"Fake" Marvelettes

[woodward]

Anyone know whether the fake "Marvelettes" are still scamming the public and performing? I have not heard any mention of them in some time. Hopefully they moved as far away from here as they possibly can.

[marv2]

Anyone know whether the fake "Marvelettes" are still scamming the public and performing? I have not heard any mention of them in some time. Hopefully they moved as far away from here as they possibly can.

I haven't heard of any of those fake groups touring since The Truth in Music Act has been catching on State by State.

[blueskies]

http://www.celebritytalent.net/sampletalent/6661/the-marvelettes/

[marv2]

http://www.celebritytalent.net/sampletalent/6661/the-marvelettes/

This is the part I don't understand:

Minimum Fee - U.S. Dates
$7,500-$14,999

[BayouMotownMan]

This is the part I don't understand:

Minimum Fee - U.S. Dates
$7,500-$14,999

Usually the bottom fee means the band sings to a pre-recorded tape. The higher fee requires bandmembers

[BigAl]

It's my understanding that there are several groupings of "official" Marvelettes performing, franchised by someone whose name I can't remember, but who won the name from Gordy in a poker game or something outlandish like that, so has a legal right to present his groups as Marvelettes regardless of the fact that not a single member of any of these groups ever was an actual Marvelette. I saw one of these sanctioned but bogus groups many years ago and they didn't even make any effort at all to sound like the real thing, butchering the arrangements on every song.

What really galls me is the fact that the booking gancy is using a photo of the final grouping of Hitsville Marvelettes [[Ann, Wanda and Kat). That's just wrong on so many levels.

[blueskies]

http://www.celebritydirect.biz/darden/index.htm

Pam Darden claims to have performed with Gladys Horton. Echoes of a Kaaren Ragland?
At least it does say..."Revue"....whatever that's worth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UuiAiGXjtw

[woodward]

It's my understanding that there are several groupings of "official" Marvelettes performing, franchised by someone whose name I can't remember, but who won the name from Gordy in a poker game or something outlandish like that, so has a legal right to present his groups as Marvelettes regardless of the fact that not a single member of any of these groups ever was an actual Marvelette. I saw one of these sanctioned but bogus groups many years ago and they didn't even make any effort at all to sound like the real thing, butchering the arrangements on every song.

What really galls me is the fact that the booking gancy is using a photo of the final grouping of Hitsville Marvelettes [[Ann, Wanda and Kat). That's just wrong on so many levels.

That story about winning the name in a poker game makes no sense whatsoever. According to the expert on the Marvelettes, Marc Taylor, who wrote the great book The Original Marvelettes, Motown thought that the group had vanished and were totally inactive; therefore, they did not take the effort to register the Marvelettes name. Then reportedly a Larry Marshak saw an opportunity to trademark the name and has been behind the phony Marvelettes performing. This seems and sounds very credible. I am no trademark expert, but does anyone know the rules and regulations for trademarking a group's name? Maybe Marv2 can answer this technical question [[hint).

[BigAl]

Taylor's account is much more plausible. I suppose the widespread myth about the card-game was fabricated to demonstrate how little Gordy cared about the group by that time, which, at base was the case regardless of whether he gambled the name away or just didn't bother to trademark it because he'd decided the group was washed up anyway. Either way it sucks, and The Marvelettes joined the Coasters, Drifters, Platters, Shangri Las, etc. as touring acts comprising no original members. If no original members are performing nor ever wish to, I suppose I can possibly see creating a next-generation "sanctioned" group without actually passing it off as authentically original, but even that is pretty unconscionable.

When I saw those bogus Marvelettes I mentioned, it was on a bill with some fake Shangri Las, Gene Chandler, and headlined by Martha & The Vandellas [[Roz & Nettie). After the show we met up with Martha at a local club which was hosting all the acts and others involved with the show. She would have nothing whatever to do with any members of the fake acts; wouldn't even make eye contact with them, let alone speak to them. She told everyone in her party to just ignore them, and they were clearly petrified of her. It's too bad that she had to tour with not one but two fake groups, but we've all gotta eat.

[marv2]

That story about winning the name in a poker game makes no sense whatsoever. According to the expert on the Marvelettes, Marc Taylor, who wrote the great book The Original Marvelettes, Motown thought that the group had vanished and were totally inactive; therefore, they did not take the effort to register the Marvelettes name. Then reportedly a Larry Marshak saw an opportunity to trademark the name and has been behind the phony Marvelettes performing. This seems and sounds very credible. I am no trademark expert, but does anyone know the rules and regulations for trademarking a group's name? Maybe Marv2 can answer this technical question [[hint).

Woodward, I wished I could give you the answer right now,but unfortunately I cannot. I will try back tomorrow.

[reese]

I think Motown was lax in applying for trademarks, even with their top-grossing acts.

Mary Wilson has written that when she went to apply for ownership of the Supremes' name, she found out that Motown had not even applied for the trademark yet. She rushed to apply, but through some dishonesty between her then-lawyer and Motown, Motown managed to get the trademark. But the trademark was not applied for immediately, when the girls signed their first contract in 1961.

I believe Otis Williams of the Tempts has said something similar. When the Tempts' found out about name ownership circa 1967-68, they went to apply, only to find out that Esther Edwards had applied not long before.

[marybrewster]

Posted before, but worth a re-watch:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ub02gNrnbCM

[marybrewster]

Sorry, try this link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ub02gNrnbCM

[carlo]

I think Motown was lax in applying for trademarks, even with their top-grossing acts.

Mary Wilson has written that when she went to apply for ownership of the Supremes' name, she found out that Motown had not even applied for the trademark yet. She rushed to apply, but through some dishonesty between her then-lawyer and Motown, Motown managed to get the trademark. But the trademark was not applied for immediately, when the girls signed their first contract in 1961.

I believe Otis Williams of the Tempts has said something similar. When the Tempts' found out about name ownership circa 1967-68, they went to apply, only to find out that Esther Edwards had applied not long before.

Yes, you're right, Reese. I was just re-reading Dreamgirl/Supreme Faith recently and Mary mentions that in 1974, when her contract with Motown was up, she discovered that The Supremes trademark was not owned by anyone. She filed for the trademark and was later scammed out of owning it by her unethical lawyer and Motown, who in turn ended up getting the trademark.