If the suit is about Lennon's right to keep the 2003 trademark for the name "Lennon" in the field of business of music entertainment but even if she loses the suit she will still be able to use the name for the band even without having the trademark protection then I'm not so sure about my position at this point.

It sounds like someday, many years after 2012, Suicide Lennon is going to be an old lady and there will be some scrappy power-hermaphrodite that was named after Suicide Lennon the person and not Lennon the member of the trademarked band Lennon, and this post-apocalyptic Lennon will want to be able to perform his/her Ragtime-tuva-hillybilly-hop-subsonic-post-electronic-romantic-
psychic-spoonbending-rock band and she won't be able to trademark his/her band "Lennon". Now I'm just torn up about all this. I don't know where my loyalty lies.

I still don't trust Yoko Ono though. I know that. Lennon is sexier. I know that. After that I don't what this is all about.

Un-fucking-believable!

I would think that a judge would just throw that out. Its ridiculous!

Yoko is a Bitch, for sure!

Wow, I thought the comments calling the widow of John Lennon a "bitch" and "cunt" were repugnant enough, and then you came in with this.

Congrats for taking this thread to yet another horrifying, inhuman level.

Apparently reading is very, very difficult for some people.

Lennon was fantastic on Howard Stern today and even gave SG a shout out.

Given that Yoko Ono was informed years ago, and did nothing until now, I wonder if there is there any basis for arguing that her not acting sooner constituted implied consent under the law?

Yep. I realize intellectual property can be difficult to grasp at times, but they aren't even trying.

So much for naming my first male child Grigory. (I don't need the Rasputin estate coming after me, that's some shit nobody wants to stare in the face...)

But Mike Jackson vs. Michael Jackson has no bearing here. This is someone naming her band after her first name; she's not calling it the John Lennon Band. It is most blatantly her own band named after herslf. Michael Jackson vs. Jackson Browne would be colser, if he were to call his band "Jackson." As to "The Donnas," that doesn't fit either, unless Lennon is performing under the name "John Lennon," not simply "Lennon."

As a musician, this is quite interesting to me, and I see where you're coming from, but a band named after someone's first name, regardless of any dead musicans who had her first name as their last name doesn't seem too farfetched.

This could set a precedent affecting my friend Cash Parker, whose band in Gainesville is called "Cash." If this goes through, he may have to change his band's name, should anyone in the Johnny Cash estate sue. Fortunately, they're just starting out, and . . . *glances around* . . . not very good, and too lazy to be likely to ever get noticed. But that's the only analogy so far that comes close to this. His first name is Cash, and he WAS named after Johnny.

I could see it if he claimed relation to Johnny Cash, or to BE Johnny Cash, but he doesn't even play any Johnny Cash songs, and is far from country. Lenno, to my knowledge, does not play John Lennon songs or sound like him and there's no more relation there than Paul Kantner trademarking "Jefferson," despite there being a blues icon (and I'm sure other musicians) with that name.

I just (and I'm trying) can't see how this affects John Lennon's estate in any way whatsoever, or poses any threat whatsoever to Yoko, except perhaps to bring up painful memories to Yoko of the day her husband was murdered, but then, so would turning on a radio or TV or going to a music store.

I still take pause on the anniversary of John's murder, and am in no way trivializing it. Any reminder must be painful to Yoko, even after all these years.

I just don't see how Lennon trademarking her name so no one else can name a band "Lennon" has any bearing on John Lennon's estate. Anyone named Lennon, like Julian or Sean, would still be able to perform under that name; they just wouldn't be able to call their band "Lennon." This would avoid confusion, as a few years back there was some confusion, as my friends' band, Mad Hatter, released their second CD, and realized there were at least 3 other bands by that name as well as The Mad Hatters. I can understand her trademarking it. There have often been more than one band with the same name, and there has been confusion in the past.

Try as I might, tryin to put myself in Yoko's shoes, I can't for the Life of me imagine this being an issue. In the least.

Anything ever go down with this guy?

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Here is the most important question regarding this issue. Ready? Be honest with your response:

Your response will give you an idea about who is most likely to prevail in this dispute.