with the top ladies could copyright their names .. an amazing woman now retired from vegas Savanna Sinclaire .. now there is an escort in the northwest Savanna Sinclair ... but not even close . oh well. then again there are 136 Tiffanys and two of the top are TS .. so go figure LOL
I’m not smart enough to post on the legal corner, but I THINK that would be more like a trademark. It might be theoretically possible. I’m pretty sure Jenna Jameson’s company owned the trademark for “Jenna Jameson” before she legally changed her name to Jameson, for example.
Would maybe be expensive to set up. Not sure how much good it would do though. Can someone in an illegal business sue someone else in an illegal business for trademark infringement on their stage name? But I take your point I think. It would be nice if there were never any duplicate names. But there’s only so many names.
That’s funny, there’s a Savanna Sinclair in AZ whose ad says she used to be in Vegas. Is that who you’re referring to or are there three of them?
As Mariah Carey found out, it can be successfully challenged by someone else who has been using the trademarked name longer than she has. Generally speaking, a trademark can be opposed by someone who has been using the same name commercially longer than the applicant has, and a trademark holder risks losing a trademark even after it has been granted, which is what happened to Mariah. It's often a waste of money to try to defend a trademark that has multiple users. If you are interested, look up Elizabeth Chan v. Mariah Carey.
That makes sense, especially if the person can prove they’ve used it longer. Good info.
The case sounds interesting but when it comes to Mariah Carey I’m more interested in the group that’s trying to raise enough money to buy the rights to that gawdawful Christmas song, with the intention of banning and banishing it from the face of the earth. Damn, it would be nice to NOT listen to that for four months every year.
Amazon.com versus Amazon Bookstore Collective
http://slate.com/human-interest/2013/10/amazon-com-versus-amazon-bookstore-the-1999-legal-tussle-was-rancorous.html
This case gets to the issue of a trademarked name for different kinds of products. Like you could have a "Royal" plumbing service and a "Royal" flower shop. Since they are in completely different markets, they would not be considered to be infringing each others trademarks.
The Chan lawsuit was about the trademark for "Queen of Christmas". It was not about a personal name. Personal names rarely can be trademarked. They cannot be trademarked if they are "merely a surname." Something about the name must be distinctive. And if the name is of someone else currently living, that other living person must give consent to the trademark name.
Signed,
Mr. Google, Esq.
that you can't trademark a surname, but professional names like Lady Susan, LA Sera, Naughty Sally and others could be trademarked because they are NOT the real names of the applicants and are used for business purposes, not for personal identification.
I know someone with the same name (same spelling, same pronunciation, same same) as a famous celebrity and they are of about the same age. The non-celebrity that I know "could not" name their business with their own name. (This is a "regular" phone book name like John Doe or Bob Smith, not a celebrity but real name like Cher.) I don't know if it was a LEGAL "could not" or an advisory "should not" as a way to avoid possible litigation, "just in case."
.
Sometimes the issue isn't trademark per se but doing damage to someone's reputation, depending on how the name is used. (Clean-cut reputation celebrity Mary Roe; non-celebrity Mary Roe opens "Mary Roe's Smut Shop. Mary Roe sues Mary Roe for damaging her squeaky clean image OR Mary Roe sues Mary Roe for damaging her business for creating the impression that she only sells PG-13 non-smut.)
that you can't trademark a surname, but professional names like Lady Susan, LA Sera, Naughty Sally and others could be trademarked because they are NOT the real names of the applicants and are used for business purposes, not for personal identification.
who owns the smut shop records a fictitious business name with the county recorder where she is doing business, it's legal to use it and is not actionable by someone who coincidentally has the same name in real life. In your example, though, a court could rule that the celebrity use of the name is a trademark by common use, depending on how well-known the celebrity is. Cher's smut shop would not fly, but Mary Roe's Smut shop might work if she has a properly recorded FBN. In the Chen v. Carey case I referred to, Chen had been using the name "Queen of Christmas" for 20 years before Mariah got the official trademark after recording an album of the same name. It was an easy call for the court to void Mariah's trademark.
Corporations, on the other hand, are state-wide entities and if a corporation had the name first, it could enjoin the individual from using the same FBN within that state. However, if the individual obtained a federal trademark on the name before the Corporation was formed, the trademark has priority on the use of the name in most jurisdictions, and there is often an opportunity for the trademark holder to sell the trademark to the corporation for a significant amount. There are professional trademark holders who do this for a living.
There is no statute of limitations for trademark infringement, but the court would likely look at how much celebrity was involved and during what time period. Trademark litigation is often adjudicated to an equitable remedy rather than a legal remedy, which is what happened to Mariah Carey. She had the trademark, but it was patently unfair to overrule Chen's continued use of the same name in commerce for 20 years, so that is where equity becomes a factor.
-- Modified on 4/18/2024 9:26:19 AM
the AZ Sincalr is NO relation to the now retired Vegas Sinclaire .. and not half as hot either ! LOL if she is trying to play off the later's name that's really disrespectful to a wonderful woman, whose profile has been deleted as she has left the hobby for good,
Industry, then that itself is pretty much copyright in its own right, because people within that industry won't accept a spin off of the real thing.
Those that know Vegas know of the Lovely Lorena. She has that "Branded" name. We know who she is.. (sweetheart)
Anyways, a young lady from who knows where came on to the Vegas scene sporting the same name, Lovely Lorena.
Young lady caught some flack from the crowd but she kept the name for a while, then she wandered off never to be heard from again.
I'm sure it happens but what you gonna do, have escorts suing each other over a name...love to sit in the court while all this is going on.
Your absolutely correct. I almost did copyright my name. Or rather trademark it.
Extremely expensive and a lot of hoops.
I had to get an attorney involved in Los Angeles.
Decides to not do. It's always an option though.
It is horrible when women decide to use your established name.
In the end usually they give up and go somewhere else or pick a nee name
Btw thank ypu for remember!!
Best of luck to the op. Hopefully she just goes away and abandons the name
Xo
Lovrly lorena
But they wont . Government now owns and operate liquor stores and cannabis dispensaries as well as collect taxes from the proceeds , but to legalized sex work and then collect tax from it , the taboo effect would be too much , especially for certain aspects of society .In fact they would look like a pimp in the eyes of the public . Their so called "war"on human trafficking would probably make things look way too complicated .
Some maggot registered my name on another review site, then copied alot of my reviews from here and pasted my TER reviews over on that shit site. Then he went rogue and was reviewing, lets say not the greatest of ladies. Ruined the name/brand...lol
Got a few messages asking, "Did you really see that skank...Ewwwww"
I complained but that other site didn't give a shit.
Im no lawyer but I dont think you can do any of those things to support illegal activity. If you can/do sue to protect your patent/trademark/copyright in the sex industry, I bet the IRS would get very interested in you really quick.
If you pay taxes, IRS doesn't care. You don't really have to explicitly state the nature of your income when you file, just supposed to correctly state the value.