The Well-Made Bed, Ready for Lying: Lady A Edition
If revenge is a dish best served cold, then farce is best served up luke warm.
Actually, the better saying for this disasterpiece of bad PR and optics might be “play stupid games, win stupid prizes:”
Lady A, the band formerly known as Lady Antebellum, had a series of productive talks last month with Anita “Lady A” White over the use of the Lady A name. White has used the “Lady A” name for nearly three decades, but now, the battle is heading to court.
In a suit filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee in Nashville on Wednesday (July 8) that was obtained by SPIN, Lady A the band claims that White is attempting “to enforce purported trademarks rights in a mark that Plaintiffs have held for more than a decade.”The suit also states that the band isn’t seeking any monetary compensation, but say that White’s team is seeking a $10 million payment to use the Lady A name. It also says that the group has used the moniker informally since 2006, and has used the name on their website since 2008. The band registered a patent for Lady A in 2010, which was approved without opposition on July 26, 2011. The suit said 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.”
In a statement obtained by SPIN, Lady A the band explained why they took this to court.“Today we are sad to share that our sincere hope to join together with Anita White in unity and common purpose has ended. She and her team have demanded a $10 million payment, so reluctantly we have come to the conclusion that we need to ask a court to affirm our right to continue to use the name Lady A, a trademark we have held for many years. It was a stirring in our hearts and reflection on our own blindspots that led us to announce a few weeks ago that we were dropping the word ‘Antebellum’ from our name and moving forward using only the name so many of our fans already knew us by,” the group said.
“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. 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,” the statement continued.
In an interview with Rolling Stone last month, the Seattle-based White, who goes by Lady A, expressed her displeasure with the band’s name change, having used the name professionally for “over 20 years.”
You can read the lawsuit here. I’m with our friend Em as far as her analysis of this goes, legally speaking:
Their suit is to establish their legal right, not to recover anything from her. It’s sort of a preemptive action to declare their rights.
— Em Carpenter has had enough of your BS (@wvEsquiress) July 8, 2020
“The band asks for no money in the suit, only a court declaration that the trio is lawfully using the Lady A trademark and that its continued use of the trademark does not infringe on any rights White may have under state or federal law” is a nice piece of legalese, since Lady A the New automatically made the name worth millions and millions of dollars the second they associated themselves with it.
There will be enough money change hands, and enough press headlines involved, that this will get worked out sooner rather than later, but it’s hard to imagine a more vivid example of how the outcry for real change and justice has more often than not turned into more posing than a yoga studio. A country band changes its name under the reasoning of supporting the current Black Lives Matter movement, only to walk all over an actual African-American artist who had been using the name for 20 years. Was Lady A the First high-handed with her demands to Lady A the New? Sounds like it, but good for her. That’s how business works. You only get leverage a few times in life, and add in the circumstances, good for her wringing every bit of fame and treasure out of this moment at Lady A the New’s expense.
The game here is given away with the “we wanted to come together and make something special and beautiful out of this moment.” Change can come from big moments, but usually it comes in a slow roll of a thousand little acts of doing the right thing that start as ripples and build to waves. Lady A the New didn’t want to just do the right thing, they wanted a big, beautiful moment out of doing the right thing that would be revered as special by all. There’s a name for that; it’s call posing. Much as they do when they hit the high note to finish a song, they expected to raise their arms, exhale, and listen to the crowd roar in approval at how beautiful they had turned this ugly moment. So they made their big move, announced it, and then posed with arms raised, awaiting the roar of the fans…
And, whoops. Maybe one of Lady A the New’s multi-person team of handlers should have done a Google search. The press sure did.
This Lady A — a 61-year-old black woman whose real name is Anita White — has been playing the blues under the name for more than 20 years. She began singing as a gospel performer at church and started going by Lady A for karaoke nights in the Eighties. She’s released multiple albums with the name, and on top of her day job working with Seattle Public Utilities, she’s gearing up to release another album, Lady A: Live in New Orleans, on her birthday on July 18th.
White tells Rolling Stone she’s frustrated that Lady Antebellum hadn’t gone to her before making a decision, pointing out the irony in changing a name in support of racial equality while simultaneously taking another one from a black performer. “This is my life. Lady A is my brand, I’ve used it for over 20 years, and I’m proud of what I’ve done,” she says, her voice breaking. “This is too much right now. They’re using the name because of a Black Lives Matter incident that, for them, is just a moment in time. 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.
“It’s an opportunity for them to pretend they’re not racist or pretend this means something to them,” she adds. “If it did, they would’ve done some research. And I’m not happy about that. You found me on Spotify easily — why couldn’t they?”
So then Lady A the New reached out to Lady A the First, and it started well, turned into a mess, but is now — allegedly — a bit better.
Lady A the New made the mess, made it worse, then really made it worse. They made this bed of ridiculousness, tucked in the perfect hospital corners of tone-deafness, and proceeded to get in and pull the covers of cluelessness over their heads while hoping their house of rich and famous privilege would insulate them from the social media hordes. Whatever they get out of this mess, they will have richly deserved it.
Would make a great song for someone to write. Properly credited, of course.
IANAL, but if the band has clearly not been defending the trademark “Lady A” that they’ve had for 10 years if the singer has been using it for 20. Does that make it void?Report
lol
if you’re wondering why it is that Disney comes down like a ton of bricks on videos of toddlers singing “Let It Go”, if you’re wondering why EMI makes YouTube automatically mute any videos with their licensed songs playing over someone’s dog being cute? Posts like yours are why.Report
Except songs are covered under copyright, not trademark, and copyright does not have to be defended like trademark does. It does explain why everybody talks about “The Big Game,” though.Report
Also NAL, but I could see it going the other way just as easily. If the singer was using it for 20 years, and did not defend it when the band started using it, she could lose it. The band could feasibly make an argument that they were unaware of the singer, but it would be more difficult for the singer to make the same argument about the band.Report
There is a general view in trademark law of “use it or lose it” but I mainly (and very roughly) know this from the context of fear that a trademark becomes a “generic” term. Xerox launched a huge ad campaign to prevent their trademark from become a generic synonym for photocopy.
But there are kinks in trademark law too. You can have local trademarks. There is a restaurant in Michigan that is called Burger King (not the chain). The actual chain Burger King tried to sue and lost because that restaurant had a valid use that preceded the chain. So the chain cannot operate within an X block radius of the local restaurant.
In California, there is a winery called Stag’s Leap and another winery called Stags’ Leap. They sued each other for years until the California Supreme Court held that they both have a right to use Stag and Leap in their brand name. Since both wineries were founded around the same time and in the Stag Leap part of Napa, the California Supreme Court stated that both could use the name but said the apostrophe was what could use to differentiate the brands.
People still get confused though.Report
Not too late for “Lady Bellum”.Report
Lady Ante DisestablishmentarianismReport
Lady Reconstruction, with special guest Jim Crow.Report
Well, that’s 5 minutes I’ll never get back. God what a tempest in a teapot.Report
“A country band changes its name under the reasoning of supporting the current Black Lives Matter movement, only to walk all over an actual African-American artist who had been using the name for 20 years. ”
errrrrr
Apparently they had an agreement that they’d pop her up in their marketing materials and collaborate on some music, and everybody was happy, and then she changed her mind and decided that she wanted ten million dollars too. So, y’know, it’s not quite the case that the first White heard of this was a lawsuit landing on her doorstep.
And yeah, “work the leverage”, but it is possible to bid so high that the game collapses. If you ask for too much and you’re an asshole about doing it, maybe the other party decides that fighting you is less expensive than pretending they like the idea of working with you.Report
I remember when Lady Antebellum first got big, there were some minor rumblings about the name. Like, “They know what that means, right?” I don’t know if it ever got back to them and, if so, what their response was.
Flash cut to today. Should they have changed their name? I dunno. Maybe it was a good idea. But it seems like they found the only route to making things worse without actually trying to do so. Like, come on guys, this makes you look like assholes and only adds fuel to the criticism from the other side of the aisle.Report
see also: Thug Kitchen, which got yelled at quite a lot in the past about their name (to the point of having to cancel public events due to expected disruptive protests) but only recently, for some undisclosed reason, deciding that they needed to change the name.Report
This seems relevant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRi8LptvFZYReport
Was that real??? Holy smokes!
I will confess to not knowing that Rollerblades were a trademark. I heard the term inline skating but though they were just synonyms.
The velcro thing does (or at least did) used to cause me problems when ordering school supplies. We often use “hook and loop” fastener in our classrooms. Many school supply websites didn’t carry the brand name stuff nor do it have intuitive search algorithms. So you’d type in “velcro” and be told no search results popped up. “BUT I KNOW I ORDERED THIS FROM YOU LAST YEAR!” Eventually you find School Specialty Brand Hook and Loop Fastener and after staring at the picture for 5 minutes you realize that is what you need, make a mental note to search for that next year, and promptly forget.Report
This seems to be real according to this ABA article. These are obviously actors playing lawyers: https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/velcro_lawyers_thank_you_for_angry_feedback_on_trademark_plea_with_help_of
As I noted above, trademark revolves around “use it or lose it” as a legal philosophy. The patent for velcro expired and anyone can make the stuff but there seems to be a trademark for Velcro as well. The problem for Velcro as a company is that everyone uses Velcro in a generic way even if the product is manufactured by another company. Velcro, like Xerox, was concerned with losing their trademark and having the term become a generic synonym for the product. Xerox ran ads in the 80s that stated “Everytime you say Xerox to mean photocopy, we get a headache and need an Apirin.”* This seems to have been a failed attempt at protecting a mark using humor.
*Aspirin is a term where Bayer lost the trademark because it became a generic way to refer to headache medicine instead of referring to the specific product released by Bayer. Though the story here is a little complicated because Bayer also had marks confiscated by the U.S. government at the start of WWII as assets of a hostile enemy But it is possible to lose a trademark.
For extra geekery, trademarks are judged on a scale from generic to fanciful/arbitrary. I think there are five levels. Generic terms are not trademarkable. You are not allowed to trademark words like Plumber or Carpenter if your business does Plumbing or Carpentry. Google or Apple would be examples of fanciful/arbitrary trademarks for what they do.
I think the other levels are descriptive and evocative and those receive more protection than generic but less protection than arbitrary/evocative. Lyft would be a potential example of an evocative or descriptive trademark.Report
You see a lot of fanciful naming in agricultural chemicals. There are names like Liberty, Nirvana, or Enlist for pesticides. The names have nothing to do with what the product does, so it is a lot easier to get a trademark than it would be for something like Weed-Kil.Report