Just because you replaced the guitarist in a famous band and the rest of the group doesn't tour anymore, doesn't mean you get to keep their name. Not according the this Rolling Stone article and a law that has been passed in 20 states now.
The basics of the law states that you can't tour under a band name unless there is an original members of the band touring with you. The article cites L.A. Guns, the Supremes, the Beach Boys, the Drifters, and the Platters as their examples.
One could say that a lot of money is at stake here. The name is what brings people to the Las Vegas shows of "the Platters" and "the Drifters." Going to see a "Beach Boys" concert at your local college football stadium is a summer rite of passage for many people, even if they are seeing Mike Love (not an original member of the group), and a bunch of guys he hired to play with. Isn't this something that should have been taken care of when the band broke up? Like Glenn Danzig getting the song rights and Jerry Only getting the name and logo rights when Danzig left the Misfits.
Maybe it is the fans' fault. If enough people complain that they paid $12 to see L.A. Guns at a shitty bar on the Strip and Tracii Guns wasn't even there, well, there oughtta be a law. And now there is.
The question to ask now, before it's too late, is how will this affect other bands? Think about it; if James Hetfield and Lars Ulrich keel over and die, guess who the only person legally able to tour under the name Metallica is? I'll give you a clue: it's not Kirk Hammett. It would be Dave Mustaine, Metallica's original lead guitarist before he was kicked out of the band for being a drunk and decided to start Megadeth.
What sweet revenge that would be. How much would you pay to see Dave Mustaine's Metallica?