Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Pitchfork)   Lady Antebellum fights racism by stealing the name of a Black blues singer and suing the blues singer over it   (pitchfork.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Lady Antebellum, The Band, The Conclusion, Conclusion, Lawsuit, band Lady Antebellum, Lady A, Black blues singer Anita White  
•       •       •

1987 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 09 Jul 2020 at 1:53 AM (4 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



139 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-07-08 8:44:36 PM  
Sounds about on par. Sue someone who has used the trademark for twenty years because you realized that you couldn't get away with being quite that on the nose any more seems on brand, especially with the passive-aggressive note that said singer hadn't challenged them on the name...which may speak to their level of fame in blues circles. These folks are pretty much exactly what I'd expected them to be.
 
2020-07-08 9:11:04 PM  
JUST CHANGE YOUR FARKING NAME ASSHOLES!
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-07-08 9:11:31 PM  
Legal bullying. It's worse than the name they dumped.
 
2020-07-08 9:34:12 PM  

hubiestubert: Sounds about on par. Sue someone who has used the trademark for twenty years because you realized that you couldn't get away with being quite that on the nose any more seems on brand, especially with the passive-aggressive note that said singer hadn't challenged them on the name...which may speak to their level of fame in blues circles. These folks are pretty much exactly what I'd expected them to be.


They're not asking for money, they're just asking to be allowed to keep the trademark they've owned for awhile.
 
2020-07-08 9:45:19 PM  
How about Lady Antediluvian instead?
 
2020-07-08 9:45:29 PM  
So they're basing their claim to it on the fact that she never challenged them using it?  But they never used it afaik. I've never seen any of their promo stuff ,merch ,albums etc with the name "Lady A" on it.
 
2020-07-08 9:52:33 PM  
whitenonsense.gif
 
2020-07-08 10:37:07 PM  
When we learned that Ms. White had also been performing under the name Lady A, we had heartfelt discussions with her about how we can all come together and make something special and beautiful out of this moment. We never even entertained the idea that she shouldn't also be able to use the name Lady A, and never will-today's action doesn't change that. Instead, we shared our stories, listened to each other, prayed and spent hours on the phone and text writing a song about this experience together. We felt we had been brought together for a reason and saw this as living out the calling that brought us to make this change in the first place.

Christ, what a bunch of tedious assholes.

There's a thought. Change the band name to Lady Asshole. They can have that one for free. They can even trademark it if they like. I don't mind.
 
2020-07-08 10:44:21 PM  

jaylectricity: hubiestubert: Sounds about on par. Sue someone who has used the trademark for twenty years because you realized that you couldn't get away with being quite that on the nose any more seems on brand, especially with the passive-aggressive note that said singer hadn't challenged them on the name...which may speak to their level of fame in blues circles. These folks are pretty much exactly what I'd expected them to be.

They're not asking for money, they're just asking to be allowed to keep the trademark they've owned for awhile.

This is basically the music/trademark equivalent of Manifest Destiny.


New Guy: "Hey, everyone!!! Look at this new land I discovered!"

Indigenous People: "Umm... how can you 'discover' a place millions of people are already living?"

New Guy: "I'm going to sue you because you won't let me retain ownership of the thing I discovered!"

[jaylectricity enters the room]

"I agree with them being the rightful owners of the inhabited land they discovered. After all, they're not asking them to pay rent"
 
2020-07-08 11:07:04 PM  

Cubansaltyballs: jaylectricity: hubiestubert: Sounds about on par. Sue someone who has used the trademark for twenty years because you realized that you couldn't get away with being quite that on the nose any more seems on brand, especially with the passive-aggressive note that said singer hadn't challenged them on the name...which may speak to their level of fame in blues circles. These folks are pretty much exactly what I'd expected them to be.

They're not asking for money, they're just asking to be allowed to keep the trademark they've owned for awhile.
This is basically the music/trademark equivalent of Manifest Destiny.


New Guy: "Hey, everyone!!! Look at this new land I discovered!"

Indigenous People: "Umm... how can you 'discover' a place millions of people are already living?"

New Guy: "I'm going to sue you because you won't let me retain ownership of the thing I discovered!"

[jaylectricity enters the room]

"I agree with them being the rightful owners of the inhabited land they discovered. After all, they're not asking them to pay rent"


Terrible analogy. They are not taking anything from anybody. They are asking to keep using it the way they were previously.

Also, I have not read all the fine print details.

A better analogy would be two people are on the beach. One of those people were there first (original Lady A), but they've both been on the beach for awhile together. One (previously Lady Antebellum) decided to announce that they were on the beach and the other didn't like that and insisted they get off the beach. Previously Lady Antebellum is asking to be able to stay on the beach.
 
2020-07-08 11:14:41 PM  
Next up: suing Los Angeles and Louisiana for using the letters L.A., which they of course also trademarked. And those places never challenged it!!!

Also, I agree with Lady Asshole.
 
2020-07-08 11:39:12 PM  
How about instead of a cosmetic attempt at some good PR, you just stop being assholes?

Because now you've made it much worse for yourselves. Because you're assholes.
 
2020-07-09 12:09:33 AM  

jaylectricity: Terrible analogy. They are not taking anything from anybody. They are asking to keep using it the way they were previously.


They have never used it previously.  Their lawsuit is totally without merit.

jaylectricity: A better analogy would be two people are on the beach. One of those people were there first (original Lady A), but they've both been on the beach for awhile together. One (previously Lady Antebellum) decided to announce that they were on the beach and the other didn't like that and insisted they get off the beach. Previously Lady Antebellum is asking to be able to stay on the beach.


No, that is the terrible analogy.  Because they haven't been on the beach awhile; in fact they just showed up (and only when they were pressured to do so).
 
2020-07-09 12:39:32 AM  

jaylectricity: Terrible analogy. They are not taking anything from anybody. They are asking to keep using it the way they were previously.

Also, I have not read all the fine print details.

A better analogy would be two people are on the beach. One of those people were there first (original Lady A), but they've both been on the beach for awhile together. One (previously Lady Antebellum) decided to announce that they were on the beach and the other didn't like that and insisted they get off the beach. Previously Lady Antebellum is asking to be able to stay on the beach.


What a crackpot analogy.

This isn't about "being present"

This is about ownership. They asserted ownership of a name improperly because it was already in use by someone else for commercial purposes in that exact same business, ie... music.

If you improperly declare ownership over something you don't *actually* own, you don't get to negotiate terms as if you actually own it. You get to waste a lot of money explaining why you didn't do a proper search before filing the trademark before your case gets tossed.Let's try this...if you own a retail store and notice "Walmart" wasn't copyrighted(for whatever reason), you can't just change your name to "Walmart" and then try to assert rights over the first, original "Walmart"I get the impression you think ownership, patents, trademarks, etc are conferred upon the first white person that asks for them, assuming no *other* white person is using them. Otherwise, the white person owns it just because they said they do.
 
2020-07-09 1:03:22 AM  

jaylectricity: A better analogy would be two people are on the beach. One of those people were there first (original Lady A), but they've both been on the beach for awhile together. One (previously Lady Antebellum) decided to announce that they were on the beach and the other didn't like that and insisted they get off the beach. Previously Lady Antebellum is asking to be able to stay on the beach.


I can tell that those are words written in the English language, but uh, WHAT?
 
2020-07-09 2:02:38 AM  
I think they're too embarrassed to admit they picked a name without Googling it to see if it's already in use. Now they feel like complete morans and are trying to play it off like it's just a legal issue.
 
2020-07-09 2:09:54 AM  

Birnone: I think they're too embarrassed to admit they picked a name without Googling it to see if it's already in use. Now they feel like complete morans and are trying to play it off like it's just a legal issue.


No. They're just entitled white a-holes.

They can't even fathom the idea that a black has rights to own anything, much less trademark something. They picked a name, and that's that. They own it and the black no longer does.

This is white supremacy. I can take from you with impunity.
 
2020-07-09 2:17:13 AM  
Let Courtney Love join your band and then you can be Lady A-Hole.
 
2020-07-09 2:23:06 AM  
Lady Anti-bellum. One letter and a dash a little punk edge...
 
2020-07-09 2:24:02 AM  
the band said in a statement. "She and her team have demanded a $10 million payment, so reluctantly we have come to the conclusion that we need to ask a court to affirm our right to continue to use the name Lady A, a trademark we have held for many years."
The band is not asking for any money, just a court declaration that it lawfully holds the Lady A trademark and that it does not infringe on any rights White may have under state or federal law, according to Billboard.

Lady Antebellum claims it has had a registered trademark for the Lady A name for a decade, it's possible that a court might restrict White's use of the moniker to places where she's established herself, such as the Pacific Northwest.

The band is not asking for any money, just a court declaration that it lawfully holds the Lady A trademark and that it does not infringe on any rights White may have under state or federal law, according to Billboard.
San Diego-based trademark attorney T.C. Johnston told HuffPost that even if White never officially applied for a trademark for the "Lady A" name, she still has "priority of use if there even is a likelihood of confusion between a country band and a blues singer from the northwest."

Blues lady wanted money for the name, never had a trademark, country band owns the trademark but never used the name till now, doesn't want money just doesn't want to have to pay to use what they already trademarked?
 
2020-07-09 2:24:42 AM  
Lady Husband Head-holeabellum.
 
2020-07-09 2:29:58 AM  
Lady Ant-belly
Lady AnteUp
Lady A-Bellow
Lady Anonymous
Lady AHole

So many to choose from!
 
2020-07-09 2:30:32 AM  

WillofJ2: the band said in a statement. "She and her team have demanded a $10 million payment, so reluctantly we have come to the conclusion that we need to ask a court to affirm our right to continue to use the name Lady A, a trademark we have held for many years."
The band is not asking for any money, just a court declaration that it lawfully holds the Lady A trademark and that it does not infringe on any rights White may have under state or federal law, according to Billboard.

Lady Antebellum claims it has had a registered trademark for the Lady A name for a decade, it's possible that a court might restrict White's use of the moniker to places where she's established herself, such as the Pacific Northwest.

The band is not asking for any money, just a court declaration that it lawfully holds the Lady A trademark and that it does not infringe on any rights White may have under state or federal law, according to Billboard.
San Diego-based trademark attorney T.C. Johnston told HuffPost that even if White never officially applied for a trademark for the "Lady A" name, she still has "priority of use if there even is a likelihood of confusion between a country band and a blues singer from the northwest."

Blues lady wanted money for the name, never had a trademark, country band owns the trademark but never used the name till now, doesn't want money just doesn't want to have to pay to use what they already trademarked?


Yeah. So what? She has priority.

If she asserts her rights, the trademark they hold is worthless.

The name is worth a lot more to them than her, so she made them a reasonable offer.

Why do so many people hate capitalism and IP law when blacks use it? Oh yeah... that's right. Capitalism and laws are only to protect white people. The blacks have no rights.

Now it makes more sense why people are so upset she didn't grovel and throw herself on the floor and act grateful when they decided to take her name. It upsets white people when blacks dont act like Stephen in Django...
 
2020-07-09 2:37:44 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


how about Lady Ayyyyyyy
 
2020-07-09 2:39:00 AM  

jaylectricity: Cubansaltyballs: jaylectricity: hubiestubert: Sounds about on par. Sue someone who has used the trademark for twenty years because you realized that you couldn't get away with being quite that on the nose any more seems on brand, especially with the passive-aggressive note that said singer hadn't challenged them on the name...which may speak to their level of fame in blues circles. These folks are pretty much exactly what I'd expected them to be.

They're not asking for money, they're just asking to be allowed to keep the trademark they've owned for awhile.
This is basically the music/trademark equivalent of Manifest Destiny.


New Guy: "Hey, everyone!!! Look at this new land I discovered!"

Indigenous People: "Umm... how can you 'discover' a place millions of people are already living?"

New Guy: "I'm going to sue you because you won't let me retain ownership of the thing I discovered!"

[jaylectricity enters the room]

"I agree with them being the rightful owners of the inhabited land they discovered. After all, they're not asking them to pay rent"

Terrible analogy. They are not taking anything from anybody. They are asking to keep using it the way they were previously.

Also, I have not read all the fine print details.

A better analogy would be two people are on the beach. One of those people were there first (original Lady A), but they've both been on the beach for awhile together. One (previously Lady Antebellum) decided to announce that they were on the beach and the other didn't like that and insisted they get off the beach. Previously Lady Antebellum is asking to be able to stay on the beach.


Shaddup. Lady A had the name for 20 years. End of story.
 
2020-07-09 2:47:41 AM  

Cubansaltyballs: WillofJ2: the band said in a statement. "She and her team have demanded a $10 million payment, so reluctantly we have come to the conclusion that we need to ask a court to affirm our right to continue to use the name Lady A, a trademark we have held for many years."
The band is not asking for any money, just a court declaration that it lawfully holds the Lady A trademark and that it does not infringe on any rights White may have under state or federal law, according to Billboard.

Lady Antebellum claims it has had a registered trademark for the Lady A name for a decade, it's possible that a court might restrict White's use of the moniker to places where she's established herself, such as the Pacific Northwest.

The band is not asking for any money, just a court declaration that it lawfully holds the Lady A trademark and that it does not infringe on any rights White may have under state or federal law, according to Billboard.
San Diego-based trademark attorney T.C. Johnston told HuffPost that even if White never officially applied for a trademark for the "Lady A" name, she still has "priority of use if there even is a likelihood of confusion between a country band and a blues singer from the northwest."

Blues lady wanted money for the name, never had a trademark, country band owns the trademark but never used the name till now, doesn't want money just doesn't want to have to pay to use what they already trademarked?

Yeah. So what? She has priority.

If she asserts her rights, the trademark they hold is worthless.

The name is worth a lot more to them than her, so she made them a reasonable offer.

Why do so many people hate capitalism and IP law when blacks use it? Oh yeah... that's right. Capitalism and laws are only to protect white people. The blacks have no rights.

Now it makes more sense why people are so upset she didn't grovel and throw herself on the floor and act grateful when they decided to take her name. It upsets white people when blacks dont act like Stephen in Django...


Are we reading the same thread?
 
2020-07-09 2:57:49 AM  
Lady Empty Ballsack
 
2020-07-09 3:08:08 AM  

syrynxx: How about Lady Antediluvian instead?


Lady Parabellum?
 
2020-07-09 3:12:52 AM  

Ghastly: Let Courtney Love join your band and then you can be Lady A-Hole.


She is too classy for this group.
 
2020-07-09 3:14:05 AM  
Even if Lady Antebellum is legally correct, it ends up being a terrible look for them. Especially considering the circumstances that prompted them to change the name in the first place, and the person they're fightIng with over the new name.
Just pick a new name and make sure no one has it first.  How about Lady Belle? It's redundant but keeps a southern connotation and similar sound.
 
2020-07-09 3:16:06 AM  

baron von doodle: jaylectricity: Cubansaltyballs: jaylectricity: hubiestubert: Sounds about on par. Sue someone who has used the trademark for twenty years because you realized that you couldn't get away with being quite that on the nose any more seems on brand, especially with the passive-aggressive note that said singer hadn't challenged them on the name...which may speak to their level of fame in blues circles. These folks are pretty much exactly what I'd expected them to be.

They're not asking for money, they're just asking to be allowed to keep the trademark they've owned for awhile.
This is basically the music/trademark equivalent of Manifest Destiny.


New Guy: "Hey, everyone!!! Look at this new land I discovered!"

Indigenous People: "Umm... how can you 'discover' a place millions of people are already living?"

New Guy: "I'm going to sue you because you won't let me retain ownership of the thing I discovered!"

[jaylectricity enters the room]

"I agree with them being the rightful owners of the inhabited land they discovered. After all, they're not asking them to pay rent"

Terrible analogy. They are not taking anything from anybody. They are asking to keep using it the way they were previously.

Also, I have not read all the fine print details.

A better analogy would be two people are on the beach. One of those people were there first (original Lady A), but they've both been on the beach for awhile together. One (previously Lady Antebellum) decided to announce that they were on the beach and the other didn't like that and insisted they get off the beach. Previously Lady Antebellum is asking to be able to stay on the beach.

Shaddup. Lady A had the name for 20 years. End of story.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirva​n​a_(British_band)
 
2020-07-09 3:17:08 AM  
Lady Ampicillin...
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-07-09 3:20:56 AM  
Even if the real Lady A had been cool with them using her name, why the hell would they want to? Did they really want to hand out a bunch of refunds to confused and angry concertgoers who paid to see Lady A, not in-name-only Lady A? But instead of just admitting they goofed and choosing a different name, they doubled down and turned a bad decision into a worse one. Now any mention of them will have to include the explanation that they're Lady A, but they're not the Lady A, who thinks they're a bunch of unethical, untrustworthy jerks. They "fixed" the issue with their bandname by replacing it with an entirely new PR problem. Genius.
 
2020-07-09 3:26:53 AM  
Someone is going to be Singing the Blues
 
2020-07-09 3:45:24 AM  

EdgeRunner: Even if the real Lady A had been cool with them using her name, why the hell would they want to? Did they really want to hand out a bunch of refunds to confused and angry concertgoers who paid to see Lady A, not in-name-only Lady A? But instead of just admitting they goofed and choosing a different name, they doubled down and turned a bad decision into a worse one. Now any mention of them will have to include the explanation that they're Lady A, but they're not the Lady A, who thinks they're a bunch of unethical, untrustworthy jerks. They "fixed" the issue with their bandname by replacing it with an entirely new PR problem. Genius.


It smacks of "Any publicity is good publicity." Also, rich white asshole entitlement.
Take your pick.
 
2020-07-09 3:53:58 AM  
Couldn't she just switch from Lady Antebellum to Lady Apartheid?
 
2020-07-09 3:58:48 AM  

Gordon Bennett: When we learned that Ms. White had also been performing under the name Lady A, we had heartfelt discussions with her about how we can all come together and make something special and beautiful out of this moment. We never even entertained the idea that she shouldn't also be able to use the name Lady A, and never will-today's action doesn't change that. Instead, we shared our stories, listened to each other, prayed and spent hours on the phone and text writing a song about this experience together. We felt we had been brought together for a reason and saw this as living out the calling that brought us to make this change in the first place.

Christ, what a bunch of tedious assholes.

There's a thought. Change the band name to Lady Asshole. They can have that one for free. They can even trademark it if they like. I don't mind.


I think that's already trademarked by Pornhub!
 
2020-07-09 4:02:20 AM  

Ghastly: Let Courtney Love join your band and then you can be Lady A-Hole.


They could also be Lady Love and get a much more lesbian audience.
 
2020-07-09 4:08:40 AM  

nigeman: baron von doodle: jaylectricity: Cubansaltyballs: jaylectricity: hubiestubert: Sounds about on par. Sue someone who has used the trademark for twenty years because you realized that you couldn't get away with being quite that on the nose any more seems on brand, especially with the passive-aggressive note that said singer hadn't challenged them on the name...which may speak to their level of fame in blues circles. These folks are pretty much exactly what I'd expected them to be.

They're not asking for money, they're just asking to be allowed to keep the trademark they've owned for awhile.
This is basically the music/trademark equivalent of Manifest Destiny.


New Guy: "Hey, everyone!!! Look at this new land I discovered!"

Indigenous People: "Umm... how can you 'discover' a place millions of people are already living?"

New Guy: "I'm going to sue you because you won't let me retain ownership of the thing I discovered!"

[jaylectricity enters the room]

"I agree with them being the rightful owners of the inhabited land they discovered. After all, they're not asking them to pay rent"

Terrible analogy. They are not taking anything from anybody. They are asking to keep using it the way they were previously.

Also, I have not read all the fine print details.

A better analogy would be two people are on the beach. One of those people were there first (original Lady A), but they've both been on the beach for awhile together. One (previously Lady Antebellum) decided to announce that they were on the beach and the other didn't like that and insisted they get off the beach. Previously Lady Antebellum is asking to be able to stay on the beach.

Shaddup. Lady A had the name for 20 years. End of story.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvan​a_(British_band)


If you read the link, it would appear the people with prior claim to the name sued, and Cobain and Co. ended up buying it from them. This sort of arrangement appears to have been attempted, no settlement could be reached, and this Lady Antebellum act is responding by doing the PR version of cutting themselves. For another fun one, check out how many bands called X there are.The one from Japan ended up having to alter its name a bit. The US one and the Australian one were probably founded within weeks of each other, and seem to have just let the whole thing slide.
 
2020-07-09 4:11:56 AM  

forgotmydamnusername: nigeman: baron von doodle: jaylectricity: Cubansaltyballs: jaylectricity: hubiestubert: Sounds about on par. Sue someone who has used the trademark for twenty years because you realized that you couldn't get away with being quite that on the nose any more seems on brand, especially with the passive-aggressive note that said singer hadn't challenged them on the name...which may speak to their level of fame in blues circles. These folks are pretty much exactly what I'd expected them to be.

They're not asking for money, they're just asking to be allowed to keep the trademark they've owned for awhile.
This is basically the music/trademark equivalent of Manifest Destiny.


New Guy: "Hey, everyone!!! Look at this new land I discovered!"

Indigenous People: "Umm... how can you 'discover' a place millions of people are already living?"

New Guy: "I'm going to sue you because you won't let me retain ownership of the thing I discovered!"

[jaylectricity enters the room]

"I agree with them being the rightful owners of the inhabited land they discovered. After all, they're not asking them to pay rent"

Terrible analogy. They are not taking anything from anybody. They are asking to keep using it the way they were previously.

Also, I have not read all the fine print details.

A better analogy would be two people are on the beach. One of those people were there first (original Lady A), but they've both been on the beach for awhile together. One (previously Lady Antebellum) decided to announce that they were on the beach and the other didn't like that and insisted they get off the beach. Previously Lady Antebellum is asking to be able to stay on the beach.

Shaddup. Lady A had the name for 20 years. End of story.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvan​a_(British_band)

If you read the link, it would appear the people with prior claim to the name sued, and Cobain and Co. ended up buying it from them. This sort of arrangement appears to have been attempted, no settlement could be reached, and this Lady Antebellum act is responding by doing the PR version of cutting themselves. For another fun one, check out how many bands called X there are.The one from Japan ended up having to alter its name a bit. The US one and the Australian one were probably founded within weeks of each other, and seem to have just let the whole thing slide.


Yup I got caught when I bought a CD from Spring Heel Jack(English pop) instead of Spring Heeled Jack(Connecticut Ska)
 
2020-07-09 5:03:39 AM  

EdgeRunner: Even if the real Lady A had been cool with them using her name, why the hell would they want to? Did they really want to hand out a bunch of refunds to confused and angry concertgoers who paid to see Lady A, not in-name-only Lady A? But instead of just admitting they goofed and choosing a different name, they doubled down and turned a bad decision into a worse one. Now any mention of them will have to include the explanation that they're Lady A, but they're not the Lady A, who thinks they're a bunch of unethical, untrustworthy jerks. They "fixed" the issue with their bandname by replacing it with an entirely new PR problem. Genius.


Not to defend any dickishness, but come on, not exactly an LA Guns situation here. There was never much chance of confusing fans of a relative unknown who has an entirely different act. And if there were, it probably would've come up sometime in the 10-15 years they've been low-key using her stage name to promote their band.

The PR problem here is white people publicly arguing with a black woman about their attempt to horn in on her name because their name was racially problematic. Anyone not named Lady A wouldn't notice or care if both acts were using the name under an amicable agreement.

/Now that the hostilities have started, shouldn't they be fighting over the name 'Lady Bellum'?
//Lady A1 is the name of my southern rock band that specializes in steak sauce jingles
 
2020-07-09 5:09:20 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: EdgeRunner: Even if the real Lady A had been cool with them using her name, why the hell would they want to? Did they really want to hand out a bunch of refunds to confused and angry concertgoers who paid to see Lady A, not in-name-only Lady A? But instead of just admitting they goofed and choosing a different name, they doubled down and turned a bad decision into a worse one. Now any mention of them will have to include the explanation that they're Lady A, but they're not the Lady A, who thinks they're a bunch of unethical, untrustworthy jerks. They "fixed" the issue with their bandname by replacing it with an entirely new PR problem. Genius.

Not to defend any dickishness, but come on, not exactly an LA Guns situation here. There was never much chance of confusing fans of a relative unknown who has an entirely different act. And if there were, it probably would've come up sometime in the 10-15 years they've been low-key using her stage name to promote their band.

The PR problem here is white people publicly arguing with a black woman about their attempt to horn in on her name because their name was racially problematic. Anyone not named Lady A wouldn't notice or care if both acts were using the name under an amicable agreement.

/Now that the hostilities have started, shouldn't they be fighting over the name 'Lady Bellum'?
//Lady A1 is the name of my southern rock band that specializes in steak sauce jingles


The only thing a steak sauce jingle is more useful than is the steak sauce itself.
 
2020-07-09 5:14:03 AM  

jaylectricity: They're not asking for money, they're just asking to be allowed to keep the trademark they've owned for awhile.


The Trademark only came into force in July 2019, and the real Lady A began objecting on the record in... September-ish?  That actually wouldn't be anywhere near an invalid time period to notice someone has a conflicting trademark and contest it.  In fact, there isn't a statute of limitations.  If you have the same trademark as another person in your industry and only find out about it a decade later you can contest-- this happens all the time when national brands go international, since the trademark offices of various nations don't all talk to each other.

The problem isn't the timing of the filing, it's that "Lady A" was never the trademark of the real Lady A to begin with.  Trademarks aren't copyrights, they're literally identifying marks like the name says, they  cannot functionally serve the only purpose they have if they aren't registered.  Thus, legally speaking, if you haven't registered your trademark it's not your trademark.  If you have any grounds to object to a Trademark being granted other than the fact that you already hold a similar trademark... you have to bring it up during the set hold period for objections defined in the law.

There's not such thing as "I've been using it for X years, therefore it's mine".  If it's not registered, it's not a trademark.  The fact that Lady A has been performing for decades under that stage name is actually a legal argument against granting a trademark to her.

Her only recourse now is to sue over something other than the trademark itself, like taking them to court on the theory that registering a similar name constitutes illegal interference with a contract or something.  That's... really a farking long shot.  It's likely enough that they'd probably gladly negotiate and settle the matter for some money (which apparently they were doing), but no farking way is it likely enough to be worth the ten million she's demanding to go away.  That's what the fake Lady A suing for this court order is about-- if they have a formal statement from the court that their filing is legitimate and an attempt to negotiate was extended and rejected, that makes her suing them outright impossible instead of just a huge uphill battle.

// It's still a bit of a dick move, but... ultimately this kind of is the real Lady A act's fault.  Register your trademarks, yo.
 
2020-07-09 6:00:01 AM  
I think it goes something like this.

The original Lady A does have a case because common law trademarks are a thing. They just have less protections because they're unregistered and she can't really sue for damages (maybe legal fees). Also, a common law trademark is only enforceable in the owners' geographical area but the original has used it all over the country. Lady Dumb A did register the trademark in 2010 but didn't officially start using it until 2020, the year that it would have legally expired. Not to mention, they've effectively been letting someone else use it in the exact same space for the entirety of those 10 years.

While their registered trademark has legal precedence over her common law trademark, you have to show continuous use to legally own the trademark, which Lady Dumb A can't do because they haven't been using it and only officially tried to in the final months of its' existence (you have to renew a trademark every 10 years). This looks like their trademark would've either expired or been invalid originally (because you have to show use when applying for it as well), meaning they're both asserting common law trademark ownership which means Lady Dumb A loses because Lady had it longer.

Or Lady Dumb A could just change their name to anything else that's not already in use and that doesn't still invoke the Antebellum South, instead of making themselves look 100 times worse because Lady A won't give them the right to use her name for a price that they would prefer.
 
2020-07-09 6:13:14 AM  
The trademark was granted in 2010, but never used or defended.  Legally, it's abandoned.
 
2020-07-09 6:14:59 AM  
Lady Antebellum isn't going to lose a single fan over this.  Actually, suing to put a black person in their place is probably a feature, not a bug, for them.
 
2020-07-09 6:23:02 AM  

Summoner101: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: EdgeRunner: Even if the real Lady A had been cool with them using her name, why the hell would they want to? Did they really want to hand out a bunch of refunds to confused and angry concertgoers who paid to see Lady A, not in-name-only Lady A? But instead of just admitting they goofed and choosing a different name, they doubled down and turned a bad decision into a worse one. Now any mention of them will have to include the explanation that they're Lady A, but they're not the Lady A, who thinks they're a bunch of unethical, untrustworthy jerks. They "fixed" the issue with their bandname by replacing it with an entirely new PR problem. Genius.

Not to defend any dickishness, but come on, not exactly an LA Guns situation here. There was never much chance of confusing fans of a relative unknown who has an entirely different act. And if there were, it probably would've come up sometime in the 10-15 years they've been low-key using her stage name to promote their band.

The PR problem here is white people publicly arguing with a black woman about their attempt to horn in on her name because their name was racially problematic. Anyone not named Lady A wouldn't notice or care if both acts were using the name under an amicable agreement.

/Now that the hostilities have started, shouldn't they be fighting over the name 'Lady Bellum'?
//Lady A1 is the name of my southern rock band that specializes in steak sauce jingles

The only thing a steak sauce jingle is more useful than is the steak sauce itself.



You cooked and cooked that steak well done
But here's your big mistake my son
No ketchup in the kitchen hoss
Looks like it's time to use steak sauce

Excerpt from "Catsup" by Lady A1
 
2020-07-09 6:25:53 AM  
This is like a bunch of edgelord soccer fans setting up their own club and calling it KKK F.C. for the lulz.

Then when the pressure gets too much, they back down and shorten it KFC and are shocked that some people have a problem with this.

"But KFC has totally been like a nickname of ours for ages and you never said anything!"
 
2020-07-09 6:28:27 AM  
So change it to Lady What-about-all-the-upsides-of-slavery.

The Chemical Brothers - Galvanize (Official Music Video)
Youtube Xu3FTEmN-eg
 
2020-07-09 6:54:23 AM  

Atomic Jonb: Lady Antebellum isn't going to lose a single fan over this.  Actually, suing to put a black person in their place is probably a feature, not a bug, for them.


They tried to work with her and then she decided to extort them for 10 million dollars. Nobody on Fark or anywhere else even knew this lady existed before this. She's looking for the payday her music never created.
 
Displayed 50 of 139 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.