|
|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
| Author |
Message |
|
timberlea
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 7:45 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 12:41 pm
Posts: 4094
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada
Been Liked: 309 times
|
Quote: What's the big secret?
No more of a secret as when and where your shows are.
_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Smoothedge69
|
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 7:48 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:55 am
Posts: 3885
Images: 0
Been Liked: 397 times
|
timberlea wrote: Quote: What's the big secret?
No more of a secret as when and where your shows are. Maybe he is afraid some of you will come and harass him at work. Some of you certainly act like you would.
_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Bazza
|
Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:50 am |
|
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 8:00 am
Posts: 3312
Images: 0
Been Liked: 610 times
|
Smoothedge69 wrote: timberlea wrote: Quote: What's the big secret?
No more of a secret as when and where your shows are. some of you will come and harass him at work. Some of you certainly act like you would. Maybe.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
birdofsong
|
Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:53 am |
|
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 9:25 am
Posts: 965
Been Liked: 118 times
|
Bazza wrote: Smoothedge69 wrote: timberlea wrote: Quote: What's the big secret?
No more of a secret as when and where your shows are. some of you will come and harass him at work. Some of you certainly act like you would. Maybe. You people are creepy. Honestly.
_________________
Birdofsong
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
c. staley
|
Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 11:48 am |
|
 |
| Extreme Poster |
 |
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
|
|
You guys are actually funny!
Where I work has never been a secret – as a matter of fact, someone a while back actually posted a video that was taken at my show.
But if any of the members here want to come to town and go to one of my shows, then they are more than welcome to join me there. I'll even let them hang up the "we don't play sound choice" laminated poster. (someday Chris is coming and stogie is buying)
My apologies to Ripman8 since I will not be available that first week of August while he is traveling to Canada. However if for some reason he doesn't seem to be able to make it to Michigan before he moves, then I can guarantee him that birdofsong and I will definitely visit him in Toronto. It's an easy 3 Hour drive from here and we like to spend time in Toronto on small weekend getaways.
So come visit us in Michigan (bring your own bulletproof vest) and take a tour of the Detroit area. It looks like Hiroshima sixty years ago.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
JoeChartreuse
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:33 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:12 pm
Posts: 5046
Been Liked: 334 times
|
kjathena wrote: well actually it's SC and DT/PR (was CB). PR isn't a mfr. and never was- just a company who bought a trademark for copyright trolling. Still can't figure out how they will be able to sue for damages, and no one has been able to explain it. No way to sue for lost income. No way to sue for misrepresenting their product- they don't have a product....
_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"
" Disc based and loving it..."
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
doowhatchulike
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:36 pm |
|
|
| Super Poster |
 |
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 8:35 am
Posts: 752
Images: 1
Been Liked: 73 times
|
JoeChartreuse wrote: kjathena wrote: well actually it's SC and DT/PR (was CB). PR isn't a mfr. and never was- just a company who bought a trademark for copyright trolling. Still can't figure out how they will be able to sue for damages, and no one has been able to explain it. No way to sue for lost income. No way to sue for misrepresenting their product- they don't have a product.... Guess someone should get ahold of the AZ filing and see what their claim is...
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Smoothedge69
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:36 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:55 am
Posts: 3885
Images: 0
Been Liked: 397 times
|
JoeChartreuse wrote: kjathena wrote: well actually it's SC and DT/PR (was CB). PR isn't a mfr. and never was- just a company who bought a trademark for copyright trolling. Still can't figure out how they will be able to sue for damages, and no one has been able to explain it. No way to sue for lost income...  . yeah, THEY weren't damaged. It's crazy. Just another scheme designed to hurt those who actually do the work in this industry. It's just like everywhere else in the business world. Screw the little guys, so the bigger guys get rich.
_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Paradigm Karaoke
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:37 pm |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:24 pm
Posts: 5107
Location: Phoenix Az
Been Liked: 1279 times
|
|
don't need a product, they own the Trademark, thay can sue you for using it.
just because you have the legal right to do something does not mean it needs to be done.
_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Smoothedge69
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:40 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:55 am
Posts: 3885
Images: 0
Been Liked: 397 times
|
Paradigm Karaoke wrote: don't need a product, they own the Trademark, thay can sue you for using it.
just because you have the legal right to do something does not mean it needs to be done. It's a pretty sleazy and disgusting system. I think America needs some serious changing!!
_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
JoeChartreuse
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:44 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:12 pm
Posts: 5046
Been Liked: 334 times
|
c. staley wrote: HarringtonLaw wrote: Paradigm Karaoke wrote: don't wory smooth.....Digitrax does not own the Trademark. you have nothing to go to them for. They will get you to the appropriate place in the overall organization. PR does not presently have a website, so it can be difficult to find them directly. And from your post above, you make it sound as though Digitrax and P.R. is simply being run by a third entity.... And that would be???? (Just askin'...) I just felt that this needed a bump- and maybe a reply?
_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"
" Disc based and loving it..."
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
timberlea
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:53 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 12:41 pm
Posts: 4094
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada
Been Liked: 309 times
|
Quote: It's a pretty sleazy and disgusting system. I think America needs some serious changing!! You can always run for office.
_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Smoothedge69
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:55 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:55 am
Posts: 3885
Images: 0
Been Liked: 397 times
|
timberlea wrote: Quote: It's a pretty sleazy and disgusting system. I think America needs some serious changing!! You can always run for office. If I had the money, and the backing I would GLADLY run for office.
_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Insane KJ
|
Posted: Wed May 22, 2013 9:57 am |
|
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:24 pm
Posts: 317
Been Liked: 18 times
|
HarringtonLaw wrote: jclaydon wrote: would be interesting to know who handled that case
Not really sure if this would be considered a win or not I handled it personally. I will have more to say about it in the future at the appropriate time, perhaps as a formal statement, but for now just a couple of comments that I think articulate where we stand on this. We are certainly disappointed with the damage award and the lack of a permanent injunction. We will appeal that portion of the judgment to the Eleventh Circuit. That being said, however, the final order effectively acts as an injunction by explicitly putting the defendants on notice not to do this again. Irrespective of the damage award itself, Judge Smoak's opinion fully validates the position we have taken in this litigation project from day one: 1. That the use of karaoke tracks to put on karaoke shows at commercial venues is "use in commerce" within the meaning of the Lanham Act. 2. That the use of ANY copies of SC's tracks to put on those shows without SC's permission, whether or not 1:1, is a trademark infringement AND unfair competition AND actionable under many state-law unfair competition or deceptive trade practices statutes. 3. That multi-rigging from a single set of discs is a trademark infringement. KJs who are 1:1 but who have been waiting to obtain an audit and certification based upon the lack of a court having validated our position would be well advised to do so on a short timetable. It appears that the courts opinion isn't going Slep-Tone's way with the appeal. http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/unpub/ops/201214304.pdf
_________________
-- Mark
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
JimHarrington
|
Posted: Wed May 22, 2013 10:46 am |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
|
|
Read closer. The appeals court said the district judge failed to follow the appropriate standard for whether to enter an injunction or not and sent it back for him to reconsider.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Insane KJ
|
Posted: Wed May 22, 2013 10:49 am |
|
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:24 pm
Posts: 317
Been Liked: 18 times
|
HarringtonLaw wrote: Read closer. The appeals court said the district judge failed to follow the appropriate standard for whether to enter an injunction or not and sent it back for him to reconsider. Thank you for the clarification. More to come I presume then. On the surface, it appeared not in your favor.
_________________
-- Mark
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
The Lone Ranger
|
Posted: Wed May 22, 2013 11:21 am |
|
|
| Extreme Plus Poster |
 |
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 6103
Been Liked: 634 times
|
Insane KJ wrote: HarringtonLaw wrote: jclaydon wrote: would be interesting to know who handled that case
Not really sure if this would be considered a win or not I handled it personally. I will have more to say about it in the future at the appropriate time, perhaps as a formal statement, but for now just a couple of comments that I think articulate where we stand on this. We are certainly disappointed with the damage award and the lack of a permanent injunction. We will appeal that portion of the judgment to the Eleventh Circuit. That being said, however, the final order effectively acts as an injunction by explicitly putting the defendants on notice not to do this again. Irrespective of the damage award itself, Judge Smoak's opinion fully validates the position we have taken in this litigation project from day one: 1. That the use of karaoke tracks to put on karaoke shows at commercial venues is "use in commerce" within the meaning of the Lanham Act. 2. That the use of ANY copies of SC's tracks to put on those shows without SC's permission, whether or not 1:1, is a trademark infringement AND unfair competition AND actionable under many state-law unfair competition or deceptive trade practices statutes. 3. That multi-rigging from a single set of discs is a trademark infringement. KJs who are 1:1 but who have been waiting to obtain an audit and certification based upon the lack of a court having validated our position would be well advised to do so on a short timetable. It appears that the courts opinion isn't going Slep-Tone's way with the appeal. http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/unpub/ops/201214304.pdf So the bottom line is no more money the damages stay at the same and the judge will review the injunction and their is a load of restrictions if you want to use the SC product and you better arrange a audit as soon as possible, or maybe just drop the SC product altogether. Have a legal day.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
timberlea
|
Posted: Wed May 22, 2013 11:41 am |
|
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 12:41 pm
Posts: 4094
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada
Been Liked: 309 times
|
|
From reading the document it appears to me the following was ordered/denied/ or sent back to the original court:
a. SC lost on increasing its award to them;
b. it ordered the denial of permanent injunction to be vacated and ordered it be looked at under the correct standard; and
c. it ordered the denial of attorney's fee to be vacated and ordered it to be looked at under the correct standard.
The original court did side with SC on the Trademark suit.
The original court has to review and decide using the proper standards on the injunction and attorney fees.
I think to hosts the number one ruling is the important one to us as the court ruled on favour of SC when it comes to the Trademark violations.
I wouldn't call it a loss.
_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
timberlea
|
Posted: Wed May 22, 2013 12:35 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 12:41 pm
Posts: 4094
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada
Been Liked: 309 times
|
|
But that is a risk. Another judge could have awarded a heck of a lot more than that and some have. As the Appeal Court stated, the award is at the discretion of the sitting judge. You could have two exact cases running in the same courthouse in front of two different judges and get two widely separate awards.
_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 102 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
