Yoko Ono: No, I'm not suing Lennon Murphy over "Lennon."

Discuss

79 Responses to “Yoko Ono: No, I'm not suing Lennon Murphy over "Lennon."”

  1. jonathan_v says:

    I recently went through a similar situation…

    Another company created a product with a similar name to ours, and filed for trademark protection. We started work filling the USPTO to oppose the trademark, and a c&d notifying the other company of the confusion. One journalist interviewed me and ran a piece. More than forty publications then reported on the situation, quoting and interpreting the original journalists story.

    The next day I start getting phonecalls from friends asking me if I’ve gone crazy… as journals and newsfeeds everywhere report that my company has filed a lawsuit against a gigantic tech company.

    The moral of my story: There are 4 sides to every story. Person A, Person B, the Truth, and shit the media makes up.

    What I LOVE about modern blogs and industry reporting, is that almost no-one interviews or fact-checks. They just report on other people reporting. It’s like that game ‘telephone’ you played in 1st grade… except it makes everyone involved look like an asshole at some point.

  2. zenhammond says:

    dclbrsn ,

    Th rgnl pst s n mr, t hs bn nt jst bn pdtd, bt dtd. W n lngr knw wht Xn rgnlly wrt. Th crssd t wrds r nc tchnq, bt d nt rmmbr th wrd “rprtd” n th rgnl pst…whch dd rd bfr md my rgnl cmmnt. t ws “sng” nt “rprtd t b tkng lgl ctn”. Why s sng n th hdln nd thn “rprtdly tkng lgl ctn” ltr. Hs th pst bn dtd n th pst 15 mnts?

    knd f rmmbr Bng Bng jst pdtng wth NW pst, nt gng bck nd mssng wth th rgnl psts. Th nly thr tm rmmbr sng ths ws wth th Prtrt f Phtgrphr s Dshbg.

    thr wy, th glrng hdln f YK SS LNNN knd f dsrvs n plgy nywy…dn’t t?

    mn rlly, thnkng prsn fr hr “ttntn” n dfndng hrslf gnst myspc rnt? sn’t Xn rspnsbl t ll?

    Fr th rcrd, dg Xn nd Bng Bng…jst thnk n plgy s ndd nstd f thnk y.

  3. zenhammond says:

    dclbrsn ,

    Th rgnl pst s n mr, t hs bn nt jst bn pdtd, bt dtd. W n lngr knw wht Xn rgnlly wrt. Th crssd t wrds r nc tchnq, bt d nt rmmbr th wrd “rprtd” n th rgnl pst…whch dd rd bfr md my rgnl cmmnt. t ws “sng” nt “rprtd t b tkng lgl ctn”. Why s sng n th hdln nd thn “rprtdly tkng lgl ctn” ltr. Hs th pst bn dtd n th pst 15 mnts?

    knd f rmmbr Bng Bng jst pdtng wth NW pst, nt gng bck nd mssng wth th rgnl psts. Th nly thr tm rmmbr sng ths ws wth th Prtrt f Phtgrphr s Dshbg.

    thr wy, th glrng hdln f YK SS LNNN knd f dsrvs n plgy nywy…dn’t t?

    mn rlly, thnkng prsn fr hr “ttntn” n dfndng hrslf gnst myspc rnt? sn’t Xn rspnsbl t ll?

    Fr th rcrd, dg Xn nd Bng Bng…jst thnk n plgy s ndd nstd f thnk y.

  4. Wingo says:

    Qozmiq: Is Yoko referring to herself in the third person? Who does she think she is, Ricky Henderson?

    “Rickey Henderson, pick up the phone, man, it’s me… you.”

  5. zenhammond says:

    dclbrsn ,

    Th rgnl pst s n mr, t hs bn nt jst bn pdtd, bt dtd. W n lngr knw wht Xn rgnlly wrt. Th crssd t wrds r nc tchnq, bt d nt rmmbr th wrd “rprtd” n th rgnl pst…whch dd rd bfr md my rgnl cmmnt. t ws “sng” nt “rprtd t b tkng lgl ctn”. Why s sng n th hdln nd thn “rprtdly tkng lgl ctn” ltr. Hs th pst bn dtd n th pst 15 mnts?

    knd f rmmbr Bng Bng jst pdtng wth NW pst, nt gng bck nd mssng wth th rgnl psts. Th nly thr tm rmmbr sng ths ws wth th Prtrt f Phtgrphr s Dshbg.

    thr wy, th glrng hdln f YK SS LNNN knd f dsrvs n plgy nywy…dn’t t?

    mn rlly, thnkng prsn fr hr “ttntn” n dfndng hrslf gnst myspc rnt? sn’t Xn rspnsbl t ll?

    Fr th rcrd, dg Xn nd Bng Bng…jst thnk n plgy s ndd nstd f thnk y.

  6. leafdot says:

    Squashy,

    I’m not sure you can blame the failure of democracy on a misunderstanding of the definition of trademark. Since, as others have noted, there was the whole “Yoko Sues Lennon” thing. Headline and article were both pretty inflammatory. Doesn’t justify an army of pitchforks, but then again, I don’t think that’s what anybody was calling for. What’s that line about journalists? The only profession that’s expected to learn everything about anything between 9 and 5? Something like that. It’s true; the world is way too big for even a reasonably educated person to know as much as they need to about anything. I’m sorry for my ignorance. But.

    Anyway, this is a relief to hear. Everything I’ve heard/seen of Yoko made me think she was cooler than the article implied she was being. So, yay. Lose a little faith in humanity, gain a little faith in humanity.

  7. hellhead says:

    Someone should sue Yoko for those sun glasses.

    Yoko’s position is completely reasonable though.

  8. Phikus says:

    Zenhammond: I think you owe us all an apology for spamming this blog…

  9. Phikus says:

    Wingo, Qozmiq: Phikus thanks you for your David Cross references…

  10. zenhammond says:

    doh!

  11. airship says:

    I will henceforth be performing professionally under the name “Xeni Lennon”. I am seeking complete legal worldwide exclusive performance rights for this name. Might as well make everybody mad.

    If this name is already taken, I will settle for “Yoko Jardin”.

  12. anteye says:

    as a person born with the last name “lennon”, i find lennon murphy’s actions a tad … self-centered and obnoxious.

    perhaps she should spend more time working on her “art” and less time worrying about her name. if her talent is outstanding enough that she’s what comes to mind when people think of the word “lennon” it won’t matter who owns the name, will it?

    so far, imho, john’s got dibs.

  13. anteye says:

    as a person born with the last name “lennon”, i find lennon murphy’s actions a tad … self-centered and obnoxious.

    perhaps she should spend more time working on her “art” and less time worrying about her name. if her talent is outstanding enough that she’s what comes to mind when people think of the word “lennon” it won’t matter who owns the name, will it?

    so far, imho, john’s got dibs.

  14. jessek says:

    And Heather Mills goes back to being the woman most hated by Beatles fans in the world, again.

    For a while I thought Yoko was trying to regain that title. I’m glad to see she’s not.

    That said, while Lennon Murphy has every right to use the name Lennon, I just wish her music didn’t suck so bad.

  15. mikelotus says:

    An example of why blogs such as this replacing newspapers as the main source of news people get is so sad.

    Its also amazing that everyone was ready to think ill of Yoko. This was John Lennon’s wife. No matter what was said about her being responsible for breaking up the Beatles, which was completely false of course, do you think John loved a witch or bad person for so many years? That he would write songs such as “Oh Yoko” or “Love” for someone not deserving? All of you that trashed her also trash the memory of John Lennon. For shame.

    And does anyone have a link to this wench as a suicide girl? Did she ever do nude?

  16. anteye says:

    as a person born with the last name “lennon”, i find lennon murphy’s actions a tad … self-centered and obnoxious.

    perhaps she should spend more time working on her “art” and less time worrying about her name. if her talent is outstanding enough that she’s what comes to mind when people think of the word “lennon” it won’t matter who owns the name, will it?

    so far, imho, john’s got dibs.

  17. zenhammond says:

    Hr s th RGNL pst bfr t ws dtd:

    “Yk n, wdw f frmr Btls mmbr Jhn Lnnn, s sng sngr-sngwrtr (nd Scd Grl) Lnnn Mrphy fr llgd “trnshmnt” f Jhn Lnnn’s nm.”

    Snc ws ccsd f nt rdng th rgnl pst, fnd t cchd n Yh. s sd, t sms t b mr thn jst pntng t pst.

    Fnny hw cmmnt…nd thn th pdtd pst gts qck dt…nd thn smbdy (bt nt Xn)cmmnts fr m t g bck nd rd th rgnl pst.

    Wldn’t t b sr jst t sy y wr wrng?

    ps: nly ht th pst bttn nc, m nt mltpstr (whch s dffrnt frm spmmng).

  18. evilgenius says:

    fuck yoko – hello? she broke up the beatles!

  19. Squashy says:

    “I’m not sure you can blame the failure of democracy on a misunderstanding of the definition of trademark.”

    Rd th rgnl thrd – hlf th ppl xplnng wht th rl ss s, th thr hlf cmpltly bypssng th dscssn, nly rdngng th hdln nd drwng rrns cnclsns frm t.

    t’s prctclly mdl f mdrn dmcrcy n ctn.

  20. A_B says:

    The number of factually incorrect statements in the previous post and this one (including the comments) is astounding. This is not complicated at all. It’s all on the USPTO’s website. The following is not conjecture. You just have to know where to find the information, read it, and know what the causes of action are.

    I’ll summarize for those with short attention spans:
    (1) Lennon Murphy has a very broad registration for the the trademark LENNON that would cover any musical activities of the Lennon family;
    (2) A cancellation proceeding before the TTAB, even when successful, has no impact on a person’s ability to use that trademark. The owner just doesn’t have exclusive rights anymore flowing from the registration;
    (3) Yoko Ono is asserting both her registrations and her common law rights to LENNON and JOHN LENNON; and
    (4) Everything at the USPTO demonstrates that Ono is telling the truth, and Ms. Murphy seriously misunderstands what is going on.

    With more detail:
    Lennon Murphy is the owner of trademark registration no. 2676604 for use with goods in class 009, including musical sound recordings, and for services in class 041, including “entertainment services in the nature of live performances by a musical group.” This trademark was registered on 01/21/2003.

    This registration allows Lennon Murphy to stop anyone else from using a similar trademark, when used in conjunction with goods or services, such that there is a likelihood of confusion in the consuming public between the source of the goods/services.

    On its face, and ignoring the various defenses (e.g., priority of use), Lennon Murphy could sue members of the Lennon family for using “Lennon” for entertainment services.

    What is startling is that in her declaration during the prosecution of the application, Lennon Murphy stated that her use of LENNON was from 1997 to 2002 for the listed goods and services “substantially exclusive.” That is, she alone was using the trademark LENNON for musical performances. She also declared, “As a result of my extensive use, advertising and promotion of my mark LENNON for over five years, my mark has become distinctive of my services.” In English, this means that, basically, when you hear the trademark LENNON, you think of her goods and services. See < http://tinyurl.com/23v4e5> July 2002 filing.

    Yoko Ono is the owner of two registrations (according to the cancellation) for the mark JOHN LENNON used with goods including paper products (Class 16) and eyewear (Class 09).

    On January 18, 2008, Yoko One filed a petition to cancel Lennon Murphy’s trademark for LENNON.

    This is an important point: cancellation of a trademark has no affect on a party’s ability to use the trademark. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board controls registrations in the USPTO. It does not control use or whether there is infringement, it doesn’t issue injunctions and it doesn’t levy damages. It just controls what is or isn’t registered.

    Therefore, based on what is available (i.e., no evidence that Ono filed in District Court for infringement), Lennon Murphy seriously doesn’t understand what is going on, or worse. Moreover, Yoko Ono is attempting to stop Lennon Murphy from using LENNON exclusively for the listed goods and services.

    The cancellation asserts, in addition to the registered trademarks, common law rights in LENNON and JOHN LENNON. This is where weldpond is completely wrong. The petition for cancellation states that:
    “Petitioner is and has been for many years engaged [sic] the extensive publishing, marketing, advertising, and exploitation of the music and artwork of John Lennon. In connection therewith, petitioner has used in interstate commerce the trademarks LENNON and JOHN LENNON since long prior to registration’s date of first use of the trademark LENNON.”

    Like any good attorney, all of Yoko Ono’s rights were asserted, including the ones which have very little bearing (e.g., eyewear).

    The grounds for cancellation are “dilution by blurring or tarnishment” (Comment: good luck with that, dilution is very difficult to prove even with recent changes in the law), fraud in obtaining the registration because she didn’t disclose that it was her first name (Comment: They cite 15 U.S.C. 1052(e)(4), which applies to marks that are primarily merely surnames. This is for the examiner to determine. Whether or not it’s her first name (not even her surname) is not a “but for” situation. Once again, good luck with that), and also that she wasn’t using the mark in 1997 despite her declaration (Comment: if she wasn’t, and I have no idea, then yeah, canceled).

    Final comment, they should have just argued that there was a likelihood of confusion with Yoko Ono’s common law rights to LENNON, which she has priority. They bury that in paragraph 10 under the “Dilution by Blurring or Tarnishment.”

  21. Phikus says:

    Evilgenius: Wow. We’ve never heard that one before. Learn to capitalize…

  22. Squashy says:

    D’oh! “Readinging”.

    #62 – hey, the people trashing Yoko didn’t know John either. Maybe they were both bad people. Or both lovely people. I always thought she seemed quite interesting, with or without the “John Lennon Seal of Approval”.

  23. darsal says:

    I got so confused the other day. I thought I was going to see a Barry White show, but it was some other Barry – Chuck, or something like that?

    Anyway, that got me wondering how White Stripes got away with using Barry’s last name in their band name. I mean, I know the difference, but would my grandmother?

    Doesn’t some lawyer out there need a new boat? Maybe they could look into this whole mess.

    Toodles.

  24. OM says:

    …If Xeni owes Yoko an apology over the story, then Yoko owes us all apologies not only for causing the breakup of the Beatles, but for having the audacity to screech into a microphone, slap it on vinyl, and then expect us to buy it.

    Hell, you can’t even *bootleg* a Yoko Ono album these days unless it’s part of a Sound Effects Collection…

  25. gretagretchen says:

    I bet she’d give up the trademark for a couple of million and a five record deal.

  26. dasbin says:

    Is there any possibility we are mis-reading Yoko’s statement? While it sounds like LM is applying for a sort of “sole usage” trademark on Lennon (sorry, I’m no lawyer so my terminology here is probably ridiculous), could is be possible that what is actually happening is that LM is simply attempting to get permission to use the name “Lennon” by itself (ie without saying her full name “Lennon Murphy”) in performances and sales? In which case it might still be a publicity stunt, or it might just be that she really likes her first name by itself.

  27. dasbin says:

    Actually, upon further investigation, it appears as though LM probably already owns the trademark for the name “Lennon” and that Yoko is attempting to take it away.
    Is John Lennon ever marketed as only “Lennon?” If not, I’m not sure I see the trouble.

  28. Tensegrity says:

    evilgenius@#33 I sincerely hope you are kidding.

    Yoko Ono once again shows that she is a class act and a cool lady, through and through.

  29. erindipity says:

    Xeni, did you get pwned by Yoko? Cool

  30. franko says:

    awesome. once again we have to be reminded that john was no fool, and loved yoko for all the right reasons. she’s awesome. yoko FTW!

  31. Skep says:

    Actually, upon further investigation, it appears as though LM probably already owns the trademark for the name “Lennon” and that Yoko is attempting to take it away.
    Is John Lennon ever marketed as only “Lennon?” If not, I’m not sure I see the trouble.

    “Lenon” already applied for the trademark in 2003. Yoko was informed back then and didn’t object until just now, two days before the deadline. Why wait so long? I’m going to have to agree that there is more to this story than either Lenon or Yoko are telling us. That, and that non-transparent editing if prior posts is reprehensible–like the pigs in Animal Farm painting over the rules at night with new ones.

  32. Evil Jim says:

    Good thing Murphy didn’t apply to use her original stage name, Lennon/McCarthy.

  33. Xeni Jardin says:

    I’ve personally communicated my respect and my regret for the lack of clarity to Ms. Ono.

    As a wiser blogger/journalist once told me, sometimes speed conspires to make fools of us — the pressure to crank out lots of posts with other obligations present sometimes leads to sloppiness. I handled the original post in a less than clear way. I will try to do better next time.

    She is indeed a gracious lady and a class act, and her subsequent personal email to me on the matter humbled me greatly.

    Respect, yo.

  34. Purly says:

    Well that makes more sense.

  35. OM says:

    “Yoko Ono once again shows that she is a class act and a cool lady, through and through.”

    …Luckily for me, because I’m sitting here missing 1/4th of my right foot amputatated, I have access to lots of nice drugs for pain and nausea. Which is why the sheer audacity of that statement failed to kill me upon reading it.

    [shakes head in utter dismay]

  36. dasbin says:

    After reading this a few times, I think what actually might be happening here is that Yoko IS in fact pursuing some course of legal action (perhaps not a law suit specifically) against usage of the name “Lennon” by itself. She claims that she is not attempting to stop LM from using the name “Lennon Murphy” but she does NOT claim ANYWHERE that she isn’t attempting to stop LM from using the name “Lennon” – quite the opposite in fact.
    Basically all the letter does is expel the notion of LM being sued – my guess is that perhaps LM did in fact get a “cease and desist” or similar legal letter from Yoko and may have (too hastily) interpreted it as a law suit, but it really does appear that some sort of legal proceedings are being taken on exactly the original issue that seemed upsetting in the original post.

    This is admittedly some conjecture on my part, but seriously folks, I think we all might be skimming over Yoko’s letter here way too quickly.

  37. billy says:

    i’ve always liked yoko and i made this recently in response to any lingering flak the woman may still be getting.

    http://billymavreas.blogspot.com/2008/02/free-yoko.html

    pass it around.

  38. nate_freewheel says:

    Is this just in case Lennon comes back from the dead and wants to make some cash by playing shows and dropping his first name in a prince-esque leap of faith?

  39. gilligan says:

    Many folks here seem to be missing the most important part Ms. Murphy’s trademark grant, which is the exclusivity:

    ‘…Yoko did not believe it was fair that Ms. Murphy be granted the exclusive right to the “Lennon” trademark in relation to musical and entertainment service.’

    You can easily imagine a future John Lennon related musical project (think the Beatles’ “Love” show currently playing in Vegas). There is no way John Lennon’s estate is going to give up the right to use the name “Lennon” for such an endeavor.

  40. june says:

    Well, that’s about the amount of attention-whoring and crybaby antics I’d expect from a Suicide Girl.

  41. zenhammond says:

    Dr Xn (gn),

    n my hmbl pnn:

    Th bst wy t hndl pdts s t pdt nly nd lv th rgnl pst ln. f y r gng t dt, s th crssd t txt fnctn s w cn s wht y chngd. ntcd tht y dtd ths pst s wll (rgnlly y clld Yk’s spksprsn nvzbl).

    Prssr t crnk t pst s n thng, bt gng bck nd ntpckng yr psts wrd by wrd, nd chngng thm ftr flks hv cmmntd n thm s rlly drg (nd nfr) fr s gks wh tk th tm t rd wht y wrt.

    nywys, stll thnk Bng Bng s th grtst. Hp ddn’t rffl ny bdy’s fthrs.

    Znhmmnd

  42. Phikus says:

    A B: Thanks for your thorough and insightful post.

    Evil Jim: That other Beatle was named McCartney, not McCarthy. Your joke would have been better if you’d gotten the right name.

    Mikelotus: I don’t have a direct link, but I was looking over some SG photos a friend had sent me and she did indeed pose nude and is nothing to write home about. Her poses made her look more like some kind of wounded antelope with way too much eyeliner. Can’t blame her for trying a different line of work, though she seems to suck at that too.

    Kuanes: She must have had recent augmentation. The photos in SG show only relatively normal sized, albeit not small, “tracts of land.”

    I think we can all agree that it is pretty downright devious and/or clueless of LM to claim that her livelihood depends on exclusive rights to a name that was bestowed upon her in homage, even to the exclusion of the original. If she thinks she was named after John Lennon the bread-baker, she would do well to be reminded her parents would never have heard of him had he not also been a “pop star”. These same parents, who named her in reverence of one of the major icons of their time, should slap the shit out of her, though I don’t think it would help.

  43. kuanes says:

    #62 – i don’t have a direct link to her, but you could just try suicidegirls.com

    she was on howard stern the other day, and i was reasonably informed that she has HUGE tracts of land.

    she also has some crazy/weird thing going on with a daughter/sister/niece that she has adopted. don’t even bother asking me to explain it…

  44. agoodsandwich says:

    I don’t understand what isn’t clear here. It seems that Lennon Murphy told Yoko that she intended to go by “Lennon”, Yoko said that sounded fine (not that she needed Yoko’s permission, but it was nice of her to ask), but then Lennon Murphy applied to have “Lennon” trademarked, which is an altogether different matter.

    Anyone can see how having a little-known performer go by “Lennon” wouldn’t have much impact on the John Lennon Legacy, but for Yoko and John’s sons (one of whom is also Yoko’s son) to be unable to use the name “Lennon” in musical matters is rather absurd, and obviously unfair.

    And I just have to point out Lennon Murphy’s ridiculous comment in the original post: “This could very well mean the career that I have worked so hard at, the one you all have believed in, may come to an end.” Whatever.

  45. Anonymous says:

    Now, just to piss off Lennon Murphy, I’m gonna name my band “Len ‘n’ Murphy”.
    (I might even trademark it.)
    – Reverend Flash

  46. Squashy says:

    All the relevant information regarding Ono’s legitimate objection was already present in the original post, and yet still random outbreaks of FUD are continuing (albeit at a mercifully reduced level now).

    This is about the issue of a TRADEMARK.

    Pls, pls cn w ll, vryn, b clr bt ths nw? Hnstly, smtms thnk t’s n wndr dmcrcy dsn’t wrk prprly.

  47. dasbin says:

    @ 50:

    “It seems that Lennon Murphy told Yoko that she intended to go by “Lennon”, Yoko said that sounded fine”

    No. This is NOT the issue; people are still NOT reading Yoko’s statement properly.
    The correct statement is that Lennon Murphy told Yoko that she intended to go by “Lennon Murphy” and Yoko was okay with that.
    It appears the issues arose when LM started going by “Lennon.”

  48. jayKayEss says:

    Supposedly, referring to oneself in the third person is a sign of psychosis.

  49. weldpond says:

    Can’t anyone just go to uspto.gov and see that Lennon Murphy already has a trademark on LENNON since 2003:

    Word Mark LENNON
    Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: MUSICAL SOUND RECORDINGS AND MUSICAL VIDEO RECORDINGS. FIRST USE: 19970600. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19970600

    IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES IN THE NATURE OF LIVE PERFORMANCES BY A MUSICAL GROUP; PROVIDING INFORMATION REGARDING MUSICAL ARTISTS AND PROVIDING RECORDED PERFORMANCES OF MUSICAL ARTISTS BY MEANS OF A GLOBAL COMPUTER NETWORK. FIRST USE: 19970618. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19970618
    Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
    Serial Number 76239439
    Filing Date April 11, 2001
    Current Filing Basis 1A
    Original Filing Basis 1B
    Published for Opposition October 29, 2002
    Registration Number 2676604
    Registration Date January 21, 2003
    Owner (REGISTRANT) Murphy, Lennon INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES c/o Jeff Pringle, Level 2 Management Group, LLC 2817 West End Avenue, Suite 126, Box 402 Nashville TENNESSEE 37203
    Attorney of Record MARY L. KEVLIN
    Type of Mark TRADEMARK. SERVICE MARK
    Register PRINCIPAL-2(F)
    Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

  50. prodigous says:

    Heres the google cache if youre really so outraged at the edit.
    http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:pF9OtnEUzNkJ:www.boingboing.net/+boingboing&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

    Personally I dont think this instance is a big deal.
    As for Lennon vs. Yoko both posts seem like spin to me.

  51. weldpond says:

    I looked at the PDF linked to in the original post where Yoko Ono is protesting the LENNON trademark for the goods & services of music. In her protest for mark confusion she is using as priority a trademark of JOHN LENNON in the goods & services of sunglasses. I think her trademark attorneys are not so good. This is the kind of trademark a pointy headed attorney at the sunglass company filed. Not so much protection for LENNON in the music G&S.

    Just for the record I think all of this is trademark stuff is majorly broken but it is what we have.

    Word Mark JOHN LENNON
    Goods and Services IC 009. US 002 026. G & S: eyewear products comprised of all types of eyeglasses, sunglasses and eyewear accessories; namely, eyeglass cases, chains, frames, and lenses. FIRST USE: 19901215. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19910130
    Mark Drawing Code (5) WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS IN STYLIZED FORM
    Serial Number 74237180
    Filing Date January 13, 1992
    Current Filing Basis 1A
    Original Filing Basis 1A
    Published for Opposition February 16, 1993
    Registration Number 1769796
    Registration Date May 11, 1993
    Owner (REGISTRANT) Lennon, Yoko Ono DBA executrix of the John Lennon Estate, a New York estate INDIVIDUAL JAPAN 1 West 72nd Street New York NEW YORK 10023

    (LAST LISTED OWNER) LENNON, YOKO ONO INDIVIDUAL BY ASSIGNMENT JAPAN 1 WEST 72ND STREET NEW YORK NEW YORK 10023
    Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
    Attorney of Record RICHARD PAWELCZYK
    Prior Registrations 1488395
    Type of Mark TRADEMARK
    Register PRINCIPAL
    Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). SECTION 8(10-YR) 20030321.
    Renewal 1ST RENEWAL 20030321
    Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

  52. Giovanni says:

    funny that it’s written in the third person but signed by Yoko…

  53. chromealbion says:

    Well there we have it. Lennon Murphy is the phony we suspect she was all along. Maybe her next album will be called Crying Wolf.

    Thank you Yoko for clearly stating your case.

  54. clifford says:

    Om, you owe us an apology for being an ass.

  55. Cowicide says:

    Lennon Murphy is an idiot. She should stick with flaunting her ass on Suicide Girls.

  56. Squashy says:

    The Beatles were due to break up. Lennon’s edgy, stripped-back songwriting was increasingly at odds with McCartney’s overcooked cheese.

  57. Squashy says:

    The fact that JOHN LENNON has apparently only been registered as a trademark for sunglasses is a pretty good indication that you don’t need to hold an exclusive frickin’ trademark on your name to have a successful career in music.

  58. Brainspore says:

    Yoko has probably attracted more unwarranted criticism than any other artist of her generation. It’s understandable that people wanted a scapegoat for the Beatles breaking up, but that’s just unfair.

    I’m personally not big on her work, but she’s always taken the criticism in stride. Overall a classy lady.

  59. hyperkine says:

    This seems perfectly reasonable.

  60. pahool says:

    Kudos to Yoko for clarifying this and responding to it in a timely manner. If the situation is indeed as described in this letter, then it seems that she (Yoko) is doing the right thing.

  61. Cowicide says:

    ► ALERT

    I should clarify that I hold nothing against most Suicide Girls… except my penis.

  62. Stolia says:

    Wow. I was surprised to see that Yoko’s stance (or her lawyers’ or whatever) IS perfectly reasonable and that she is indeed in the right. Then I felt bad that I had been surprised by this. Poor Yoko.

  63. pahool says:

    I should also apologize for my earlier comment on the Yoko Ono post. I should have realized I was only getting one side of the story. I have to remember that teh Intarweps lie sometimes.

    Sorry Yoko…

  64. zenhammond says:

    Dr Xn,
    Dd y rlly jst “pnt” t th rprt? Sms t m, n th rgnl pst, tht y ctlly sttd tht Yk ws sng.

    Thnkng Yk fr dfndng hrslf s vry grcs f y, bt cn’t y g th xtr ml nd plgz fr mkng pst tht trnd t t b msldng?

    Rmnds m f th pst bt th phtgrphr wh y “pntd” t wh rppd ff smbdy’s wrds.

    Nthng wrng wth dmttng y md b-b, s thr?

  65. agoodsandwich says:

    I thought something was fishy when the young artist made comments about the end of her career and such.

  66. dculberson says:

    Zenhammond, actually, Xeni didn’t say that Yoko was suing. Did you go read the original post? I would recommend doing so before chastising someone about something you Imagine they did.

  67. zenhammond says:

    Dr Prdgs,
    Nt bg dl nlss smbdy tld y y mgnd wht ws thr bfr th dt.

    gss my “trg” cms frm mkng cmmnt bsd n th rgnl pst nd thn n th crs f tn mnts th pst ws dtd (by Xn ssm) nd smbdy ls cmmntd t sy ws jst mgnng thngs nd bttr g chck th rgnl pst.

    m nt tht trgd, by th wy, jst srprsd t th wy th whl thng wnt dwn. f dt hr nd thr whn t sts yr rgmnts nd mks y lk lttl bttr, t s knd f hrd t hv dscssn whch s wht ths cmmnts r fr…rght?

  68. Shawn Wolfe says:

    Oddly enough, my Yoko Ono tee shirt from Worn Free just arrived in the mail today.

    http://www.wornfree.com/john-lennon-yoko-ono-shirt.html

  69. Brett Burton says:

    I like Yoko’s voice.

  70. Andrew says:

    I bet Lennon got a lot of hits to her myspace page. Clever.

  71. Sean Eric FAgan says:

    Add me to the list of people apologising for comments about Yoko Ono. Her objection is entirely valid, and I wish all of them the best of luck.

  72. funeralpudding says:

    Have I mentioned the behind-the-scenes forces attempting to stop my band McCartney from taking over the world? I may have to fold up shop and show my titties on the internets again… sigh.

  73. Qozmiq says:

    Is Yoko referring to herself in the third person? Who does she think she is, Ricky Henderson?

  74. absimiliard says:

    I don’t normally like Yoko. (Purely stupid reasons, I hate her voice as I find it grating.)

    This is a refreshing reminder that just because I find someone annoying it doesn’t mean they’re a bad person.

    In fact she seems to be a fine human being after all.

    My bad.

    Sorry Yoko. (but I still don’t like your music, no offense, just not my thing.)

    -abs

  75. botono9 says:

    Dculberson: The original headline of the post started “Yoko sues…”

    I would say that constitutes claiming that Yoko sued.

  76. Phikus says:

    I think the Murphy quote at the end of the original post was very telling: “Lennon is my first name by birth and I am regualarly [sic] asked if I was named after the Beatle, having always replied no. My mother named me after “John Lennon that wrote songs, painted, and baked bread with his son”. She named me for the man, not the pop star.”
    WTF? Does she schizophrenically separate herself as LM the Suicide Girl, LM the “pop star” and LM who picks up her dog’s poop in the park? If she wasn’t trying to capitalize on the rock legend’s name, she should have used the name “Murphy.” Remember: despite all the free publicity she’s getting from this, LM pronounced phonetically pretty much sums her up. Go Yoko!

  77. Chris Spurgeon says:

    Refreshing to see a legal challenge over IP executed with grace and humanity, as Yoko’s evidently was. Kudos to Yoko for having some personal thought on this matter and not just leaving it to pit bull lawyers.

  78. pmoshay says:

    my brother, an engineer worked for Yoko on Sean’s earliest demos. by his account she is a class act, very generous and personable.

  79. Joe says:

    You people objecting to the third person: clearly her spokespeople wrote part of the letter and she wrote part of it (the quote near the end). No big deal.

    But this is basically what I thought from the beginning: the suit was over the trademark, which is bogus.

Leave a Reply