14/07/2025
In what appears to be another depressing development for live music in the UK, the current residents of one of Sheffield’s most famous venues, The Leadmill, lost their appeal against eviction earlier this year. While the dispute and circumstances surrounding the eviction are the subject of considerable dispute, the case is interesting from a trade mark perspective as much of the appeal cantered on the goodwill that the residents had built up in the name since the venue’s launch in 1980.
Background
The Leadmill venue, based at 6 Leadmill Road, Sheffield, first opened its doors in 1980 on the site of a former flour mill. From its beginnings as a community centre, it soon established a reputation as a live music venue. Legendary Sheffield bands like Pulp, the Human League, and the Arctic Monkeys (among many others) all played some of their earliest gigs (including Pulp’s first ever gig) there and all have returned numerous times since. It also ran numerous successful club nights, being the original home of the Gatecrasher parties and later running RISE from the venue weekly for nearly a decade. It continued to provide live entertainment right up until the current eviction, having moved more into comedy and student nights in recent years.
The Leadmill was awarded a Music Heritage Award by PRS for Music in 2015 (among many other awards) and was most recently awarded ‘Best Live Venue’ at the Exposed Awards in 2019. By the time the current residents received the notice of eviction in 2022, the Leadmill had clearly established a well deserved reputation as an entertainment venue.
Notice of Eviction
The general business activities of the Leadmill venue were undertaken by a company set up for this purpose – The Leadmill Ltd. As well as the goodwill that the company had built up, it was also the owner of numerous registered UK trade marks for THE LEADMILL covering a variety of services.
The company leased the venue from a number of different owners during its period of operation. However, once the premises were purchased by MVL Properties (2017) Ltd, the new owner confirmed to the Leadmill Ltd. that it would not be renewing its lease.
Upon expiry of a lease, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 provides business tenants with a qualified right to the grant of a new lease on substantially the same terms at the then market rent. However, there are a few narrow grounds on which the landlord can oppose the grant of a new tenancy. One of these is that: “on the termination of the current tenancy the landlord intends to occupy the holding for the purposes, or partly for the purposes, of a business to be carried on by him therein”. MVL Properties are the owners of numerous entertainment venues in the UK , and they confirmed to the court that they planned to run an entertainment space from the premises themselves and therefore were entitled to oppose the grant of the new tenancy.
Dispute
There were numerous arguments put forward by both parties in the prolonged dispute, but the main focus from a trade mark law perspective was the Leadmill Ltd.’s argument that eviction would infringe its rights under the Human Rights Act 1998, which was premised on the goodwill it alleged it had established via its activities at the premises.
The Leadmill’s argument was based on Paragraph 1 of A1P1 of the ECHR which provides that, “A natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.”
The Leadmill Ltd argued that where a tenant owns goodwill attached to the landlord’s property (and goodwill was accepted as a ‘possession’ by the court for the basis of this argument) the landlord cannot oppose the grant of a new tenancy to carry on “essentially the same business” as this would effectively appropriate the tenant’s goodwill. In other words, if MVH planned to run a nightclub from the property, they should not be able to oppose the grant of a new tenancy in order to open its own nightclub at the same premises, as doing so would be trading on the goodwill attached to that property built up by the Leadmill Ltd.
The judge rejected this argument. He did not consider that the goodwill built up in the years of the venue’s operation attached to the premises themselves. He confirmed that once the Leadmill Ltd had vacated the premises and had taken all of its fixtures and fittings there would be very little remaining other than a “derelict shell” and it was difficult to see how any goodwill could attach to this. He also noted that the Leadmill Ltd. had secured registered rights in the name and that they would be taking these with them and that the new owners would not be able to operate the premises under the name ‘THE LEADMILL’ for this reason.
Comment
While the decision did not go in favour of the Leadmill Ltd, the business can take some comfort from the fact that they have secured the rights in the name of the venue. The judge stated clearly that he understood that he had received undertakings from the new owners that the venue would be rebranded as part of the decision.
It is also a good indication to operators in the entertainment sector that courts are unlikely to consider that the activities taking place within venues give rise to any property rights in the venue premises itself, no matter how iconic. It is therefore of paramount importance to obtain strong rights in the name of the venue and/or club night as these (together with the goodwill and reputation built up by the activities at the premises) will be recognised and transferable. It is worth noting that trade marks can also consist of and provide protection for images, logos, and shapes, and even retail store layouts and particular stage designs.
While the Leadmill Ltd may no longer be able to operate from its former premises (subject to any further legal challenges) they will remain the only entity able to trade under the name ‘THE LEADMILL’ in this sector and ultimately this may be the more important thing.
This article is for general information only. Its content is not a statement of the law on any subject and does not constitute advice. Please contact Reddie & Grose LLP for advice before taking any action in reliance on it.
