and 80s? Nope. That's why you see many different variations. Mary Wilson of the Supremes. The Supremes' Mary Wilson. Do I think Mary Wilson and the Supremes is correct? Absolutely not. But does being referred to as a Supreme on a flyer for an appearance at casino show lounge in New Jersey in 1982 for a $8 cover give you rights to a then 30 year legacy? Girl bye.

The judge may saw it as fair, but fair isn't always right. Again, Kaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaren knows she wasn't a Supreme. That says everything about her character.

This is why I made reference to how a fan might feel versus what got signed and ruled on.

I don’t know any details of who brought a case and what it was about however, while we might not like what a judge did, his ruling basically is the law and if it wasn’t appealed that’s the end of it. He’s the guy that gets to say what was right and wrong and the parties can be happy or annoyed or out of money to fight anymore.

[marybrewster]

This is why I made reference to how a fan might feel versus what got signed and ruled on.

I don’t know any details of who brought a case and what it was about however, while we might not like what a judge did, his ruling basically is the law and if it wasn’t appealed that’s the end of it. He’s the guy that gets to say what was right and wrong and the parties can be happy or annoyed or out of money to fight anymore.

Right. And people go to prison every day for crimes they didn't commit, so, I don't have a lot of Supreme Faith in the justice system.

[gman]

I believe in one agreement with Motown for Mary to continue using the Supremes name in advertising her solo gigs was that THE SUPREMES had to be 50% smaller than the print using Mary Wilson...what was the deal when Berry sold Motown? didn't he give her 50% ownership to insure income going forward for her???

[RanRan79]

I call bull. Here are the facts: The Rag was never a Supreme. There were nine women in the history of the music business who were ever official Supremes, and we know their names. There are a few additional women who have performed as a Supreme, either in studio or on stage, like Marlene Barrow, but who was never an official member. The Supremes ended in 1977 and when the last three stepped off stage, the Rag wasn't one of them.

I don't believe for one moment that the Rag has anything signed between herself and Mary Wilson that calls the Rag a Supreme. And lets say, for argument's sake, that she did, Mary didn't have the right to put together a package of Supremes after 1977 and so that would make the Rag's claim null and void.

It is hard to discuss this subject without any of the facts of the case, beyond the common sense stuff that we know, which is that the Rag was never an actual factual Supreme. But if the judgement was that the Rag gets to claim that she was one of the Supremes, that's plain wrong because she wasn't. Judge's get judgements wrong all the time. Rulings get repealed. Just because this judge said it was so doesn't make it so. The Rag was never a Supreme.

The good thing is that, beyond us diehards, nobody knows who this woman is. The world knows Mary Wilson. They know Diana Ross. They know Florence Ballard. They probably know Cindy Birdsong. They might even know Jean Terrell. They don't know The Rag no matter how many food truck openings she books. She's a sick woman.

[RanRan79]

Right. And people go to prison every day for crimes they didn't commit, so, I don't have a lot of Supreme Faith in the justice system.

Boom. Nuff said.

[jobeterob]

I call bull. Here are the facts: The Rag was never a Supreme. There were nine women in the history of the music business who were ever official Supremes, and we know their names. There are a few additional women who have performed as a Supreme, either in studio or on stage, like Marlene Barrow, but who was never an official member. The Supremes ended in 1977 and when the last three stepped off stage, the Rag wasn't one of them.

I don't believe for one moment that the Rag has anything signed between herself and Mary Wilson that calls the Rag a Supreme. And lets say, for argument's sake, that she did, Mary didn't have the right to put together a package of Supremes after 1977 and so that would make the Rag's claim null and void.

It is hard to discuss this subject without any of the facts of the case, beyond the common sense stuff that we know, which is that the Rag was never an actual factual Supreme. But if the judgement was that the Rag gets to claim that she was one of the Supremes, that's plain wrong because she wasn't. Judge's get judgements wrong all the time. Rulings get repealed. Just because this judge said it was so doesn't make it so. The Rag was never a Supreme.

The good thing is that, beyond us diehards, nobody knows who this woman is. The world knows Mary Wilson. They know Diana Ross. They know Florence Ballard. They probably know Cindy Birdsong. They might even know Jean Terrell. They don't know The Rag no matter how many food truck openings she books. She's a sick woman.

It would be nice if all this were right - but this is not how the law works.

You get to say what you want on social media.

But when a judge says it, it is the law. It can be appealed but not repealed and if there’s no appeal, it’s the law. It then takes the government to change the law.

Sadly, they are sometimes wrong - but they are still the law.

[bradsupremes]

It would be nice if all this were right - but this is not how the law works.

You get to say what you want on social media.

But when a judge says it, it is the law. It can be appealed but not repealed and if there’s no appeal, it’s the law. It then takes the government to change the law.

Sadly, they are sometimes wrong - but they are still the law.

So let's look at this way. Motown owned the name Supremes. In 1974, Motown gave 50% ownership of the Supremes name in an agreement to Mary but Motown retained the full rights to exploit the name. Mary is given no rights to the name outside of her recording contract with Motown. The 50% ownership of the name is only the percentage of money Mary would have received if Motown decide to sell the name to a third party.

So if Mary only co-owned the name when it pertained to her and her recording contract and not the full group and only to receive percentage of the sale money if Motown sold it, I don't understand how Kaaaaren had any legal claim to being a Supreme if the ownership/usage of the name only applied to Mary and her recording contract. Wouldn't that have made any agreement [[if there was any) null and void?

I'm willing to bet the court didn't have this full information regarding the ownership of the name and likely wouldn't have ruled in favor of Kaaaaren since 1.) Motown retained the full rights to the name and its exploitation 2.) Kaaaaren was never signed to Motown as a Supreme. Motown could have backed this up by evidence.

So we can say that the court ruled the way it did, but as we know with history - sometimes facts come out and change things. The evidence is there to disprove Kaaaren's claim. Regardless, no matter what Kaaaren claims or tries - she is not nor will ever be acknowledged as a Supreme and in court of public opinion, that's the ruling that's most important of all.

[bradsupremes]

Looks like the Rag is still around, at least as of last year.

The Sounds of The Supremes with '70's/'80's "Supreme" Kaaren Ragland - Universal Attractions Agency

The Sounds of the Supremes | Facebook

It's clearly outdated as Kathy Merrick now sings with Shelly Clark's Honey Cone group.

[RanRan79]

It would be nice if all this were right - but this is not how the law works.

You get to say what you want on social media.

But when a judge says it, it is the law. It can be appealed but not repealed and if there’s no appeal, it’s the law. It then takes the government to change the law.

Sadly, they are sometimes wrong - but they are still the law.

No one is questioning whether the law is current. It has not been appealed, true. The issue at hand is was the ruling right or wrong and is the Rag a former Supreme or not.

The judge ruled that the Rag has the right to identify herself as a former Supreme. We know she was never a member of the Supremes. That makes the ruling wrong. Wrong rulings becoming law have been a stain on this country's history for centuries. Just because a judge says something is so, doesn't make it true. The Rag was never a Supreme. The only Supreme she has any connection to is Mary Wilson. The Rag doesn't know Berry Gordy. She never stepped foot in a Supremes recording session. She is a fraud who found a way to get over.

The fact that she has ties to the legal community could also mean there was some underhanded stuff going on. Perhaps if Mary had the funds to do it, she could have appealed and fought. I can understand why she may not have wanted to put more money into this, which also might be something the Rag was banking on.

[marybrewster]

So let's look at this way. Motown owned the name Supremes. In 1974, Motown gave 50% ownership of the Supremes name in an agreement to Mary but Motown retained the full rights to exploit the name. Mary is given no rights to the name outside of her recording contract with Motown. The 50% ownership of the name is only the percentage of money Mary would have received if Motown decide to sell the name to a third party.

So if Mary only co-owned the name when it pertained to her and her recording contract and not the full group and only to receive percentage of the sale money if Motown sold it, I don't understand how Kaaaaren had any legal claim to being a Supreme if the ownership/usage of the name only applied to Mary and her recording contract. Wouldn't that have made any agreement [[if there was any) null and void?

I'm willing to bet the court didn't have this full information regarding the ownership of the name and likely wouldn't have ruled in favor of Kaaaaren since 1.) Motown retained the full rights to the name and its exploitation 2.) Kaaaaren was never signed to Motown as a Supreme. Motown could have backed this up by evidence.

So we can say that the court ruled the way it did, but as we know with history - sometimes facts come out and change things. The evidence is there to disprove Kaaaren's claim. Regardless, no matter what Kaaaren claims or tries - she is not nor will ever be acknowledged as a Supreme and in court of public opinion, that's the ruling that's most important of all.

The other important part is that Mary's lawsuit was regarding the name "The Supremes". The judge ruled in Kaaren's favor.....but that she could use "The Sounds of the Supremes". It's Kaaren who has taken it upon herself to claim she was a Supreme. We can throw that old "but the law says" line around, but the law is that she can use SOS. And SOS ONLY. She's as delusional as the gal running around claiming she's Flo's daughter. Wow, what if the judge ruled in her favor for a name change? Would the law still be the law?

It's funny to me that Motown or Universal didn't get involved, since THEY owned the name Supremes. I seem to recall a board member here once had a tribute website that had the Supremes in its domain name, and they were served a cease and d. Motown/ Uni had their panties in a bunch about a 16 year old running a lovely website, but gave zero shites about a rag running around singing Diana's songs.

Sounds of the Supremes? As if.

[rod_rick]

I call bull. Here are the facts: The Rag was never a Supreme. There were nine women in the history of the music business who were ever official Supremes, and we know their names. There are a few additional women who have performed as a Supreme, either in studio or on stage, like Marlene Barrow, but who was never an official member. The Supremes ended in 1977 and when the last three stepped off stage, the Rag wasn't one of them.

I don't believe for one moment that the Rag has anything signed between herself and Mary Wilson that calls the Rag a Supreme. And lets say, for argument's sake, that she did, Mary didn't have the right to put together a package of Supremes after 1977 and so that would make the Rag's claim null and void.

It is hard to discuss this subject without any of the facts of the case, beyond the common sense stuff that we know, which is that the Rag was never an actual factual Supreme. But if the judgement was that the Rag gets to claim that she was one of the Supremes, that's plain wrong because she wasn't. Judge's get judgements wrong all the time. Rulings get repealed. Just because this judge said it was so doesn't make it so. The Rag was never a Supreme.

The good thing is that, beyond us diehards, nobody knows who this woman is. The world knows Mary Wilson. They know Diana Ross. They know Florence Ballard. They probably know Cindy Birdsong. They might even know Jean Terrell. They don't know The Rag no matter how many food truck openings she books. She's a sick woman.

And on top of that have you ever heard Rag sing a lead? I have and she SUCKS!!!!

[RanRan79]

The other important part is that Mary's lawsuit was regarding the name "The Supremes". The judge ruled in Kaaren's favor.....but that she could use "The Sounds of the Supremes". It's Kaaren who has taken it upon herself to claim she was a Supreme. We can throw that old "but the law says" line around, but the law is that she can use SOS. And SOS ONLY. She's as delusional as the gal running around claiming she's Flo's daughter. Wow, what if the judge ruled in her favor for a name change? Would the law still be the law?

It's funny to me that Motown or Universal didn't get involved, since THEY owned the name Supremes. I seem to recall a board member here once had a tribute website that had the Supremes in its domain name, and they were served a cease and d. Motown/ Uni had their panties in a bunch about a 16 year old running a lovely website, but gave zero shites about a rag running around singing Diana's songs.

Sounds of the Supremes? As if.

So the truth is, I'd be okay with the Rag's SOS. The name sounds like a tribute group. I would think the billing would signal to anyone purchasing a ticket that they're getting nothing more than a faux group singing the legends' hits. Mind you, I'd be okay with that if there were no more Supremes left, certainly no more still performing. The Rag moved in on Mary and the FLOS territory, and that was the problem. Why do you need to have anything to do with the Supremes? If you're good enough to sing backup for Mary Wilson, why not step out there and do your own thing? And then on top of that, she is doing interviews where she is clearly wording things to give the impression that she was in fact a Supreme, which leads me to believe that she has used that tactic to get herself gigs. Trash.

[RanRan79]

I have to add this about Mary though, her opposition to the FLOS was dead wrong. I get the rationalization that the FLOS could get bookings that Mary should have gotten and thus became competition of the highest order for Mary. But just like Mary had bills to pay and mouths to feed, so did the Former Ladies, all of whom had a right to cash in on their time as Supremes. And considering that Mary would not end the group and go out on her own until much later, those ladies helped her keep the group going and you'd think she'd at least have enough respect for them to give them her blessing.

None of the replacements had the name value of Mary Wilson, especially after Dreamgirl exploded- which I think was also around the time the FLOS were formed- so I would think she'd probably get the better bookings on average anyway. Why begrudge the other ladies?

[RanRan79]

And on top of that have you ever heard Rag sing a lead? I have and she SUCKS!!!!

LOL I have not heard her sing a lead. Might put that on my to do list for the day, check out the Rag on Youtube, if she's there.

[lakeside]

It's clearly outdated as Kathy Merrick now sings with Shelly Clark's Honey Cone group.

Thanks for the update, Brad. Kathy indeed does sing with Honeycone. I wonder who replaced her in SOS? Shantel Baker??
Bio — HONEY CONE

[jobeterob]

So let's look at this way. Motown owned the name Supremes. In 1974, Motown gave 50% ownership of the Supremes name in an agreement to Mary but Motown retained the full rights to exploit the name. Mary is given no rights to the name outside of her recording contract with Motown. The 50% ownership of the name is only the percentage of money Mary would have received if Motown decide to sell the name to a third party.

So if Mary only co-owned the name when it pertained to her and her recording contract and not the full group and only to receive percentage of the sale money if Motown sold it, I don't understand how Kaaaaren had any legal claim to being a Supreme if the ownership/usage of the name only applied to Mary and her recording contract. Wouldn't that have made any agreement [[if there was any) null and void?

I'm willing to bet the court didn't have this full information regarding the ownership of the name and likely wouldn't have ruled in favor of Kaaaaren since 1.) Motown retained the full rights to the name and its exploitation 2.) Kaaaaren was never signed to Motown as a Supreme. Motown could have backed this up by evidence.

So we can say that the court ruled the way it did, but as we know with history - sometimes facts come out and change things. The evidence is there to disprove Kaaaren's claim. Regardless, no matter what Kaaaren claims or tries - she is not nor will ever be acknowledged as a Supreme and in court of public opinion, that's the ruling that's most important of all.

No that would not have made any agreement between Mary and Kaaren null and void but Mary could only give Kaaren rights over what she owned, not what Motown owned.

We would need to see the reasons for judgement to understand what the scrap was over. Did this really go to a trial or was it settled out of court? Not much ever makes it to trial.

My memory is that there was a time when Motown [[and other record companies) had no objection to every kind of tribute band and self promoting person like Kaaren and Shantelle using the connection because in the 80’s and 90’s, it helped sell records by the Supremes and Temptations and others. So the record companies did nothing.

I find it hard to understand why some of these artists got little or no legal advice even later in their careers - I assume the issue was the cost. But even in recent years, you have Aretha Franklin, who must have had some assets, not doing a proper Will and causing a 5 year fight that must have cost a fortune.

[marybrewster]

No that would not have made any agreement between Mary and Kaaren null and void but Mary could only give Kaaren rights over what she owned, not what Motown owned.

We would need to see the reasons for judgement to understand what the scrap was over. Did this really go to a trial or was it settled out of court? Not much ever makes it to trial.

My memory is that there was a time when Motown [[and other record companies) had no objection to every kind of tribute band and self promoting person like Kaaren and Shantelle using the connection because in the 80’s and 90’s, it helped sell records by the Supremes and Temptations and others. So the record companies did nothing.

I find it hard to understand why some of these artists got little or no legal advice even later in their careers - I assume the issue was the cost. But even in recent years, you have Aretha Franklin, who must have had some assets, not doing a proper Will and causing a 5 year fight that must have cost a fortune.

You mean a piece of paper stuffed in a couch cushion isn't a legit will?

[marybrewster]

Does anyone recall what year this lawsuit took place? I have almost every Mary Wilson Fanclub newsletter from the early 80's to the last one and I'm sure there were details shared in one of the issues.

[jobeterob]

You mean a piece of paper stuffed in a couch cushion isn't a legit will?

That’s a legal question and it can be a little loaded

Some such things can be; it depends on your jurisdiction; if you are hanging off a raft with sharks circling and and scrawl something somewhere, it might be valid.

I think in the Aretha case, they were arguing that some of her scribbles should be valid.

What she did was create circumstances enabling a fight and a way to spend $1m for nothing.

Looks like Mary looked after that end of things properly.

[bradsupremes]

No that would not have made any agreement between Mary and Kaaren null and void but Mary could only give Kaaren rights over what she owned, not what Motown owned.

We would need to see the reasons for judgement to understand what the scrap was over. Did this really go to a trial or was it settled out of court? Not much ever makes it to trial.

My memory is that there was a time when Motown [[and other record companies) had no objection to every kind of tribute band and self promoting person like Kaaren and Shantelle using the connection because in the 80’s and 90’s, it helped sell records by the Supremes and Temptations and others. So the record companies did nothing.

I find it hard to understand why some of these artists got little or no legal advice even later in their careers - I assume the issue was the cost. But even in recent years, you have Aretha Franklin, who must have had some assets, not doing a proper Will and causing a 5 year fight that must have cost a fortune.

But if Mary only owned a percentage of the name when it applied to just her recording contract and only to receive a monetary percentage if the name was sold, how does that extend to Kaaaren? Kaaaren had no involvement or legal agreement when it came to Mary's recording contract with Motown and her personal advertisement. Mary didn't have ownership when it came to others nor could bestow it to others. The Supremes ownership applied to her only. Now, I think it was very foolish of Mary to do promotional photos with any of her backup singers and also put them in matching Supremes gowns with her. That didn't help her case, but if we're looking at it from a paper standpoint I don't get how Kaaaren had any legal stance.

[sup_fan]

But if Mary only owned a percentage of the name when it applied to just her recording contract and only to receive a monetary percentage if the name was sold, how does that extend to Kaaaren? Kaaaren had no involvement or legal agreement when it came to Mary's recording contract with Motown and her personal advertisement. Mary didn't have ownership when it came to others nor could bestow it to others. The Supremes ownership applied to her only. Now, I think it was very foolish of Mary to do promotional photos with any of her backup singers and also put them in matching Supremes gowns with her. That didn't help her case, but if we're looking at it from a paper standpoint I don't get how Kaaaren had any legal stance.

Mary sued motown in 77 and then motown countersued over her usage of the name The Supremes. my understanding is that both sides agreed to drop the cases without prejudice, meaning that neither could bring those charges back up

so does that imply that motown essentially gave some degree of approval for mary to use the name? and we all know that the way in which mary used the name varied considerably. sometimes it was "The Supremes' Mary Wilson" sometimes "mary Wilson and the Supremes"

if she used the later, then she was identifying Kaaren as a Supreme. and if she had basic permission from motown to use the name, then perhaps that's how the judge came to his decision.

agree that it's very very muddied.

[marybrewster]

But was SHE using Mary Wilson and the Supremes, or were promoters using it? That's what I'd like to know. Clearly there was recognition value in using "the Supremes" attached with the name Mary Wilson, but I'd think Mary always used OF instead of AND.

[jobeterob]

But if Mary only owned a percentage of the name when it applied to just her recording contract and only to receive a monetary percentage if the name was sold, how does that extend to Kaaaren? Kaaaren had no involvement or legal agreement when it came to Mary's recording contract with Motown and her personal advertisement. Mary didn't have ownership when it came to others nor could bestow it to others. The Supremes ownership applied to her only. Now, I think it was very foolish of Mary to do promotional photos with any of her backup singers and also put them in matching Supremes gowns with her. That didn't help her case, but if we're looking at it from a paper standpoint I don't get how Kaaaren had any legal stance.

I didn’t know Mary and Kaaren had a legal agreement or a legal fight. Maybe Marybrewster can find some details on the judgement or fight.

It sounds like you are saying the agreement might have been between Supremes Inc. and Kaaren. If Supremes Inc. only owned 50% of the rights to the name, they could enter into an agreement with respect to what they owned but they could not make any agreement with respect to what Motown owned - unless Motown was party to the agreement.

Who knows though; I’d have to read about the fight.

[jobeterob]

Here’s an article I found online - it’s been posted here years ago


Noise11.com

HOME
NEWS
GALLERIES
INTERVIEWS
SESSIONS
NOISE PRO
TSO Supremes Kathy Althea Kaaren in action
The Sounds Of The Supremes
Kaaren Ragland has keeping The Supremes live and alive since the late 70s
by PAUL CASHMERE on FEBRUARY 8, 2019
in NEWS
Since the late 70s Kaaren Ragland has been performing the song of The Supremes, firstly with Supremes Mary Wilson, and since 1989 without her and she is still doing so with The Sound of the Supremes.

Wilson left in 1989 but Kaaren continued. Kareen tells noise11.com, “I came over [[to Australia) with [[Mary Wilson) in the middle of 89 on the Legends of Rock tour for MTV with Chuck Berry and the Everly Brothers. That was her last real tour doing these hits. She is out there still doing her solo career”.

Initially Mary Wilson fought Kaaren’s right to perform her Supremes show. “She felt a little intimated because we had become so successful,” Kaaren said. “We all went to court and the Judge said ‘You can call yourself this, you can call yourself that’. She tried to suspend all the former Supremes which is kind of silly looking back at it. We prevailed because Motown and Universal liked the fact that we were still performing so they promoted our shows. They liked that we were still performing the material and doing a good job of it, so here we are”.

Kaaren’s incarnation of The Supremes almost didn’t happen. “I never knew Diana [[Ross) because she left in 1970 to pursue a movie career and they moved Motown around that time to LA from Detroit. I came into play in the late 70s. So many people wanted to hear the material when they wanted to suspend it. A promoter in England decided to tour us and it was a wonderful experience,” she said.

40 years on, and another Australian tour is on the way. “I would be bored to tears if I stopped,” Kaaren said. “I love what I do. It is such a privilege to perform and to travel to different countries. It is wonderful”.

The Sounds of The Supremes is presented by Abstract Entertainment.


THE SOUNDS OF THE SUPREMES TOUR DATES

Friday 15th March, 2019 – CASTLE HILL RSL CLUB – Bookings: [[02) 8858 4800
Saturday 16th March, 2019 – NORTHS LEAGUES CLUB, NORTH SYDNEY – Bookings: [[02) 9245 3000
Wednesday 20th March, 2019 – THE GOV, ADELAIDE – Bookings: 1300 762 545 or www.oztix.com.au
Friday 22nd March, 2019 – DEE WHY RSL CLUB – Bookings: [[02) 9454 4000
Saturday 23rd March, 2019 – THE PALMS AT CROWN, MELBOURNE – Bookings: 136 100 Ticketmaster www.ticketmaster.com.au
Sunday 24th March, 2019 – SOUTHS JUNIORS CLUB – Bookings: [[02) 9349 7555
Thursday 28th March, 2019 – THE ART HOUSE, WYONG – Bookings: [[02) 4335 1485
Friday 29th March, 2019 – TWIN TOWNS SERVICES CLUB, TWEED HEADS – Bookings: 1800 014 014
Saturday 30th March, 2019 – WENTY LEAGUES CLUB, WENTWORTHVILLE – Bookings: [[02) 8869 9200

music-news.com

[Spreadinglove21]

But was SHE using Mary Wilson and the Supremes, or were promoters using it? That's what I'd like to know. Clearly there was recognition value in using "the Supremes" attached with the name Mary Wilson, but I'd think Mary always used OF instead of AND.

I remember in the mid to late 90s there was a listing in one of the San Francisco newspapers of concerts and shows that weekend and among them was "Mary Wilson and the Supremes". I remember thinking "Did Mary reform the Supremes? So she was billed that at times.

Also I think another reason why Mary lost the suits against Kaaren/SOS and the FLOS was because she didn't own the rights to the name Supremes. Motown did. She had no business filing a suit on such grounds. She got bad legal advise and paid for it. It was up to Motown to bring suit and they didn't.

[jobeterob]

Here’s another ad

[jobeterob]

From Wikipedia:

Ragland appeared in the Broadway theatre production of "Eubie" with Cab Calloway, and in productions of “Little Shop of Horrors” and "Balm in Gilead" in Los Angeles. She was the first African-American ingenue hired by the National Shakespeare Company in New York City in the mid 70’s while she was still a student at Boston University. In addition Kaaren Ragland appeared in several productions of the play “For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Suicide/When The Rainbow is Enuf” in Los Angeles at the Mark Taper Forum, the Huntington Hartford, and at the Buffalo Studio Arena Theatre. In addition she appeared in more than 20 National Television Spot Commercials.

In 1977, last original and founding member Mary Wilson decided to disband the Supremes and forge a solo career. However, audiences and agents still wanted to see the group so Wilson hired Ragland for concert tours in the United Kingdom, Europe, South East Asia and Australia during 1978 as a contracted member of The Supremes. Further,throughout the 80's Kaaren returned as a singer for Wilson in Mary Wilson & The Supremes. Mary continued to tour with Ragland and others performing in the US, Canada, South America, Japan and Europe. Ragland 's final tour with Wilson took place in March and April 1989 ending in the Legends of Rock tour in Australia.

In late 1989, Ragland formed a group called “The Sounds of the Supremes” with whom she has appeared in over 70 countries around the world. Wilson attempted to prevent her using the name "The Sounds of the Supremes” in a Federal Court action in 1996. But, based on extensive contractual evidence and her multiple concert performance history that began in the UK in 1978 [[while contracted to perform as a member of “The Supremes”) the court found in Ragland’s favor, granting her the right to use her own name: “The Sounds of the Supremes".

[carlo]

I remember in the mid to late 90s there was a listing in one of the San Francisco newspapers of concerts and shows that weekend and among them was "Mary Wilson and the Supremes". I remember thinking "Did Mary reform the Supremes? So she was billed that at times.

Also I think another reason why Mary lost the suits against Kaaren/SOS and the FLOS was because she didn't own the rights to the name Supremes. Motown did. She had no business filing a suit on such grounds. She got bad legal advise and paid for it. It was up to Motown to bring suit and they didn't.

Yes, you're right that Mary and/or the promoters billed her at various times as Mary Wilson and the Supremes, or The Supremes featuring Mary Wilson, or as The Supremes.

I agree with your second point about why Mary lost those cases. It came down to her not being the registered trademark owner. If Motown had pursued it, Kaaren Ragland would have lost.

Here is Mary as "The Supremes" with Gloria Scott and Karen Jackson.

[carlo]

It's funny to me that Motown or Universal didn't get involved, since THEY owned the name Supremes. I seem to recall a board member here once had a tribute website that had the Supremes in its domain name, and they were served a cease and d. Motown/ Uni had their panties in a bunch about a 16 year old running a lovely website, but gave zero shites about a rag running around singing Diana's songs.

That would be me. Thank you.

Perhaps I would have been better off having auditioned three women and then I could have billed them as The Supremes. I could have been their manager. At least I would have made some money, and Universal's legal reps would have loved that, more than my fan website...

The music biz ain't all what it seems. To quote Tony La Tina Turner..."all that glittered".

[carlo]

Here are a couple of articles, from back in the day, mentioning the legal proceedings. The first one from the LA Times is interesting because I had always thought that Mary had filed two separate lawsuits against the FLOS and Kaaren Ragland, at different points in time. This article makes it sound like she had sued them collectively, at the same time. If this was truly the case, then it does make it all that much more confusing, from a legal standpoint. You're pretty much arguing that no one should be using the Supremes' name, whether they were a member or not, but have no legal basis for it.

She was not the trademark holder, so she didn't have any grounds to present a cease and desist against anyone using The Supremes' name, which makes it that much harder for her to prove she's taken a financial hit due to these ladies having toured as The Supremes. She was financially benefiting from using a name she technically did not own, so in the eyes of the law, she was doing the same thing that Scherrie, Lynda and Kaaren were doing. If Motown had pursued legal action, it would have been a different story. She needed the record company on her side, to win this. She got bad legal advice for sure.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...445-story.html

This next article is interesting because Kaaren claims that Universal's predecessor, Polydor, had them perform a showcase and had endorsed her and her group, after the lawsuit was dismissed. I doubt it's true but if it is, it was certainly a slap in the face to Mary.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...ay3ApnDJ8bKq49

[sup_fan]

I remember in the mid to late 90s there was a listing in one of the San Francisco newspapers of concerts and shows that weekend and among them was "Mary Wilson and the Supremes". I remember thinking "Did Mary reform the Supremes? So she was billed that at times.

Also I think another reason why Mary lost the suits against Kaaren/SOS and the FLOS was because she didn't own the rights to the name Supremes. Motown did. She had no business filing a suit on such grounds. She got bad legal advise and paid for it. It was up to Motown to bring suit and they didn't.

that's a great point. having no real legal ownership of the name, you're right that Mary couldn't be the one to bring charges.

what was the timing on the Kaaren one versus the FLOS one? were they relatively close to one another in timing?

[jim aka jtigre99]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...124-story.html

[BayouMotownMan]

Here are a couple of articles, from back in the day, mentioning the legal proceedings. The first one from the LA Times is interesting because I had always thought that Mary had filed two separate lawsuits against the FLOS and Kaaren Ragland, at different points in time. This article makes it sound like she had sued them collectively, at the same time. If this was truly the case, then it does make it all that much more confusing, from a legal standpoint. You're pretty much arguing that no one should be using the Supremes' name, whether they were a member or not, but have no legal basis for it.

She was not the trademark holder, so she didn't have any grounds to present a cease and desist against anyone using The Supremes' name, which makes it that much harder for her to prove she's taken a financial hit due to these ladies having toured as The Supremes. She was financially benefiting from using a name she technically did not own, so in the eyes of the law, she was doing the same thing that Scherrie, Lynda and Kaaren were doing. If Motown had pursued legal action, it would have been a different story. She needed the record company on her side, to win this. She got bad legal advice for sure.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...445-story.html

This next article is interesting because Kaaren claims that Universal's predecessor, Polydor, had them perform a showcase and had endorsed her and her group, after the lawsuit was dismissed. I doubt it's true but if it is, it was certainly a slap in the face to Mary.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...ay3ApnDJ8bKq49

Glad you posted this Carlo, these are valid points.

While I think it abhorrent that Ragland bills herself within the groups name, legally she was allowed to do so.

First and foremost, Mary Wilson, after 1990 no longer owned ANY part of the name Supremes. She admitted this in her second book. She spent a fortune trying to secure full ownership of the name and when Gordy sold Motown she could see that this fight now involved more people and would drag on forever. She signed away her rights to the name I think in 1990 or thereabouts.

Therefore, I was confused when Mary started suing all the women over a name she didn't own.

Also, the FLOs first won their claim that Mary brought on, but they did not demand that Mary reimburse their legal fees. Not the same with Ragland. She had signed a contract with Supremes Inc, which was Mary's company back in 1977 or 78. The court considered this a valid contract even though, as many of you have stated, Mary herself didn't fully own the name Supremes. So it was all confusing but the judge determined that since Ragland did sign the contract and there apparently was no provision that she not use the name after leaving Mary's employ, then...

Unlike the FLOs, Ragland countersued for attorney fees and lost wages, and won. Mary had to pay Ragland a nice sum which took some time for Mary to do. It was disgusting, since Mary was the longest serving Supreme, but legally, Ragland had Mary over a barrel.

We all hoped that Universal would have supported Mary in these actions. But as long as Supremes CDs were selling they didn't care who was in the group.

Mary should never have sued anybody in hindsight. If a sell a car to someone and turn over the title and the keys to another person, I have no rights to tell that person how they can use that car.

[carlo]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...124-story.html

Thanks for sharing, Jim. I was unable to read the article properly, as it seems to be hidden behind a paywall and only available to subscribers. I was able to quickly copy and paste the article before I got blocked from viewing it. Not sure if it goes beyond what is mentioned below, but the ruling makes sense, despite Kaaren Ragland being a delusional liar.


MARY WILSON LOSES APPEAL IN SUPREMES TRADEMARK SUIT
Chicago Tribune
•
Published: Jul 07, 1999 at 12:00 am

An original member of The Supremes has lost an appeal of her trademark suit against three women who perform as Former Ladies of the Supremes.

The rights to the group's name are owned by Motown, and not by former members such as Mary Wilson, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said Tuesday.

The court said Motown had allowed Former Ladies of the Supremes--and another spinoff group, Sounds of the Supremes--to keep their names, and there was nothing Wilson could do about it.

Wilson's suit claimed the groups were misleading members of the public into believing they were the authentic Supremes.

[marybrewster]

Glad you posted this Carlo, these are valid points.

While I think it abhorrent that Ragland bills herself within the groups name, legally she was allowed to do so.

First and foremost, Mary Wilson, after 1990 no longer owned ANY part of the name Supremes. She admitted this in her second book. She spent a fortune trying to secure full ownership of the name and when Gordy sold Motown she could see that this fight now involved more people and would drag on forever. She signed away her rights to the name I think in 1990 or thereabouts.

Therefore, I was confused when Mary started suing all the women over a name she didn't own.

Also, the FLOs first won their claim that Mary brought on, but they did not demand that Mary reimburse their legal fees. Not the same with Ragland. She had signed a contract with Supremes Inc, which was Mary's company back in 1977 or 78. The court considered this a valid contract even though, as many of you have stated, Mary herself didn't fully own the name Supremes. So it was all confusing but the judge determined that since Ragland did sign the contract and there apparently was no provision that she not use the name after leaving Mary's employ, then...

Unlike the FLOs, Ragland countersued for attorney fees and lost wages, and won. Mary had to pay Ragland a nice sum which took some time for Mary to do. It was disgusting, since Mary was the longest serving Supreme, but legally, Ragland had Mary over a barrel.

We all hoped that Universal would have supported Mary in these actions. But as long as Supremes CDs were selling they didn't care who was in the group.

Mary should never have sued anybody in hindsight. If a sell a car to someone and turn over the title and the keys to another person, I have no rights to tell that person how they can use that car.

Thank you for your informative and detailed post.

[carlo]

Glad you posted this Carlo, these are valid points.

While I think it abhorrent that Ragland bills herself within the groups name, legally she was allowed to do so.

First and foremost, Mary Wilson, after 1990 no longer owned ANY part of the name Supremes. She admitted this in her second book. She spent a fortune trying to secure full ownership of the name and when Gordy sold Motown she could see that this fight now involved more people and would drag on forever. She signed away her rights to the name I think in 1990 or thereabouts.

Therefore, I was confused when Mary started suing all the women over a name she didn't own.

Also, the FLOs first won their claim that Mary brought on, but they did not demand that Mary reimburse their legal fees. Not the same with Ragland. She had signed a contract with Supremes Inc, which was Mary's company back in 1977 or 78. The court considered this a valid contract even though, as many of you have stated, Mary herself didn't fully own the name Supremes. So it was all confusing but the judge determined that since Ragland did sign the contract and there apparently was no provision that she not use the name after leaving Mary's employ, then...

Unlike the FLOs, Ragland countersued for attorney fees and lost wages, and won. Mary had to pay Ragland a nice sum which took some time for Mary to do. It was disgusting, since Mary was the longest serving Supreme, but legally, Ragland had Mary over a barrel.

We all hoped that Universal would have supported Mary in these actions. But as long as Supremes CDs were selling they didn't care who was in the group.

Mary should never have sued anybody in hindsight. If a sell a car to someone and turn over the title and the keys to another person, I have no rights to tell that person how they can use that car.

Thanks Bayou. I agree.

I was browsing some older posts and found this link that Jobeterob had shared back in 2014. It is not related to this lawsuit that Mary had filed, but rather a trademark filing in the UK, for the Supremes name, which resulted in a dispute between Mary and the FLOS. It describes the nature of Mary's contract with Motown in 1974, which had stated did not have the right to the Supremes name, outside of her recording contract, which Bradsupremes had pointed out earlier. It's interesting that the document states that no evidence could be found of Lynda having signed a contract with Mary's Supremes Inc., but was under contract as a Motown artist. It says that Scherrie had indeed signed a contract, as an employee of Supremes Inc., and the contact stated she could not use the Supremes name in the future, but this contract had no effect under UK law [likely because Mary was not the trademark owner].

I also found this excerpt to also be interesting:

[Mary] was aware that the opponents [Scherrie Payne and Lynda Laurence] had commenced performing again under the name. This awareness must have existed at least from 1987 because she says in paragraph 24 of her first declaration that she ..... "performed with the opponents at The Wiltshire Ebell in 1987. I attended the show because I was aggrieved at the opponents use of the name THE SUPREMES. The opponents invited me on stage and due to the attendance of many of my fans in
the audience I did go up on stage because if I had refused in front of my fans it
would have seemed churlish, but this was not to be seen as an endorsement of
the opponents activities."

I remember seeing a clip of this on Youtube.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/o15801.pdf

[marybrewster]

Wilson's suit claimed the groups were misleading members of the public into believing they were the authentic Supremes.

I know that at least on several budget CD releases, the FLOS were referred to as THE SUPREMES. Several of us undoubtedly have them in our collections. So I'm sure it was confusing, if even deceiving, to think you're going to get The Supremes "Baby Love" with a Diana vocal on a Funk Brothers track, and instead get Cindy Scott a la karaoke. Perhaps Mary was just looking out for the fans?

[jobeterob]

Thanks for the link to the reasons for judgment.

It’s painful to read all of that but it’s interesting, probably more so to a lawyer.

From my memory of trademark law, one of the issues that matters is the use of the “mark” and I seem to pick up in these reasons that one of the factors was Mary stopped using the mark for the 10 previous years and Scherrie and Lynda were using it.

Interesting that we reviewed this 10 years back. It’s sad that we have lost some very knowledgeable and connected members here, people that were Gordy friends and neighbours - but people get old and some people got tired of the fights and opinions.

From some of these links, while the Karen’s and FLOS and Mary may not have played Royal Albert Hall, it looks like they were performing regularly in various countries and the FLOS are still performing regularly today. In the end, they all had to protect their turf I guess.