Karaoke Forums

Jerry: So, we're going to make the post office pay for my new stereo, now?
Kramer: It's a write-off for them.
Jerry: How is it a write-off?
Kramer: They just write it off.
Jerry: Write it off what?
Kramer: Jerry all these big companies they write off everything.
Jerry: You don't even know what a write-off is.
Kramer: Do you?
Jerry: No, I don't.
Kramer: But they do - and they are the ones writing it off.

Thanks, Paradigm. Jim's a fun read, but completely worthless in regard to truthful information when it comes to the IP trolls. Although Norbert may well have not created PRLC, you can be sure he is involved with his trademark. Btw- nkt sure, but I think it's Stovall's son in front of WWDE.

Smooth, you are also right. PRLLC never produced, sold, or distributed a karaoke track. They COULD get a TECHNICAL win from an unversed judge, but proving damages would be well nigh impossible in front of an IP educated judge. They SHOULD win zilch, but if the judge's wife or someone put him in a bad mood, or he's a drinker....well you never know....

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

They DO list all the interested parties and the complaint. After that it's all about the outcome, which will show on Justia.

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

Talk about putting up something that has no connection to the point. The investor who invested in CB just didn't give them a pile of cash. There must be a paper trail and documents signed for the transfer of the cash. They take that paper work to their accountant, and file their taxes. If you have losses in the stock market you use them to offset your gains for that year. If the person is a professional investor then hopefully he didn't strike out all year long. If he did then he probably is no longer in business anyway. This whole break up of CB like I have said before is just one big corporate shell game to avoid responsibility for debts, while keeping the legal process recovery scam in play. What surprises me Jim is you have posted you don't represent any of the CB spin off companies. For a lawyer that doesn't have a client, you sure seem to know quite a lot about how these independent companies work with one another, and how everything is set up.

Although I was already sure of the information I provided previously, I posed the question again today. A source within Digitrax confirmed to me, once again, that Norbert has never been involved in any way with DigiTrax Entertainment or Piracy Recovery. He was foreclosed upon by Worldwide Digital Entertainment.

Your statement that "you can be sure he is involved with his trademark" is false. He's not involved, and it's no longer his trademark.

It was a response to this line.





I don't represent "any of the CB spin off companies" because there aren't any CB spin-off companies.

I do, however, represent Piracy Recovery, LLC, an entity that acquired certain assets from the company that formerly did business as Chartbuster Karaoke.



Once again, you've demonstrated a significant lack of understanding of trademark law as well as the underlying facts.

First of all, while PR has never produced, sold, or distributed a karaoke track for itself, it does have at least one licensee who continues to do so.

Second, the measure of damages in a trademark suit is not only losses to the plaintiff but also gains to the defendant. The judges who are well-versed in IP law seem to get that; it's the ones who aren't who don't.

I've grouped these two responses together because Lone Ranger and Joe have something in common: Neither one has a problem with making uninformed comments on subjects about which they have little legal knowledge and zero access to actual facts.

So now Jim you do represent Piracy Recovery, LLC? I seem to recall you said at one time that you and SC worked with PR, but that you were two different legal recovery operations. That you did not represent PR. So now you are representing both companies, I just want to make sure this is correct. Of course you will give them the same high level of work you have been giving SC. By way Jim those acquired assets come from the CB parent company, at least the rights to them. What else is that but a spin off from the original company? Jim if you were suing an entertainment company and they changed their name or sold off their assets, would you really consider them totally new company or series of companies, and drop your suit?

You are correct on one point. My post should have read " what was once his trademark ", not "his trademark". An error due to a late night and not intentional.

The rest? It is probably impossible to untangle the webbing between DT, PRLLC, WWD, and Big Mama.

I stand by my opinion, with no definitive proof to the contrary available.

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

Ignoring the last part, another attempt to divert from a complete lack of documented information presented due to a weak position, I ask the following:

Which licensee is currently producing traçks using THE CHARTBUSTER LOGO for which PR is initiating litigation, since only one using that logo or having produced using that logo (CB) could suffer damages?

That licensee is.....?

Also, leaving damages out of it, let's go to the gains to the defendant through the logo being displayed with the track. That IS what the SC suits are built upon, so I guess you have to keep trying, but that value has yet to be proven.

At least SC produced and sold their tracks. They have at least something to work with. PR has ALWAYS been an IP troll from it's beginnings. No loss to them, no gain to the KJ from anything noting the use of PR's (not Chartbuster's) product.

Weak, if not non-existent case. But again, we know anything can happen on any given day in the courtroom....

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

So if Coke sold their Trademark to some who never went on to make another Coke product, you don't think they would enforce the use of the Coke trademark even though they never made one more Coke product but only owned the trademark - you don't think they'd have the full right to sue anyone using the product in a manner not consistent with their policies?

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

Aren't the Piracy Recovery suits over copyright rather than trademark?

If that is the case L&L then they are in real trouble. Trademark is the flimsy hook SC places it's suits on, the original copyright material owned by a karaoke manu is very little, most of the content is the underlying original material, owned by someone else.

For one thing Lonnie what sense would it make to buy out Coke and not make the product? The only reason anyone would want to obtain the trademark for a defunct karaoke manu is to use it as some type of legal leverage. How successful they will be remains the seen. The original owner of the trademark is having trouble in court, how much more trouble will be instore for Johnny come lately? The longer any karaoke manu fails to resume production of their product, the more dated and unimportant it becomes, making the trademark less valuable.

[/quote]

I don't agree with your premise. Maintaining a trademark registration does not require that tracks be produced.



A well qualified licensee.



And this is where you go off the rails, if you were ever on them.

It's not about "the logo being displayed with the track." It's the use of tracks that bear the logo. That might seem like a fine technical point, but sometimes that's how it works. Surely you don't dispute that a professional karaoke operator makes money using karaoke tracks.



It's not Chartbuster's product. And that's the point. It's someone else's product that is marked with the CB logo, which PR owns.

Are you familiar with the chain restaurant Applebees? Did you know that the company that owns the Applebees trademark does not own a single restaurant? Over the last few years, all formerly company-owned stores have been sold to franchisees. Imagine what would happen if you started a restaurant and called it Applebees. Under your theory, the company that owns the trademark couldn't sue you.

If you can't see why that theory is foolish, not to mention wrong on the law, then there really isn't any point in further discussion.

Does PR own both the mark AND the rights to the material? If so, I agree with your example. If not and they just own the mark, then your example way off the mark.

It would seem to me Mr.Boo that PR is only concerned with the trademark, since DTE obtained the CB library and the right to reproduce the product under their label. At least that is the way I understand it. How did Jim describe the relationship between to two companies? That they were affiliated with one another, to associate as a member or branch, that is the definition I have.

It was AN EXAMPLE! Wow! How about they didn't SELL but another corporation acquired it in a settlement of some sort. Never produce another Coke product just own the trademark.

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

The trademark and the material (by that I assume you mean the tracks) are two separate pieces of intellectual property that can, of course, be owned by two different entities.

At what point in ANYTHING that I have ever posted on this or any other forum did I claim that a trademark holder of any sort did not have a right to sue or enforce said trademark???

I have only commented on the strength of certain suits and in some cases the integrity of the same.

If Coke sold me their trademark, I could certainly sue to enforce it. However, if I were not now or ever a producer of the same sort of products to which that trademark were relevant, I could not, in any practical sense, hope for much in damages.

A Cease and Desist, maybe, for whatever that's worth.....

TO JIM: A "secret" licensee??? Awesome...

Does that mean said "secret company" will one day produce karaoke tracks using the Chartbuster logo?

Wonder who that would be.....? Whoops. Loose cat?

However, unless PR plans to do that- and is both able and willing to prove it in court- which would become public knowledge - there are no damages to them, and certainly no gain to any KJ if a logo belonging to Piracy Recovery is part of their lyric display.

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

Which brings us back to why a civil suit is filed? How was the plaintiff harmed and what is the dollar amount of their damages?