Holy shit
I mean, they have merchandise with Lady A, so they use it enough for that.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.
Not so sure that's how it works.That's the problem, though. If she didn't aggressively defend the trademark, she does not own it.
It's about who is first to use a name. Audience size is irrelevant," says Bob Celestin, a longtime music attorney who's represented Pusha T and Missy Elliott. "And the question is, does the original Lady A have a trademark registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark office? If she does, she can go ahead and sue Lady Antebellum for infringement. If not, she still has a common law trademark and she can still show that she's been using the name in commerce — records, posters, tour flyers — for a number of years. She is first to use the mark in commerce, so that gives her a superior right to the name."
Celestin adds that if two artists who work in different genres end up with the same name, they can reach a coexistence agreement that allows both groups to market music under the name by acknowledging the slim chance for confusion. "But you could say that blues is the foundation of country, so they're very close in genre, and if they're close in genre there's much more confusion in the marketplace," he say
Not so sure that's how it works.
Lady Antebellum Is Now 'Lady A.' But So Is a Blues Singer Who's Used the Name for 20 Years
Lady Antebellum changed their name to "Lady A," unaware that there was a 61-year-old black singer with multiple albums with the same name.www.rollingstone.com
I guess we'll see if their lawyers can make that argument which is what they are trying to do, but it still seems like they're stealing her name and making it more difficult for her to market.That's the problem, though. If she didn't aggressively defend the trademark, she does not own it.
She should have been suing them for using her name as sub-branding on merchandise a decade ago. So when they received push-back for their racist name, they wouldn't feel comfortable just taking it over.It would seem the quoted attournies in that article are commenting without the knowledge that the band has been using the Lady A branding on merchandise for almost a decade. If that is true, it changes everything.
I guess we'll see if their lawyers can make that argument which is what they are trying to do, but it still seems like they're stealing her name and making it more difficult for her to market.
Just because they can get away with owning someone else's name because they are a huge band with Nashville music backing doesn't make it right.
The group first applied to register "Lady A" for use in music, videos, live performances and merchandise in 2010, the suit says, adding "no oppositions were filed by any person or entity, including White."
I guess we'll see. I don't know if I expect a musical act to be vigilant to trademark filings for abbreviations of a group that has marketed themselves as Lady Antebellum as an entity pretty clearly to the point where it was big news when they changed their actual band name. I think it's clear that she was using it longer than them in commerce. I think, no matter what, it's a completely shitty thing to do and they should have picked a new name.It's unfortunate, but trademarks have to be actively defended to remain valid and that is for the public good writ large.
If the following quote from the times article is true (and it would be easily verified), the case is clear:
... I think, no matter what, it's a completely shitty thing to do and they should have picked a new name.
The name is not theirs, but it also isn't owned by Lady A (the singer) because she didn't oppose the trademark by the band. They've been using it for a long time (but for a shorted time than the singer) but because she hand't said anything it seems the band can also use it.They're just suing for a judgment saying the name is theirs, no money is involved.
Legally their case is far from strong, hence her demand for money for the name.
$10 million doesn't seem that steep to me to be honest
I'm not sure they should have changed the name to begin with. Antebellum isn't inherently problematic unless they leaned into the antebellum South imagery. I can't answer that question.
Might just be the best post ever made. Damn.
And they're the ones who want to look like the good guys?.....lolShe 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.
Yeah, a suit for declaratory judgment is pretty common to get an answer from a judge in the record. Don't think they have a good case, based on her prior use, but it's not like they're trying to get millions of dollars out of her, though.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.
fassbenderperfection.gif
Not really, McDonald's lost the Big Mac trademark despite using it for decades.It would seem the quoted attourneys in that article are commenting without the knowledge that the band has been using the Lady A branding on merchandise for almost a decade. If that is true, it changes everything.
Doesn't that boil down to "whoever can pay the legal fees owns the trademark"?It's unfortunate, but trademarks have to be actively defended to remain valid and that is for the public good writ large.
If the following quote from the times article is true (and it would be easily verified), the case is clear:
It's kinda funny when you put it like that. How do they not see how they're coming off? Not a good look, at allI know it was said that this is not an "attack" in the proper sense, but these assholes had a name with racist imagery, changed the name to kinda erase that, and picked the name of a black artist.
"Give us this thing cause we are white and rich, nigger"
That all I see, they knew their name was racist before they picked it. Now that the winds have changed they don't get to pick on a black woman with a lesser platform
Not really, McDonald's lost the Big Mac trademark despite using it for decades.
Please accept this one man standing ovation.
Holy shit. Amazing.
I feel like I'm missing something. The article says they were working together with Lady A for some time and both parties were in agreement, and then shortly after Lady A required $10 million for use of the name. Like, this doesn't seem as nefarious as people are making it out to be.It doesn't matter if "legally" they're right in this situation (ie if the real Lady A knew they had merch with "Lady A" and didn't do anything about it). It's really the fact that they pretended like they were changing their band name for woke points because they were "sad" and "didn't know" that using the term Antebellum was a racist way of glamorizing slavery (which... they absolutely knew, don't be naive)... and then when a black woman says "um hey... I'm already Lady A?" they don't immediately apologize and find something else... instead they double down on it proving they did not give a single shit about black people when changing their name. They just did what every corporation has been doing and capitalizing on the BLM movement.
But those of you in this thread going hard for them being "in the right" are pretty transparent tbh. Pretending like you don't see the actual issue here and instead acting like because legally they may or may not win this case, that means they're "right"
They weren't. Lady Antebellum's band name was Lady Antebellum. They registered a trademark for Lady A as a lot of businesses do to cover their bases and as sub-branding for merchandising. They probably also realized they may need to back off their racist brand some day.I feel like I'm missing something. The article says they were working together with Lady A for some time and both parties were in agreement, and then shortly after Lady A required $10 million for use of the name. Like, this doesn't seem as nefarious as people are making it out to be.
I feel like I'm missing something. The article says they were working together with Lady A for some time and both parties were in agreement, and then shortly after Lady A required $10 million for use of the name. Like, this doesn't seem as nefarious as people are making it out to be.
Also, anyone in the music business knows when this time comes and her life is ruined forfeiting her right to sue means she will just have to watch as this racist band uses her name with her coerced permission as her career is fucked. The new band just absorbs her livelihood.If they officially change their name to Lady A then suddenly it makes it insanely difficult for Lady A to advertise herself as an artist because the big rich entity that now calls itself "Lady A" is going to be what fans think of when they see it advertised.
So she wants to be compensated for the impending loss of her business, essentially. I think that's fair.
Also, anyone in the music business knows when this time comes and her life is ruined forfeiting her right to sue means she will just have to watch as this racist band uses her name with her coerced permission as her career is fucked. The new band just absorbs her livelihood.