Comments on: Lennon Vs Lennon (Or How Yoko Ono Became the Victim)

By: Garfieldsghost

Garfieldsghost — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:39:38 +0000

Metalplayer:
I don’t believe you’ve looked at all the facts in this case, which I find surprising since you say you’re an ‘ex-record exec’. You’re correct in saying that labels require their artists to take out trademarks. However, Murphy overstepped the mark in this instance. She approached Yoko Ono requesting permission to perform under her birth name, Lennon Murphy (granted, she didn’t have to do this from a legal point – it’s seen more as an act of courtesy in these situations). Ono gave her blessing. Now, instead of continuing to perform as Lennon Murphy, she shortened her stage name to ‘Lennon’. Still nothing wrong there and she could’ve trademarked that with no problem. However, the problem is that the nature of the trademark she registered is somewhat broader than it should have been. Some points to ponder:

(1) It will lead to implications for the Lennon family and their careers as performers (probably why Julian has since withdrawn all support)

(2) Cancellation of the exclusivity doesn’t affect the applicants right to use the name – just that they don’t have exclusive rights to it

(3) Ono is merely exerting her common law rights to the name ‘Lennon’ and ‘John Lennon’

(4) All documentation at the trademark office appears to be in Yoko Ono’s favour and Lennon Murphy either misunderstands what is going on or is choosing to ignore the facts.

The following link is to a comment posted on the BoingBoing article: http://www.boingboing.net/2008/02/14/yoko-ono-no-im-not-s.html#comment-125742

I’d advise you to read it carefully. It takes an in-depth look at the trademarks held by Lennon Murphy and Yoko Ono and highlights in no uncertain terms just why Murphy’s trademark is overstepping the mark. (Obviously it’s been written by someone with a better knowledge of trademark law than you or I).

Furthermore: If you look at Lennon’s response to Yoko Ono’s statement on her MySpace page, you’ll see that she completely dodges the question of why she sought total excusivity when it wasn’t necessary or correct (a question some people have raised in comments on in her blog while being ridiculed by clueless morons). Also, referring to Ono as a ‘Crazy Bitch,’ ‘Psycho’ or whatever is not appropriate language to be using against a person if you’re about to go head-to-head against them in court – as Lennon has been doing.

Laura-Lee:
Thanks for the back-up, but the arguments you’re making in this instance (midget sex,Suicide Girls, etc.) have no relevance to the discussion at hand, which is Lennon Murphy’s trademark debacle.

By: Laura Lee-Conboy

Laura Lee-Conboy — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:06:16 +0000

Lennon is a tool, her music is shit so she sold out by becoming a suicide girl, to distract people away from the poor quality of her music but yet they’d buy it because there’s a naked girl involved. So to sum it all up on short

1) Yoko Ono has more of a life than worrying about Lennon Murphy
2) Lennon Murphy is as musically talented as the sounds that come out of ones rectum
3)She sold out, if she was really interested in her music career like she says it is, she would have kept her clothes on.
4) her sexual fantasy is to have a midget sex slave. This is very offensive to the little people
5) Julian hate Yoko so therefor he probably just supported Lennon to piss her off, plus there was breasts shown to him to numb his mind, so he didn’t really care what he says, he realises now he made a mistake.
6) Her music is shit
7) Her music is shit
8) Her music is shit
9) Her music is shit
10) And this is a blog which is freedom of speech so its a bit ridiculous telling the writer that they are totally wrong. its impossible to censor the net, if it was possible there would be no Lennon videos in all her sluttiness.

Did I mention her music is shit, don’t let the nakedness fool you!

By: metalplayer

metalplayer — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 04:48:36 +0000

You are so wrong, I will fill you in. First off EVERY major label record company requires the artist to secure the trademark for the bands name. Being an ex-label exec myself I would be willing to bet that Arista records paid the legal cost to get the trademark . That is usually what happens. If Yoko knew in 2000, and her staff was well aware of the mark, why wait 8 years. Lennon is a well established artist and yes the press helps but she has a career without it. Additionally Yoko only filed a cancellation because she couldn’t file an infringement claim because there is no infringement. I also can tell you that Yoko has no legal standing to file this action and she has zero case. Even if she did Yoko could never receive a mark for the name with Ms. Murphy’s use out there. Yoko has a real serious problem and if I was Ms. Murphy I would be happy to sit around and wait for Yoko to hang herself, then file a malicious litigation case against her which Yoko couldn’t win if she looses with the Trademark Board. Ms. Murphy might stand to get a huge check here, maybe she will share it with Julian. That would be so crazy!!!. Yoko is only causing a problem because there is some business deal looming in the background driving this whole thing. She could care less about Lennon Murphy, its about money….These cases always are and Ms. Murphy is really the victim here. The music might not be great, but then again Yoko is not exactly stellar….