Sara Landry isn't settling this quietly. Two months after her former management company dragged her into a UK courtroom over unpaid commission, the hard techno artist has opened a second front, this time in Manhattan federal court, and this time she's the one filing.
What did Landry actually file?
On October 6, 2026, a company called Landry IP LLC, which holds Sara Landry's name and brand rights, sued Night Night Ltd, the entity trading as The Night Department, along with a second company named Prepare to Flash. The claim: trademark infringement. It's a separate case from the one already running in the UK, filed in a different court, on a different legal theory, against the same former management relationship.
The timing isn't a coincidence. This is an artist with her own legal team now pressing on every front available, rather than waiting to defend a single case on someone else's terms.
How does this connect to the UK commission fight?
The Night Department first sued Landry in the UK, arguing she breached their management agreement by firing them in August 2025 and that she owes roughly £200,000, about $265,000, in unpaid commission. Landry didn't just deny it. She countersued, alleging her former managers tried to obtain 50% copyright ownership of her masters and of Hekate Records, the label she founded and built into one of hard techno's most recognizable imprints, without paying what that stake would actually be worth.
"A DJ and record producer has pushed back against her former managers' claims that she owes £200,000 in commission, arguing that she ended their deal only after they improperly tried to obtain copyright ownership of her label."
That's the core of it: a management company allegedly angling for equity in the artist's own IP, and an artist who said no and is now fighting on two continents to make it stick.
Why does a trademark claim matter here?
A commission dispute is about money owed. A trademark suit is about control: who gets to use a name, a brand, a mark built around an artist's identity. Filing it in federal court in the US, rather than folding it into the UK proceedings, tells you Landry's side sees this as a distinct harm worth its own case, not a bargaining chip inside the commission fight.
For managers and agencies working with artists who own their own labels, the message lands either way this resolves: trying to claw equity out of a client's masters or imprint on the way out the door is now a two-court problem, not a one-letter negotiation.
