Blues Singer Lady A: 'I Should Not Have to Bend to Band's Will Because They've Got Money'

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Anita White has spent decades singing the blues as Lady A. Weeks after Grammy-winning country trio Lady Antebellum changed their name to Lady A to acknowledge the former name’s racial connotation, she worries she’s being erased.

The black Seattle blues singer has been in talks with the band for weeks about using the name, maintaining that she doesn’t want to share the Lady A brand and that she shouldn’t have to fight to keep a name she’s used for more for 20 years. With a newly filed lawsuit from the band, she now may have to fight in court for it.

After getting new legal representation, White sent a revised settlement offer to the band this week, which included a demand for financial compensation for the first time. White asked for $10 million, which she says would have been split between herself and donations to Black Lives Matter, a charity for seniors and youth in Seattle, and musicians in need of legal counsel. Country trio Lady A, who’s had a registered trademark on the name since 2010, responded by suing White over the name rights on Wednesday, asking for no monetary damages but for a declaration that they aren’t infringing on a trademark in using the name and that both parties can “continue to coexist.” In their suit, the band called White’s financial demands “exorbitant” and noted that “prior to 2020, White did not challenge, in any way, Plaintiffs’ open, obvious, and widespread nationwide and international use of the LADY A mark.”

White says that while the band told her they’d ensure she doesn’t get buried behind the group, she thinks the damage had already been done. She claimed it was harder to verify her name to upload her new single “The Truth Is Loud,” a few weeks ago, and that it’s more difficult for fans and new listeners to find her on streaming services like Spotify.

https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/features/lady-a-lawsuit-interview-1026047/

[frazzled]

1. I think she has a case

But I'm no lawyer. Anyone with appropriate legal experience know the details?

Google-ability is everything these days. If you don't come up right away, you don't even exist. They'd sue the crap out of her, Disney-style, if she had come up with the name after they did.

[brush]

6. Lady Antebellum are big-footing her, bullying and taking her name...

for themselves. It shouldn't happen but unfortunately she never trademarked it. I mean who would thing she even had to. But now these bullies have trademarked it since they had a racist name before and her performing name was the closest thing to theirs, so they want it.

I hope the bad publicity puts a hex on their sales/career. They could rebrand like the "The Chicks" just did. This could be a great opportunity to get positive publicity instead of looking like selfish bullies.

They are being assholes and I hope the real "Lady A" prevails.

[Nevilledog]

19. +1

[MrsCoffee]

31. They shouldn't have been awarded the trademark to begin with.

If it had been researched at all, they would have known that this would become an issue.

[stopdiggin]

37. there are duplicate band names all over the place

and the world is rife with Lady As (and Bs, Cs and Ds) as stage names and monikers. And unless, and until, someone is contesting someone else's name? No biggie. A lot of these things go completely unnoticed and unremarked (and largely a subject of indifference) -- until somebody goes for a trademark -- and/or, starts making some money.

Lady A (the blues artist) is in a slightly different category with some history and albums, etc. And yet, still quite a few steps away from a household name. I think the claim is that Antebellum was not aware of another "Lady A" at the time they trademarked. Should they have been? I guess that kind of depends on what standard practice is in the industry. (probably went through their lawyers and agents)

I think it's worth noting that Antebellum has NOT asked the blues artist to stop using the name. Rather, the blues artist is demanding payment for a name that she did not bother to trademark -- and that both have used for years.

[LisaL]

36. They trademarked the name Lady A about 10 years ago.

So it's not recent and apparently until now she had no problem with their trademark. They are not asking her to change the name. They just want a co-existence agreement, which means each gets to keep the name.
So how does that makes them assholes?

[Lancero]

42. The issue is that they are just now planning to officially adopt it as their name.

Previously, it was just a trademark they held but in most cases rarely if ever used.

As for why the 'why can't we just share it!' argument shows someones ass, have you even considered the connotations behind their use? For Anita White, it's shorthand for her name. For Lady Antebellum, it's shorthand for a word with extreme racial connotations behind it.

Don't know about you, but I can certainly understand why she would take issue with her performing name being this closely associated with a band that glorifies a era that would have seen her ancestors in chains.

[qazplm135]

7. not really

they filed a trademark, she didn't.

Now, an argument can be made by allowing her to use the name anyways they abandoned their trademark, but even then, she doesn't have a trademark.

Now, do I think they are jerks for this? Oh yeah.

[stopdiggin]

20. not really -- or even close

if you read the article -- not only do they own the trademark (for something like 10 years), and the legal high ground -- but the band is being much more conciliatory and non-confrontational than the artist (no damages, and no objection to her continuing to use the name professionally) in their responses here. Somebody is looking for a paycheck here -- and a fairly fat one at that.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lady-antebellum-country-band-lady-a-sues-blues-singer-anita-white
https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/features/lady-a-lawsuit-interview-1026047
(not a particular fan of the band -- but they're really not attempting to bully or roll this other artist.)

[Tipperary]

27. Thank you. nt

[Lars39]

2. "...spent decades singing as Lady A."

Case closed. Lady Antebellum can go piss up a rope.

[SCantiGOP]

11. Unless the rule of law is important

The group owns the trademark, she doesn't.
That is a fact.

[jrthin]

13. Just because it's legal doesn't make it right or ethical.

[SCantiGOP]

15. I wasn't trying to get in an argument with you

When you said "case closed" I thought you were referencing a legal point. The fact is the law is on their side. I don't know that I have ever heard music from either one of these musicians, but protecting a trademark is rather important for anyone who makes their living from their brand.

[jrthin]

16. You responded to my post. I think you intended to respond to another post.

[SCantiGOP]

17. Yeah

and I'm out of here for now. I spend enough time arguing with jackasses I don't like, so I shouldn't have said anything negative here where almost everybody is a good guy/gal.

Peace out

[Lars39]

14. I'm no lawyer, but decades of recordings should be worth something.

[lagomorph777]

23. Prior use can actually impact a trademark challenge case.

https://www.flatfeetrademark.com/common-law-trademarks-v-federal-trademark-registration/

It’s commonly understood that a federal trademark registration confers on the registered trademark owner the right to exclusive use of the mark in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the registration. This is generally the case. Except in the United States, where we have common law trademarks, or prior use, trademark rights.

[maxsolomon]

3. I've lived in Seattle 25 years.

I don't care about Lady Antebellum's music, like at all, but I have never seen or even heard of Anita White/Lady A.

The band's position seems pretty reasonable, especially when you hold the trademark: asking for no monetary damages but for a declaration that they aren’t infringing on a trademark in using the name and that both parties can “continue to coexist.”

I'd wager they settle for a couple 100K.

[janterry]

4. I hope Anita wins

n/t

[kysrsoze]

5. Wow, you'd think the band would care about this woman's livelihood. Instead, they sue. Assholes.

It's all about the money for them, isn't it?

[stopdiggin]

21. Ummm? SHE sued THEM ..?? For a cool 10 mil?

[maxsolomon]

35. It's like no one read the article.

Quelle suprise.

[LuvNewcastle]

8. If Lady Antebellum had ten million

to throw away on a lawsuit, I doubt they would stillppp be interested in.making their shitty music.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

9. Yes! Let's get rid our our "problematic" name by dicking over this black woman! That's the

ticket right there

And if the name is such an issue. Wouldn't the new name be the same thing except shortened?!!

[lagomorph777]

26. Maybe, in the spirit of better race relations, they could go with

"Lady Antifa?" It sounds more like their old name anyway.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

30. .

.

[TeamPooka]

10. The band wanted something from her of value and they should pay for it.

[LisaL]

22. I don't think they want anything from her.

She is the one asking them for large amount of money. I don't believed they are asking her to change her name to anything else.

[stopdiggin]

33. poster probably meant they wanted to appropriate her name

and thus "something of value"
Two things wrong with that scenario 1) they own the name (legally), and 2) they've said all along that they have no problem with her continuing to use the name.

[TeamPooka]

38. They entered into a negotiation to get it. Then they felt she ask for too much money

Because they entered into my negotiation in the first place that means they knew there was something of hers they need to buy from her because her name has preexisted there’s even though they’ve had a trademarked the last 10 years

[stopdiggin]

39. nope. they never offered to buy anything from her

(and they didn't have to) The idea that they were on shaky legal ground here is being promoted by Judge Judy internet legal experts.
(but -- I guess we'll see how it all plays out ...)
---- ----

[TeamPooka]

40. you think they are telling the truth? Why did they enter negotiations? You have all the answers

so tell us

[stopdiggin]

41. nope. but I CAN read.

it doesn't always lead to the truth -- but it's so much better than the alternative.

[Amy-Strange]

12. I like the group, and...

-

I understand why they want to change their name, but come on, why take someone else's name, even if it wasn't trademarked?

Of course, I realize that the original Lady A is probably getting a lot more publicity from this than she ever had before, but does that make it right?

Nope.
==========

[LisaL]

24. Per they article, they had Lady A named trademarked for 10 years already.

[MrsCoffee]

32. And Lady A has been performing under that name since the 80's. Common law trademark.

“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.”

[Amy-Strange]

34. Using a Common Law Trademark as your legal theory might work, and...

-

it might not, but what's interesting is according to some sources, the group trademarked the name ten years ago.

Waiting that long to sue Anne White makes it more difficult to win their case, because it seems they didn't use due diligence to protect their name, and THAT, in itself, can be used as a defense by the plaintiff.

Also, since Ms. White used the first letter of her first name, a case might be made that she was using part of her name, and you don't need a trademark or DBA to do that.

It's a sketchy legal theory I know, but I hope she still wins.
==========

[Coventina]

18. A shitty band with a racist name, now sues a Black woman?

Not a good look.

[LisaL]

25. She is the one asking them for money.

Jeez.They aren't asking her to change her name to anything else.

[Coventina]

29. I stand corrected on the money. They are still a shitty band, trying to cover for their racism.