Lady A Are Suing Lady A

pitchfork has the legal documents linked on their article and they are kinda of crazy to read through. she wants $10 million from the country band for the 'musical performer' rights. thats a lotta scratch.

 

"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," said the group in a statement. "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."


We were hoping to steal your name and have it be beautiful, but you can go ahead and keep using it, but we will sue you but yeah keep using it

 

Honestly....just come up with a new name...

 

Especially this! The A still is basically a stand-in for the racist shit you changed from, so, call yourself, Lady Whatever and who cares.

 

Exactly..I feel like the only way for them to save face is by bucking up and going with something completely different before they completely destroy their future as artists.

 

This is the absolute only thing I can imagine their band meetings are like lately.

 

Spot on.

 

when the patch is worse than the hole...

 

I agree with everyone that they should just change their name wholesale, but if they had to go the legal route, this is about as gentle as they could be possibly be. No request for damages or an injunction, just declaratory relief. Literally only asking the court to confirm they can keep using the same nickname they've had for the last decade without the other Lady A being able to sue them into oblivion over it. This happens all the time when two trademarks have been used simultaneously for an extended period of time. Still, shit PR.

 

The artist Lady A has been performing under the name for longer than the decade the band has been using it as a nickname. The band apparently didn’t even didn’t check to see if it was already in use, and now they’re trying to legally muscle their way into using the moniker because they feel entitled to it.

It’s a bad look for sure, but it’s also just ethically the wrong thing to do, even if they’re not suing her for money.

Edit: Not saying they band doesn’t have a legal right to do what they’re doing, but given all the circumstances surrounding the situation, the right thing to do is just pick a different name. It wouldn’t be hard.

 

Right. Like...did they forget google exists?

 

As someone who has been a (casual) fan of this band in the past, this is just such a huge embarrassment. Like, either pay her some of that "Need You Now" money (guessing she'd settle for significantly less than the $10 mil) or just change the band name. They have to understand that the optics on this are going to hurt a lot more long-term than re-branding their band.

 

Trademark law isn't as simple as "I've been using it for longer, so I win." Use in commerce is the sine qua non of protection, but you also have to look at a host of additional factors (exactly how it's been used between the parties, the particular industry it's being used in, the geographic reach of each use over time, the sophistication of consumers patronizing the mark holders, whether and when either user got a federal registration on the mark, etc.). It's not at all uncommon for multiple musical acts to have the same name -- there are at least three active rock bands called Architects, for example. It comes down to whether consumers will be actively misled by the dueling use of the mark, and the fact that both acts have coexisted up until now, both actively using the Lady A mark, without any apparent issues is pretty good evidence they should both be allowed to continue using the mark going forward. Normally, you avoid a court battle by having both parties enter into a coexistence agreement that defines how each side is allowed to use the mark without stepping on each other’s toes, but it sounds like OG Lady A wasn’t interested in coexistence without a significant payday attached. Not an entirely unreasonable move if she thought even coexistence will hurt her marketing and branding, but she had to know playing hardball would invite judicial intervention.

But, again, that's speaking purely from the legal side of things. The optics are a completely different matter.

 

Didn't Lady Ant have a copyright on the name "Lady A" for like a decade as well even though they were known as Lady Ant? Also, doesn't the Anita Lady A NOT have a copyright? Hasn't the Lady Ant copyright on the name "Lady A" gone unchallenged all this time until the headlines arrived and Anita demanded a payday?

I agree they should change their name to something completely new but this other Lady A sounds like she's grand standing, attention grabbing and doing all she can to try and take advantage of a shot at a payday. Just my opinion.

 

At the end of the day.. the fact stands that the more famous of the two comes from an absolute place of privilege, and now they are publicly battling a person of color. PR fucking nightmare.

 

Trademark, not copyright, but yes, based on my TESS search just now, Lady Ant has four federal trademark registrations on “Lady A” (three of which were registered about a decade ago) while it doesn’t appear Anita has a single one. Their business entity is literally called Lady A Entertainment LLC.

 

Lady Antebellum’s name change was a knee jerk reaction to the current political/civil climate. I’m willing to bet that a huge ass percentage of the population doesn’t even know what an antebellum is or what it even means. They should have stuck with their stupid name and continued to make their shitty music and nobody would have even thought twice about it and they wouldn’t be in this ridiculous suit where they absolutely look like the imbeciles.