Lady Antebellum Sues the Singer Lady A Over Name Change (Published 2020)
The platinum-selling country group’s new name was already being used by a blues singer. Now they’re asking a court to affirm “a trademark we have held for many years.”
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Lady Antebellum Sues the Singer Lady A Over Name Change
- Thread starter Dalek
- Start date
just change your name to Lady Ann, newly woke civil war reenactor band.
what the actual stupid fuck does this even mean? you wanted her name so what does unity and common purpose have to do with it?
what the actual stupid fuck does this even mean? you wanted her name so what does unity and common purpose have to do with it?
No one in their PR team told them this was a bad idea? smh, I hope Lady A counter sues and gets paid big time.
Without going into the details, the optics are not good. Reading the details, it seems they're doing this just so they cannot be litigated because they go by this short-form. Makes sense considering Anita White already asked for 10 million. Probably should have just changed it to a whole new one at this point.
I said goddamn out loud and my wife asked what's wrong. I showed her this and she said that was a damn good one.
Read about this earlier. Antebellum got the rights in 2011, but Lady A put out an album in 2010. They were working on a song together, but Lady A brought in a legal team and asked for 10 million lol. They were originally fine with sharing the name. Antebellum aren't really the villains here.
So they've used the name before, and have trademarks on it? I'm no lawyer, but this doesn't seem like a clear cut case. Especially since the band has used the name. Atleast, it looks like they aren't suing for monetary gain.
She has been using the name longer than the band has been around.
Performers don't have to trademark their name usually if they have fliers or proof they have been promoted and are using a name.
Also, Lady A owns an LLC with her name.
Lady Antebellum would have known someone else already had this name by searching google or Spotify. The fact that they had Lady A trademarked meant they were probably anticipating this day coming.
They are trying to say since she didn't contest their trademark in 2011 she loses the right to sue them.
Countersue who? She's already suing them for ten million dollars.
I didnt see she was suing them already; hope she get's it, I still dont understand how they thought it was a good idea to try and bully this lady.
I'm pretty sure that was just part of the negotiation.
Lady A hasn't sued the band with the racist name.
It's pretty clear it is Lady A's stage name which she has been promoting herself as for decades. I think it's fucked up to argue that since she didn't challenge when they trademarked it behind the scenes that she can be robbed of her name. I don't even think this is how these cases are decided.
Also, changing your name from Lady Antebellum to Lady A does not eliminate the problem. Stealing a black person's livelihood in the process of covering up your racist band name is some shit.
Doesnt sound like they bullied anyone. And I hope she fails to get ten million from them.
You dont want Anita White who was using the name first to get anything?
If she (Lady A) had knowledge of the band using Lady A and did not contest the trademark that's exactly how it would play out.
Maybe I misread the article, but what are they doing to her? As I see it, they're not asking for money from her or her to change her name.
Not really sure what the trouble would be here with the trio. Sure, they might have had a name which some can see as problematic - although the word can refer to things outside of the Antebellum South - but...they changed it to a name they already had filed for a decade ago? Is there something besides the name which they've done?
I didnt say that. I think asking for ten million is her attorneys way of getting them to settle eventually for less.
I don't know how they would prove she had knowledge. But I'm pretty sure using your lawyers to crush someone for this is fucked up. She had the name first.
Sounds like a good strategy when a rich, white racist band is trying to fuck you over and ruin your ability to work and do the thing you love.
Yes. The statement put out by the band didn't say they were trying to crush her.
Actually reading the article and not just reacting to the headline seems to suggest everything was fine between both parties until Ms. White decided to try and change the terms of things and get a payday.
They aren't seeking financial recourse or anything. just reconfirming of their trademark. if they wanted to be petty they could be doing a lot more
They aren't seeking financial recourse or anything. just reconfirming of their trademark. if they wanted to be petty they could be doing a lot more
It's unfortunate, but she probably has no legal entitlement to that trademark given what has been stated.
When Does a Trademark Need to Be Defended?
When Does a Trademark Need to Be Defended?. The United States Patent and Trademark Office does not police the use of trademarks by third parties. As a result, registered trademarks need to be defended at all times and mark holders must continually police marks for unlawful use by third parties...
And in this case I'm not even sure Lady A ever held a registered trademark.
I don't think they could be doing a lot more, because Lady A is in the right. Their trademark is bogus since cases before this acknowledge the first artist in a similar artist to be promoted under a name are the rightful owner of the name.
Trademarks for music acts are different in how they are decided.
Trademarks for music acts are different in how they are decided.
Cut the cameras. This one takes it. We'll reconvene next year.
But from what i can tell, the band has been using the name for the last decade. And it doesn't look like they are trying to take it away from Lady A either.
Anyway curious how this concludes. I'm thinking the bad wins this one.
And they're not trying to get her to stop performing under that name.
This is the band's statement. They haven't really been using the name for the last decade. They have been known as Lady Antebellum.
It would not only make it more difficult for the Real Lady A to brand her shows, but it would also mean her giving up the right to sue over a name she rightfully owns.
That's the problem, though. If she didn't aggressively defend the trademark, she does not own it.