Can I demand that my ex-partner no longer use our old stage name?

You used to have a successful band or artistic partnership, but the ways have been separated for years. Now you find that your former partner is still performing or releasing work under the old joint name. Can you just stop this? A ruling of the Antwerp Court of Appeal of 4 June 2025 shows that this is very difficult. If you yourself are no longer commercially active as an artist and have tacitly allowed the situation to continue for years, you lose crucial rights to oppose.

The facts: a conflict over ‘JONES & STEPHENSON’

The case revolved around two artists who in 1993 co-authored the well-known dance track “The First Rebirth” released under the name “JONES & STEPHENSON.” The parties agreed that they were each entitled to the copyrights to this song for 50%.

The collaboration stopped in the late 1990s, however, when Stephenson left the group.

More than 20 years later, in 2021-2022, Stephenson noted that his former partner (Jones) was organizing performances under the joint name “JONES & STEPHENSON,” with a “stand-in” for Stephenson. In addition, Jones had released an album in 2019 called “The Sixt Rebirth“, which, according to Stephenson, he wrongly linked to their previous success. Jones also sought to register the name “JONES & STEPHENSON” as a European trademark in 2023.

Stephenson went to court and sought the cessation of use of the name and damages. He relied on two pillars:

1. An unfair market practice: The use of the name “JONES & STEPHENSON” would infringe on his stage name “Axel Stephenson,” which he considered a trade name.
2. A copyright infringement: The new songs (such as “THE SIXT REBIRTH”) are said to be “adaptations” or “variations” of their original hit, made without his permission.

The court's decision

The court of appeal dismissed the Stephenson's appeal and found in favor of Jones (the continuing partner) on virtually all counts. Stephenson's claims were declared both inadmissible and unfounded.

1. The trade name claim (unfair market practice).

This claim failed for two crucial reasons:

• Inadmissible: Stephenson is not a “business" Stephenson based his claim on the Code of Economic Law (CEL), specifically the rules around unfair market practices. However, the court found that Stephenson did not meet the definition of a “business” as required by Article I.8.39° CEL.
  • Stephenson's main job, meanwhile, was as a police inspector.
  • He could not prove that he was still sustainably pursuing an economic goal as an artist. He had no business number and was not registered in the CBE.
  • Crucially, the mere passive collection of copyrights (royalties) through SABAM for old songs, was not considered an economic activity by the court. This was seen as mere management of movable assets, not as conducting a business.
  • Conclusion: Since he was not a “business”, he could not invoke the laws surrounding unfair market practices between business.
• Unfounded: No current use of trade name Even if the claim had been admissible, the court ruled that it was also unfounded.
  • Protection of a trade name arises from its use. This use must be “public, visible and continuous”.
  • The court found that the Stephenson had not released any new songs under the name “Axel Stephenson” between 1998 and 2024 (a period of 26 years).
  • His own public Facebook page even stated that he was active between 1986 and 1998.
  • Since his own stage name was not (no longer) protected for lack of current commercial use, he certainly could not oppose the use of the joint name “JONES & STEPHENSON.”.

2. The claim about copyright

Also, the claim about a breach of copyright was rejected as totally unfounded.

• Stephenson claimed that songs like “The Sixth Rebirth” were “adaptations” or “derivations” of “The First Rebirth”.
• However, he did not provide any evidence of this claim. The court noted that no comparison, no analysis of similarities, and no evidence of recognizable samples had been filed.
• The court held that it could not possibly determine whether there was infringement in the absence of any evidence.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This ruling is a textbook example of several legal principles that are often overlooked by creative professionals:

1. The business concept of Book VI CEL: The threshold for being considered a “business” within the meaning of Article I.8.39° CEL is specific. It requires an actual and enduring economic purpose. This ruling confirms that the passive collection of royalties on old work - which is even considered movable income for tax purposes - is not sufficient. A “dormant” artist therefore loses the protection afforded by market practices law.
2. The use as a condition of existence of the trade name: Unlike a trademark (which you register), a trade name (like a stage name) a trade name (such as an artist's name) arises solely through use. The ruling insists on the requirement that this use be “public, visible and continuous.” Obviously, a 26-year hiatus is fatal to maintaining that protection.
3. Forfeiting a right (implied): Although the court does not use the term literally, the principle of forfeiting a right (or the prohibition against abuse of rights) plays a clear role. Stephenson had sat idle for more than 20 years while Jones “made the only investments to keep the name known.” The court found it implausible that Stephenson had not noticed this until 2021, given the many appearances, flyers and posters. Those who sit still for so long create a legitimate expectation in others that they may continue, and thus lose their right to complain.
4. The burden of proof in copyright infringement: This is a simple but hard lesson. The judge is not a music expert who will compare songs on his own initiative. Whoever claims infringement (such as plagiarism or unwanted adaptation) must prove that infringement concretely. Without proof, there is no case.

What this specifically means

• For artists stepping out of a group: When splitting, make clear, written agreements immediately. What happens to the group name? Who gets to use that name, and under what conditions (e.g., “X, formerly or Y”)? A good agreement prevents lawsuits twenty years later.
• For ‘dormant’ artists: If you want to continue to protect your stage name as a trade name, you must continue to use it commercially. Even occasionally releasing (and selling) a new song or giving a paid performance can help demonstrate “continued use.” Passively collecting royalties on old work is not legally sufficient to qualify as an active business.
• For the ‘enduring’ partner: Although Jones was vindicated here, he ran a legal risk for 20 years. A clear agreement (e.g., a ‘buy-out’ of the naming rights) at the time of the split could have avoided this uncertainty and the cost of litigation.
• In case of conflict: Respond immediately. If you find that an ex-partner is using the name or your work unfairly, you should send (through an attorney) a notice of default. Prolonged inaction will be legally punished.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

What is the difference between my stage name as a trade name and as a trademark?
A trade name (such as “Axel Stephenson” ) arises through public and continuous use, but protection is often local or regional. A trademark (like Jones was trying to register) arises through official registration (e.g., with EUIPO) and gives you a much stronger, exclusive right within the EU for specific categories.

Do I lose my copyright if I am no longer active as an artist?
No. Copyright and tradename law are two completely different things. Stephenson perfectly retained his 50% of copyrights to “The First Rebirth.” The problem was that he could not prove infringement of that copyright (that the new songs were copies).

Does having an artist website or social media page count as ‘commercial use’?
It depends. A Facebook page that states, as in this case, that you used to be active just proves lack of current use. However, if the website or page serves to actively promote new gigs (paid), sell new music or offer producer services, it may well help prove “sustained economic purpose”.

Conclusion

This ruling is an important warning for any artist or creative: legal rights require maintenance. A trade name is only protected in Belgium if you actively use it, and to invoke unfair market practices, you must be able to be considered an active “business.” Passively collecting old royalties is not enough. Above all, in a professional breakup, always make clear, written agreements about intellectual property and the use of names.