Sara Landry’s name sits on hard-techno releases, and HEKATE Records is the label she built to put out her music and work by other artists. Her trademark company now says a former management firm kept using both names after the relationship ended, as if it still had authority to act for her. The case turns on what a name tells business partners after the people behind it part ways.
Former Managers And A New Manhattan Lawsuit
On October 6, 2026, Landry IP LLC, the company that holds the artist and label marks, sued the firm that once managed Landry. The relationship began in 2023, when Landry signed with a London management firm. She has since moved to new representation with ASK Management & Advisory and The Circuit Group.
The Alleged Continued Representation
Billboard identifies Matthew Verovkins as that firm’s senior manager on the account and Harry Glaisher as her day-to-day manager. Landry IP says the firm and an affiliate kept using the SARA LANDRY and HEKATE names after their authority ended, leading industry contacts to believe they still represented the artist and her label.
The docket for the October 6 federal trademark lawsuit places it in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In Landry IP LLC v. Night Night Ltd et al., the defendants are Night Night Ltd, which does business as The Night Department, and Prepare to Flash Ltd.
Music Distribution And The Relief Sought
According to EDM.com’s account of the distributor dispute, the alleged uses came in music distribution and in promotion of the management business. Its most concrete example involves HEKATE’s account with the distributor Believe: when Landry’s representatives sought control of that account, Prepare to Flash allegedly refused to authorize the transfer.
Landry IP asks the court to stop the use and award damages, according to the same report, and Billboard describes a demand for profits tied to the alleged use of the marks.
The court issued summonses on October 7, 2026, and set an initial conference for January 7, 2027.
When An Artist’s Name Signals Business Authority
The docket lists 15 U.S.C. § 1114, which covers unauthorized use of a registered mark in a way likely to cause confusion. A related provision, Section 1125(a)(1)(A), reaches commercial uses likely to confuse people about affiliation, sponsorship or approval. When I assess a claim of continued representation, that affiliation language frames the core question: did business partners believe the former managers still acted with the artist’s approval?
On August 18, 2025, Landry IP applied to register SARA LANDRY for recorded music, printed goods, apparel and entertainment services, and HEKATE RECORDS applications for similar categories followed on November 24, 2025. The USPTO has issued Notices of Allowance on the SARA LANDRY applications for music, printed goods and entertainment. A Notice of Allowance means an application has cleared examination and the opposition period, but it stays pending until the owner shows use of the mark.
In my practice, I focus on the mark and the goods or services it identifies, because that pairing sets the scope of the rights a registration can support. Recorded music is sold as goods and live entertainment is a service, a split that shapes how trademarks and service marks cover different offerings, so an artist brand usually needs protection on both sides.
A management agreement can also give a manager permission to use the artist’s name to book shows, pitch releases and promote the business. Whether any of that permission outlived the relationship depends on the contract.
That contract is already the subject of a UK lawsuit filed in July 2026, in which The Night Department says the ownership terms were disclosed and that Landry had no valid grounds to terminate. Landry alleges the managers sought 50% ownership of her music and her label without appropriate payment. The UK case asks whether termination was proper, while the New York case asks about later uses of the names.
With the split reported in 2025, the court will need evidence on three points: what the defendants actually did with the names afterward, which rights Landry IP owns and can enforce, and what permission, if any, survived the end of the relationship.
The Artist Name Behind The Release
When Believe profiled Landry on September 26, 2024, it traced her output from a first release, “Chasm,” in 2018 through a run of EPs, singles and remixes, some issued on outside labels such as mau5trap. By then, the distributor described HEKATE Records as her own label and the home for her releases. Through its COVEN compilation series, HEKATE also puts out music by other artists, which turns the label name into a signal for a group of acts. At the time of that profile, b:electronic handled the label’s distribution.
Believe’s profile also describes an artist raised in New York and Austin who had settled in Amsterdam, which put her home base, her London managers and her U.S. trademark filings in three different countries. Partners spread across those markets often deal with the names and a familiar contact long before they meet anyone behind the project.
To listeners, SARA LANDRY points to her sound and HEKATE to a curated roster of acts. The businesses around a release read the same names as a pointer to a decision-maker: the person or company that approves a track, signs off on artwork and release dates, receives payments and answers licensing questions about the catalog. As those names gain recognition with each release and booking, partners rely on a familiar contact as shorthand for who is responsible and may never check the paperwork behind it.
Music has a long record of fights over performer names, and earlier trademark disputes involving musicians mostly turned on who could perform or tour under a band name. This case adds a business layer to that history, since it asks who can represent an artist and a label to the companies that move the music.
A label with several artists feels that question more sharply than a solo act. When a distributor, booking agent or label artist hears from two camps that each claim to speak for the same name, it has to decide whose instructions to follow. A stalled account transfer like the one alleged here can leave scheduled releases, royalty payments and routine approvals waiting while partners sort out who has authority.
Put Brand Permissions And Account Handover In Writing
For any artist, label or business that works through outside representatives, the planning starts before a representative ever uses the name.
I begin by identifying the legal owner of each mark, whether that is the artist, a holding company or the label, and the people or companies authorized to use it. I check the actual agreements and registration records before anyone changes account access or sends a demand.
Next, the agreement should separate four things that often blur together: ownership of the marks, a limited permission to use names and logos, authority to deal with distributors, and administrative access to accounts. A manager may need all four to do the job, and each deserves its own written grant. Keeping them apart lets the owner end one grant, such as account access, without arguing over whether the others ended with it.
That written permission works like a license, and the terms to address in a trademark license agreement give a useful starting list: approved purposes, channels and approval contacts. I also define expiry and termination, along with any narrow archival references the former representative may keep, such as a mention of past work on its own website.
With permissions defined, the contract should map the handover:
- Distributor and platform accounts, with named administrators
- Management listings and promotional pages
- Billing and royalty records
- Approved contacts for each partner
- Evidence of who held access and when
A platform generally takes instructions from whoever controls the account, so the agreement should name that administrator during the relationship and say who takes over afterward. The parties set responsibilities and deadlines for each item in the agreement itself. When the relationship ends, a dated notice, confirmation of who received it, a record of permissions withdrawn or kept, and confirmation of each platform transfer create a paper trail for any account that stalls.
Finally, I compare current listings, websites and outreach against the agreement, including social profiles and distributor pages the former representative may still control. Dated screenshots and saved messages preserve any use that suggests continuing authority, so it is ready for legal review.
Keep Control Of Your Name As Relationships Change
If a former manager, agent or partner still uses your business name after the relationship changes, every conflicting message makes it harder for distributors and collaborators to know who speaks for you. Releases, bookings and payments keep moving during a dispute, and each one can be routed through the wrong contact. Correcting those signals takes more work once partners have already acted on them.
I help business owners review their marks and the goods and services they cover, conduct clearance work, prepare federal trademark applications, and identify the trademark questions in proposed permissions before anyone signs. I handle that work personally, from the first review through filing.
Bring your current agreements, the marks involved and any uses that concern you, and contact me to discuss your trademark arrangements. We can review which permissions still apply and what your next agreement should say.
