Mika hits back in name battle

[Guest]

Well, he's not hurting her career.

 

BUT, I don't know if it's right that he won... just because she didn't get popular doesn't mean that she doesn't still own the name.

[tauruslady]

You have to put it into perspective -- it's not a matter of *wanting*

to sue. Sometimes legally you have to do things to uphold your trademark

or copyright... you have to protect your interests.

 

I did find on Belgian Mika's site that her name is really

Sophie Michalakoudis... and she registered the name Mika in

the '80s... which means she's had 20+ years to make a name

for herself. And she argues that MIKA is hurting her career now?

 

dcdeb

yeah I suppose so, I hope thats all it is, just securing his name.

 

and yeah I'm not on her side either, I mean no one knows who she was before this name thing, so if anything she should be thanking him for getting her some publicity! not really of course:naughty:

[katydid1994]

Yay Mika! I think countersuing is the right thing to do to set precedent and prove their point.

[lollipop_monkey]

What I can't figure out is what Belgian Mika hoped to acheive in the first place.

 

Now, it says she registered the name in the '80s, and that she tried to prevent his show in Belgium from happening. Does that mean, then, that her claim and resulting lawsuit were only valid in Belgium?

 

If that's the case, what did she hope to acheive by going up against someone who has become a household name in a bunch of other countries? Did she honestly think that if he were forced to add "Penniman" to the marquee at his shows in Belgium, that in itself would alleviate confusion and enable her to sell more albums?

 

I don't care who trademarked what in the '80s, the fact is that millions of people associate "Mika" with our Mika. I don't think the Belgian paying public are going to go out with the intent of catching some live reggae, and "accidentally" wind up watching a British pop star singing about lollipops.

 

Sorry Belgian Mika, but you had decades to make it big under that moniker. I just can't see you achieving anything by taking on a hugely succesful international star - especially a star who is not only backed by a huge label, but one who made that label gobs of money in the past 14 months.

 

As for the countersuit - obviously Universal is flexing its muscles. Universal is one of the biggest in the biz, and I'm not surprised they're fighting back.

 

The fact remains that they had to spend time and money and mental effort dealing with this, which I'm sure their legal team thought was ridiculous. Then she backed out of the whole thing, which definitley gives the impression that she took it to court without thinking it through.

 

I wish that quote about a "provocative and reckless" lawsuit had been attributed to someone specific, because frankly I agree.

[LadyGodiva]

When the girl sued mika, he had to hire lawyers and everything, just because of her stupid actions and decisions. Lawyers cost a lot of $ (especially celebrity lawyers...) So he/co. countersues the money he had to spend because of her.

i hope that made sense.

[tauruslady]

What I can't figure out is what Belgian Mika hoped to acheive in the first place.

 

Now, it says she registered the name in the '80s, and that she tried to prevent his show in Belgium from happening. Does that mean, then, that her claim and resulting lawsuit were only valid in Belgium?

 

If that's the case, what did she hope to acheive by going up against someone who has become a household name in a bunch of other countries? Did she honestly think that if he were forced to add "Penniman" to the marquee at his shows in Belgium, that in itself would alleviate confusion and enable her to sell more albums?

 

I don't care who trademarked what in the '80s, the fact is that millions of people associate "Mika" with our Mika. I don't think the Belgian paying public are going to go out with the intent of catching some live reggae, and "accidentally" wind up watching a British pop star singing about lollipops.

 

Sorry Belgian Mika, but you had decades to make it big under that moniker. I just can't see you achieving anything by taking on a hugely succesful international star - especially a star who is not only backed by a huge label, but one who made that label gobs of money in the past 14 months.

 

As for the countersuit - obviously Universal is flexing its muscles. Universal is one of the biggest in the biz, and I'm not surprised they're fighting back.

 

The fact remains that they had to spend time and money and mental effort dealing with this, which I'm sure their legal team thought was ridiculous. Then she backed out of the whole thing, which definitley gives the impression that she took it to court without thinking it through.

 

I wish that quote about a "provocative and reckless" lawsuit had been attributed to someone specific, because frankly I agree.

well said!!

[tauruslady]

When the girl sued mika, he had to hire lawyers and everything, just because of her stupid actions and decisions. Lawyers cost a lot of $ (especially celebrity lawyers...) So he/co. countersues the money he had to spend because of her.

i hope that made sense.

yeah that makes sense, honestly, I didn't follow much of this, just heard bits and pieces when it first happened. but when will it be over I wonder?

[musicfreak]

it doesn't sound like something mika would do? i'm i right. i mean he sounds to nice to sue someone...

[LadyGodiva]

it doesn't sound like something mika would do? i'm i right. i mean he sounds to nice to sue someone...

 

nonono, like i said before- more from his view-

So this girl sues you for a dumb reason and you know you have to win, but you have to spend a sh!t load on lawyers and crap for this pointless case. so you've spent all that money and the girl decides to drop to case. It makes sense to sure back for everything you've had to spend for no reason at all. basically, if he doesn't, he just lost thousands of dollars because this girl threatened him and started a case but never did anything. If he doesn't countersue he just looses a lot of $ because of her when he didn't do anything.

At least thats how i would see it, prettty sure.

[AKateisaKate]

famous Mika

 

Ha. Ha. Ha.

[tauruslady]

Ha. Ha. Ha.

haahaahaa

[dcdeb]

Sorry Belgian Mika, but you had decades to make it big under that moniker. I just can't see you achieving anything by taking on a hugely succesful international star - especially a star who is not only backed by a huge label, but one who made that label gobs of money in the past 14 months.

 

OK, well, I was trying to be nice and not say this exactly

 

But yeah... if you haven't made a name for yourself in 25 years...

 

Well, let's do the math...

 

dcdeb

[lollipop_monkey]

OK, well, I was trying to be nice and not say this exactly

 

Ah, Deb - you do "nice" so much better than I do!

[A. Clay]

THANX for the update. (It is the "SUN!")

[kk448]

nonono, like i said before- more from his view-

So this girl sues you for a dumb reason and you know you have to win, but you have to spend a sh!t load on lawyers and crap for this pointless case. so you've spent all that money and the girl decides to drop to case. It makes sense to sure back for everything you've had to spend for no reason at all. basically, if he doesn't, he just lost thousands of dollars because this girl threatened him and started a case but never did anything. If he doesn't countersue he just looses a lot of $ because of her when he didn't do anything.

At least thats how i would see it, prettty sure.

 

That's basically how I see it too.

[robertina]

hehehehehe deb...you beat me....i've seen it now in my google alert!

 

thanks for posting!

[RAK1]

OK, well, I was trying to be nice and not say this exactly

 

But yeah... if you haven't made a name for yourself in 25 years...

 

Well, let's do the math...

 

dcdeb

 

I totally agree.

I made the same point in the other thread about this.

And to counter sue in civil court when she dropped the case. I know it's a different legal method, but did she really expect Universal to go away after the heap loads of cash she made them spend for nothing?

I really don't think she thought this through and her own lawyers aren't doing her any favours by pursuing this.

[Alexandra26]

That's a very good news

[CazGirl]

:roftl:

 

oh dear lord!

 

"We are everywhere! The Lebanese are everywhere! Don't mess with us cos we'll get you!"

 

[huikings]

so many pages for the last thread abt this news that i've stopped following up LOL

 

anyway, it's wonderful that MIKA's still MIKA!

but the SUN is not a reliable source?

[xlindee]

Oh, this is old news, we knew this already.I think someone from The Sun is spying on us.Seriously:mf_rosetinted:

Oh, sorry! I meant:newyear:

Haha. Yeah, we were first:newyear:

so many pages for the last thread abt this news that i've stopped following up LOL

 

anyway, it's wonderful that MIKA's still MIKA!

but the SUN is not a reliable source?

 

But it was also in other magazines already:thumb_yello:

 

 

oh dear lord!

 

"We are everywhere! The Lebanese are everywhere! Don't mess with us cos we'll get you!"

 

 

He seems to be right about that:naughty:

[mari62]

Thanks for posting Deb!!

 

:roftl:

 

oh dear lord!

 

"We are everywhere! The Lebanese are everywhere! Don't mess with us cos we'll get you!"

 

[Mika_Addiction]

unbelieveable, this is STILL going on?!

 

is suing her really the answer??

That was what I was thinking too. There are many other artist named Mika, but our mika still is the best. So..End of discussion if you ask me.

[Yoppappop]

MIKA’s legal battle against a Belgian reggae singer with the same name is turning into an epic.

 

Last year Bizarre revealed the lesser-known Mika, took the colourful Brit Award winner to court to try to force him to change his name and stop him playing in her homeland.

 

She claimed she registered the moniker in the 1980s.

 

The Belgian Mika lost that battle – and now famous Mika is fighting back.

 

The Grace Kelly singer and his record label Universal are now suing her for more than £20,000 for filing a “provocative and reckless lawsuit”.

 

Meanwhile, the reggae songstress has already announced she’s thinking about filing a counterclaim at a civil court in Brussels.

 

They’ve got to be taking the Mik . . .

 

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/bizarre/article1036162.ece

 

that must be the stupidest thing ever... and doesn't play in favour of whoever is behind that for me... as far as i'm concerned of course

[Marilyn Mastin]

I totally agree.

I made the same point in the other thread about this.

And to counter sue in civil court when she dropped the case. I know it's a different legal method, but did she really expect Universal to go away after the heap loads of cash she made them spend for nothing?

I really don't think she thought this through and her own lawyers aren't doing her any favours by pursuing this.

I agree, I have commented in The Sun's comments part. I said I don't blame Mika's label for suing, because she's been a pest. I actually think it's more to do with Universal, than with Mika as an individual. I don't think Mika, himself would persue this (but I could be wrong of course) I think they are annoyed about the whole thing and the money they've spent. BUT having said that, Universal SHOULD have checked if the MIKA name was taken so-to-speak, BEFORE they started marketing our Mr Penniman. That would have saved a lot of fuss.