Idolator

I've never heard the first note of this Lennon Murphy woman's music, but I will agree with her that Yoko is splitting hairs as she is so want to do. You can't confuse one for the other, the absurdity is beyond words.

I'm sure that Sean reads Idolator and, hey, I'm not dissing your mom to be mean or trying to tell you what to do, but could you sit down and have a talk with her? Surely there's a point at which enough is enough.

From Julian Lennon's MySpace:

"Sad but True & interesting........... I feel for her & know the situation well ... Please read carefully....... This is NOT about me, but about a girl named 'Lennon' She has My full support."

This lawsuit is a strange one. Never heard of her myself, but I hope common sense prevails.

I'm a little unclear on why she needed to trademark the name, though. Surely she would have known that such a move would bring exactly this kind of response from the John Lennon estate, no?

The best part of this post was reminding me of "Black Gallagher" from Chappelle's Show... "I Got Warrants"! Thank God the writer's strike will be over and I can stop watching old DVDs

Hey - what is it called when there's a reverse tramp-stamp on the stomach again?

I dunno, I remember when her first record came out it was credited only to "Lennon" and seemed very deliberate to draw some attention to her. But it seems kind of silly to sue her at this point, like the Presley Estate deciding all of the sudden to sue Elvis Costello or something...oh, and what's with the genie lamp directly above her hoo-hah?

@Clevertrousers: I think it's called "scary".

@Clevertrousers: Most bands trademark names if they're smart. If she was releasing an album under that name she would need to get the name in the patent office asap so if anyone else came up claiming it, she would legally be able to keep it for business use. (see: Rockstar Supernova issues) A good band name is a brand, and you need to protect it. Just because she didn't go anywhere "big time" it seems excessive but she had a major label deal. They want to protect their property too.

I'd speak my opinion on Yoko and John Lennon, but I'd rather not be negative.

Yoko used to do performance art and conceptual stuff, which pays even less than being a subsistence level musician. You'd think she'd have developed enough empathy for someone who's just getting by (sorry we can't all be raised by bankers and married to rock stars) that she would maybe let a shared name slide?

This bullshit makes me with Mark David Chapman had aimed a little to the side.

@Loudersoft: The word you're thinking of is "awesome." She has one on the back, too.

Oh she has one on the back too? Oh, then I guess "awesome" would be correct.

@janine:

And I respect his opinion more because it's his name too and he works under it professionally.

i just went to her myspace and heard her delightfully-titled song 'property of goat fker', and noticed in the comments section that she was on howard stern this morning. so, yoko ono suing her is getting her way more press than she's gotten in a long time, if that means anything. but still, it's all ridiculous. i've always liked yoko, but for every 'sisters o sisters' or 'kiss kiss kiss' there's also a dumb lawsuit or mad about you guest appearance.

It's true. For every "Why?" or "Walking on Thin Ice," there's a Starpeace. It was precious the way Neil Hamburger intimidated her on Kimmel, though.

At least there's more understanding that she didn't actually break up the Beatles, meaning we're able to hate on Yoko for being Yoko now.

Doesn't Yoko keep herself busy enough with selling horrible merchandise featuring John's doodles?

@Clevertrousers: It's called a california license plate.

@Loudersoft: I understand your sarcastic skepticism, really I do. You just have to see it. She's very attractive, is all.

Dammit! Must I apologize for the lust in my heart? It burns! Oh, it burns!

Dear Friends

A musician named Lennon Murphy is claiming that Yoko Ono has sued her and that Yoko is seeking to stop Lennon Murphy from performing under her name, Lennon Murphy. Both of these claims are untrue.

Several years ago, Lennon Murphy sought Yoko's permission to do her performances under her name, Lennon Murphy. Yoko, of course, did not object to her request. Subsequently, without Yoko's knowledge, Lennon Murphy filed an application in the United States trademark Office requesting the exclusive right to utilize the name "Lennon" for musical performances. Yoko's attorneys asked Lennon Murphy's attorneys and manager to withdraw her registration of exclusivity to the name LENNON for the trademark. Yoko also offered to cover all costs Lennon Murphy had incurred in filing for the trademark. But Lennon Murphy went ahead to register.

Yoko did not sue Lennon Murphy, but sought to stop her from getting the exclusive right to the name Lennon for performance purposes. For that, Yoko's attorneys, simply notified the Trademark office that 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 services. As you can see, this is a very important issue for Yoko and the Lennon family.

Yoko says: "I am really hurt if people thought that I told a young artist to not use her own name in her performances and had sought to sue her. I did no such thing. I hope this allegation will be cleared."

Thank you for your kind attention,
Yoko

But if Julian Lennon is OK with it, who else is planning to use the name Lennon for "performance purposes": Sean? Some bizarre ghost tour with John projected on a screen?

Also: YOKO POSTED HERE?

Dear spokespeople: if you sign your artist's name to something, don't refer to him/her in the third person in the body of the statement.