- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Let’s Point and Laugh at Lady Antebellum
Posted on 7/9/20 at 12:50 pm to Tchefuncte Tiger
Posted on 7/9/20 at 12:50 pm to Tchefuncte Tiger
My guess is that the court would throw out the trademark by Antebellum since Lady A has been doing business for years under that name and released multiple albums.
In other words, any usage search should have turned up another musician named Lady A before giving them the trademark.
In other words, any usage search should have turned up another musician named Lady A before giving them the trademark.
2
Posted on 7/9/20 at 12:53 pm to tilco
Interesting. So it sounds like this individual going by Lady A has been using something trademarked by Lady Antebelum for "many years."
They have ever right to sue since the lady stopped playing ball.
They have ever right to sue since the lady stopped playing ball.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 12:56 pm to notsince98
quote:Legal standing isn't really the point.
They have ever right to sue since the lady stopped playing ball.
They changed their name in order to not be offensive to black people and are now suing a black artist because she's using that name. They are going hurt a black woman and force her to make changes because they didn't want to offend other black people. It's real damage vs. imaginary ones. It's frankly incredible, regardless of their legal rights.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 12:59 pm to notsince98
Question becomes when they obtained that trademark and what requirements are necessary for them to uphold it.
Antebellum started in 2006 and there is no word on when they trademarked the alternate name.
The blues singer had been operating under that name for about 30 years, starting as part of “Lady A & the Baby Blues Funk Band” before becoming a solo artist in 2010.
Even if Antebellum held the trademark before 2010, their lack of action to enforce that trademark could have invalidated it when she was recording under that name.
Antebellum started in 2006 and there is no word on when they trademarked the alternate name.
The blues singer had been operating under that name for about 30 years, starting as part of “Lady A & the Baby Blues Funk Band” before becoming a solo artist in 2010.
Even if Antebellum held the trademark before 2010, their lack of action to enforce that trademark could have invalidated it when she was recording under that name.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 1:00 pm to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
So the group formerly know as Lady Antebellum trademarked "Lady A?" Why aren't they suing Anita White for trademark infringement?
They are. That is what this thread is about.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 1:01 pm to teke184
quote:
In other words, any usage search should have turned up another musician named Lady A before giving them the trademark.
It appears they held the trademark before the singer started going as Lady A. Details are missing.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 1:04 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
They are going hurt a black woman and force her to make changes because they didn't want to offend other black people.
The black lady is doing this to herself.
I'm not a lady antebelum fan but this other lady is making very poor choices considering who holds the trademark and there are no claims that the lady took the name before the trademark.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 1:04 pm to notsince98
Point still remains that they didn’t appear to be fighting to upkeep their trademark if she was recording under that name for a minimum of 10 years.
If you don’t defend a trademark, it falls by the wayside. Hence why some companies are ultra-litigious about any use of properties associated with them like Disney.
If you don’t defend a trademark, it falls by the wayside. Hence why some companies are ultra-litigious about any use of properties associated with them like Disney.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 1:07 pm to BugAC
Haha ??
No self imposed good deed goes unpunished
No self imposed good deed goes unpunished
Posted on 7/9/20 at 1:12 pm to teke184
quote:
In other words, any usage search should have turned up another musician named Lady A before giving them the trademark.
For Trademark purposes I'm pretty sure they're only looking for other trademarked names...which black Lady A was not.
This just reeks of white privilege.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 1:23 pm to tilco
One hit wonder band with a song about a booty call.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 1:28 pm to notsince98
quote:None of that matters. Yes, she made poor choices. Yes, the band may have legal right to do what they are doing. That is entirely beside the point.
The black lady is doing this to herself.
I'm not a lady antebelum fan but this other lady is making very poor choices considering who holds the trademark and there are no claims that the lady took the name before the trademark.
The point is that this is about optics. The sole reason why the band decided to change their name was due to optics. They didn't want to be "cancelled" by having a band name that may be construed as offensive to black people.
Their choice to change their branded name in order to not offend black people has landed them in the position where they are having to fight and sue a black woman for the rights to the name they want to use. The optics are exactly the opposite of what they were trying to have by changing their name in the first place. If they were consistent, they would either give in to the demands of the singer who they are suing or change their name to something else. They are fighting her, which goes against the optics they wanted to portray by the name change in the beginning.
"Rich white people fighting to take the name of a struggling black artist" would be the CNN headline. The irony is thick.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 1:32 pm to tilco
Now it just makes Lady Antebellum look like they are encroaching on some black lady who no one has ever heard of 
Posted on 7/9/20 at 1:36 pm to auggie
quote:
That was a cover of a mediocre song from 70s or 80s.
It was a new song credited to the band and one other writer but many did notice that it had some similarities to Eye In The Sky by The Alan Parsons Project.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 1:48 pm to tilco
"They owned the trademark of Lady A for many years".
If so, why did they use that long arse name for all this time?
Does this mean they own every different spelling also?
Why did they let the black singer use the name for years without stopping it if they owned the trademark?
Just have to add they aren't even that good a band so it is just a publicity stunt.
If so, why did they use that long arse name for all this time?
Does this mean they own every different spelling also?
Why did they let the black singer use the name for years without stopping it if they owned the trademark?
Just have to add they aren't even that good a band so it is just a publicity stunt.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 1:52 pm to tilco
quote:
But now they’ve stepped in shite and will be painted the evil white country band suing a black lady
Amazing. If they did nothing they probably will not hear anything except from a few dingbats.
So what to do? They virtue signal and change their name gathering attention.
After they gather attention to themselves... they sue a black performer for their all white band to use a name they didn’t have to change in the first place.
That’s just straight up poetic.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 1:53 pm to tilco
How is this even a thing?
Posted on 7/9/20 at 2:02 pm to tilco
They took the Dixie Chick model, put it on steroids and threw it out of a plane without a parachute.
Nice work, bitches!
Nice work, bitches!
Posted on 7/9/20 at 2:07 pm to tilco
They are so finished. They have already alienated their conservative country fans but changing their name in the first place.
Now by attacking the the black lady they are going to lose any of the "woke" liberal fans they may have picked up.
Go join the "Chicks" in loserville. Dumbasses.
Now by attacking the the black lady they are going to lose any of the "woke" liberal fans they may have picked up.
Go join the "Chicks" in loserville. Dumbasses.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 2:08 pm to Lithium
quote:They have been using "Lady A" for many, many years, and they even trademarked it (more than a decade ago, as I recall).
So basically we're woke and changing our name and going sue some Black struggling singer who can't afford lawyers like ours so we can use her name to prove we're woke.
They learned that someone else is using the same name, and they tried to reach an accommodation. The other lady was playing financial hardball and trying to get a bigger payout, so they filed suit.
The optics COULD look better, but only because most people are morons.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News