Yup.
To use a name they've had trademarked for 10 years?THey neeed to run her that 10mil
Lady Antebellum changes their name to "Lady A", then they sue blues singer "Lady A" over the name
- Thread starter 8WON6
- Start date
Seems like they were going to let her keep using the name. They were actually doing here a favor she has less than 5k followers on Instagram the group has 1.6 million. Her and her lawyers got greedy and is trying to use the press to pressure the group into paying 10 million for a name they been using for over ten years and have trademarked.
This ain't a race issue people are trying to make unfortunately Lady A female is trying to using it as a comeup. I don't knock it she just got greedy.
This ain't a race issue people are trying to make unfortunately Lady A female is trying to using it as a comeup. I don't knock it she just got greedy.
I think it’s more a case of Lady A’s legal team getting in her ear and trying run Lady Antebellum for more money. The name isn’t worth $10 million to either side and they both know that, but Lady Antebellum is going to lose the PR side of things regardless.
I don’t blame her as she’s used the name for years, but unfortunately she never trademarked it or disputed it so she really doesn’t have a case.
She and her team know it as well which is why they acknowledged that they didn’t dispute it in the court filing.
Tribal Outkast
Veteran
One of them is from my area. They were being called Lady A for short back when I lived there.(I moved away in 2011) I had no idea they actually trademarked the name Lady A. Feel bad for the sista and I hope this can get worked out. The group is going to look real stupid if they guck this black womans career up after changing their name to try to appease black folks
Last edited:
Pull Up the Roots
Veteran
I don't know how these laws work, but she's been using that name for over 20 years. Long before that band was even around.
"Barely a day later, another blind spot made itself known: Anita White, a blues singer and Black woman, had been using the stage name Lady A for over 20 years. “This is my life,” she said."
According to her website, White has been performing blues, soul and funk in the Pacific Northwest for two decades and released her debut recording in 2010. A new album, “Lady A: Live in New Orleans,” is scheduled for release on July 18, her 62nd birthday.
“They’re using the name because of a Black Lives Matter incident that, for them, is just a moment in time,” White told Rolling Stone upon hearing about Lady Antebellum’s name change. “If it mattered, it would have mattered to them before. It shouldn’t have taken George Floyd to die for them to realize that their name had a slave reference to it.”
Lady Antebellum Sues the Singer Lady A Over Name Change
Last edited:
She needs to come down on that asking price as the name Lady A isn’t worth $10 million dollar to either side. I have actually heard them be referred to as Lady A on more then one occasion earlier in their career, so the name just wasn’t out of the blue.
IT DOESNT MATTER HOW LONG
SHE CLAIMS SHES BEEN USING THE NAME.
SHE DIDNT RELEASE AN ALBUM
UNTIL 2010 AND THEY TRADEMARKED
THE NAME IN 2010.
THEY OWN THE NAME...
THEY WERE GONNA LET HER CONTINUE
TO USE THE NAME...
SHE GOT SOME BAD ADVICE FROM
SOME GREEDY LAWYERS
AND IS ABOUT TO WIND UP PENNILESS
WITHOUT THE NAME.
They own the name, doesn't matter how long she's been using it.
Yup.IT DOESNT MATTER HOW LONG
SHE CLAIMS SHES BEEN USING THE NAME.
SHE DIDNT RELEASE AN ALBUM
UNTIL 2010 AND THEY TRADEMARKED
THE NAME IN 2010.
THEY OWN THE NAME...
THEY WERE GONNA LET HER CONTINUE
TO USE THE NAME...
SHE GOT SOME BAD ADVICE FROM
SOME GREEDY LAWYERS
AND IS ABOUT TO WIND UP PENNILESS
WITHOUT THE NAME.
Band: Hey, we're changing our name to Lady A, we've had it trademarked since 2010, but see you've been using that name. We'd like to come to some type of agreement that would allow you to keep using it.
Singer: I want $10M
Band:
So now they're going to go to court, show that they've had the trademark since 2010 and there were no disputes over the filing, the singer is going to lose and no longer be able to use the name she's been using for 20 years.
IT DOESNT MATTER HOW LONG
SHE CLAIMS SHES BEEN USING THE NAME.
SHE DIDNT RELEASE AN ALBUM
UNTIL 2010 AND THEY TRADEMARKED
THE NAME IN 2010.
THEY OWN THE NAME...
THEY WERE GONNA LET HER CONTINUE
TO USE THE NAME...
SHE GOT SOME BAD ADVICE FROM
SOME GREEDY LAWYERS
AND IS ABOUT TO WIND UP PENNILESS
WITHOUT THE NAME.
She might as well try and ask is the original agreement still valid. They’d likely still say yes just to keep it court and whatever reputation they have left still in tact.
Pull Up the Roots
Veteran
So it doesn't matter that she had merchandise with that name on it that predates their capturing of the trademark?
IT DOESNT MATTER HOW LONG
SHE CLAIMS SHES BEEN USING THE NAME.
SHE DIDNT RELEASE AN ALBUM
UNTIL 2010 AND THEY TRADEMARKED
THE NAME IN 2010.
THEY OWN THE NAME...
THEY WERE GONNA LET HER CONTINUE
TO USE THE NAME...
SHE GOT SOME BAD ADVICE FROM
SOME GREEDY LAWYERS
AND IS ABOUT TO WIND UP PENNILESS
WITHOUT THE NAME.
Nope because she never trademarked the name. She either should have trademarked it from the beginning or disputed it the moment that Lady Antebellum tried laying claim to it.
The ULTIMATE trickster!
TRADEMARKS ARE PUT IN PLACE FOR A REASON...
AND ITS NOT A QUICK PROCESS.
WHEN YOU GET A NAME TRADEMARKED
THERES A PERIOD WHERE SOMEONE
CAN COME THROUGH AND DISPUTE
YOUR TRADEMARK IF THEY FEEL ITS THERES.
SHE DIDNT DO THIS.
THEY LEGALLY OWN THE NAME.
ITS AN OPEN & SHUT CASE.
WE SAW THIS shyt HAPPEN
ON THIS VERY SITE WITH MOLLY WATER.
AND ITS NOT A QUICK PROCESS.
WHEN YOU GET A NAME TRADEMARKED
THERES A PERIOD WHERE SOMEONE
CAN COME THROUGH AND DISPUTE
YOUR TRADEMARK IF THEY FEEL ITS THERES.
SHE DIDNT DO THIS.
THEY LEGALLY OWN THE NAME.
ITS AN OPEN & SHUT CASE.
WE SAW THIS shyt HAPPEN
ON THIS VERY SITE WITH MOLLY WATER.