Karaoke Scene's Karaoke Forums
https://mail.karaokescene.net/forums/

Here's Some CB/DT/KC/PR/?? Food For Thought...
https://mail.karaokescene.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=24509		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  doowhatchulike [ Sat Jul 28, 2012 5:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Here's Some CB/DT/KC/PR/?? Food For Thought...
Please don't cringe when you see me using the A-Word, but ASSUMING:

1) PR "acquired" (for lack of a more descriptive and, for the purpose of this exercise, proper term) the CB trademark in a legal manner;

2) CB (and its assets) was dissolved properly, for whatever reason(s) it was; and

3) PR has the right, under the circumstances, to sue for trademark infringement of the CB logo;

is it safe to conclude that PR can only sue for claimed infringements that occurred AFTER it became owner of the trademark?

Again, this is food for thought; this is not intended to solicit replies of alleged fact (although my intention will probably be ignored by someone, as most topics on here are! lol), but feel free to express any related thoughts that might be spurred by this...
Author:  kjathena [ Sat Jul 28, 2012 5:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Here's Some CB/DT/KC/PR/?? Food For Thought...
expressing thought.....I guess that would be dependent upon HOW the paperwork was written when PR "acquired" the rights.....
Author:  doowhatchulike [ Sat Jul 28, 2012 6:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Here's Some CB/DT/KC/PR/?? Food For Thought...
Is that a response to the actual question? If so, the way something is worded in an agreement is not the determining factor in what is binding and/or legal. Logically, it doesn't seem right for it to be possible for someone to sue for something that occurred when they did not own it...
Author:  PyrateSilly [ Sat Jul 28, 2012 7:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Here's Some CB/DT/KC/PR/?? Food For Thought...
But laws are not logical so therefore it could be that way.
Author:  JimHarrington [ Sat Jul 28, 2012 9:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Here's Some CB/DT/KC/PR/?? Food For Thought...
doowhatchulike wrote:
Is that a response to the actual question? If so, the way something is worded in an agreement is not the determining factor in what is binding and/or legal. Logically, it doesn't seem right for it to be possible for someone to sue for something that occurred when they did not own it...


Logically, it doesn't seem right for an infringer to get away with it just because the trademark ownership changed, either.

Part of what PR acquired is the right to sue for past infringement. That's an asset just like any other.
Author:  doowhatchulike [ Sat Jul 28, 2012 10:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Here's Some CB/DT/KC/PR/?? Food For Thought...
Ok then...cool.......
Author:  JoeChartreuse [ Sat Jul 28, 2012 11:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Here's Some CB/DT/KC/PR/?? Food For Thought...
HarringtonLaw wrote:
doowhatchulike wrote:
Is that a response to the actual question? If so, the way something is worded in an agreement is not the determining factor in what is binding and/or legal. Logically, it doesn't seem right for it to be possible for someone to sue for something that occurred when they did not own it...


Logically, it doesn't seem right for an infringer to get away with it just because the trademark ownership changed, either.

Part of what PR acquired is the right to sue for past infringement. That's an asset just like any other.



While I imagine anyone can attempt to sue anyone for anything, and if PR is the legal owner of CB's old trademark, they might sue someone over it as well. The question is: What would be the value of such a suit?

By that I mean, what would be the basis for which some monetary value might be requested? While a manufacturer ( or past mfr.) MIGHT be able to come up with some sort of number based on damages through loss of sales or misrepresentation of product, these would not apply to PR. How would damages be determined?
Author:  c. staley [ Sat Jul 28, 2012 11:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Here's Some CB/DT/KC/PR/?? Food For Thought...
HarringtonLaw wrote:
doowhatchulike wrote:
Is that a response to the actual question? If so, the way something is worded in an agreement is not the determining factor in what is binding and/or legal. Logically, it doesn't seem right for it to be possible for someone to sue for something that occurred when they did not own it...


Logically, it doesn't seem right for an infringer to get away with it just because the trademark ownership changed, either.

Part of what PR acquired is the right to sue for past infringement. That's an asset just like any other.



Waders.....

Chest-high waders....
Author:  Smoothedge69 [ Sun Jul 29, 2012 12:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Here's Some CB/DT/KC/PR/?? Food For Thought...
HarringtonLaw wrote:
doowhatchulike wrote:
Is that a response to the actual question? If so, the way something is worded in an agreement is not the determining factor in what is binding and/or legal. Logically, it doesn't seem right for it to be possible for someone to sue for something that occurred when they did not own it...


Logically, it doesn't seem right for an infringer to get away with it just because the trademark ownership changed, either.

Part of what PR acquired is the right to sue for past infringement. That's an asset just like any other.

See, this is why I don't like Law. YOu people make up your rules as you go along. They should NOT be entitled to past infringement. How can they charge for past infringement? They weren't selling Karaoke, they weren't damaged by pirates. Pathetic how this country works.
Author:  chrisavis [ Sun Jul 29, 2012 7:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Here's Some CB/DT/KC/PR/?? Food For Thought...
Smoothedge69 wrote:
HarringtonLaw wrote:
doowhatchulike wrote:
Is that a response to the actual question? If so, the way something is worded in an agreement is not the determining factor in what is binding and/or legal. Logically, it doesn't seem right for it to be possible for someone to sue for something that occurred when they did not own it...


Logically, it doesn't seem right for an infringer to get away with it just because the trademark ownership changed, either.

Part of what PR acquired is the right to sue for past infringement. That's an asset just like any other.

See, this is why I don't like Law. YOu people make up your rules as you go along. They should NOT be entitled to past infringement. How can they charge for past infringement? They weren't selling Karaoke, they weren't damaged by pirates. Pathetic how this country works.


Its like any company that is purchased - you buy their debts as well as their assets. In this case, the asset is the trademark. That trademark has protections. If someone infringed on the trademark, then they infringed. Who owns it and when doesn't matter.

-Chris
Author:  Smoothedge69 [ Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Here's Some CB/DT/KC/PR/?? Food For Thought...
chrisavis wrote:
Smoothedge69 wrote:
HarringtonLaw wrote:
doowhatchulike wrote:
Is that a response to the actual question? If so, the way something is worded in an agreement is not the determining factor in what is binding and/or legal. Logically, it doesn't seem right for it to be possible for someone to sue for something that occurred when they did not own it...


Logically, it doesn't seem right for an infringer to get away with it just because the trademark ownership changed, either.

Part of what PR acquired is the right to sue for past infringement. That's an asset just like any other.

See, this is why I don't like Law. YOu people make up your rules as you go along. They should NOT be entitled to past infringement. How can they charge for past infringement? They weren't selling Karaoke, they weren't damaged by pirates. Pathetic how this country works.


Its like any company that is purchased - you buy their debts as well as their assets. In this case, the asset is the trademark. That trademark has protections. If someone infringed on the trademark, then they infringed. Who owns it and when doesn't matter.

-Chris

BULL!! They weren't selling karaoke tracks. there is no deficit to them. They are just being greedy bastards. To make money suing people over a product that you didn't create is just pure greed. That's the bottom line. They are in business to sue people for use of a product that they did not create. That is unethical, greedy, and is half the reason why this country is in the toilet that it is in.
Author:  chrisavis [ Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Here's Some CB/DT/KC/PR/?? Food For Thought...
Smoothedge69 wrote:
chrisavis wrote:
Smoothedge69 wrote:
HarringtonLaw wrote:
doowhatchulike wrote:
Is that a response to the actual question? If so, the way something is worded in an agreement is not the determining factor in what is binding and/or legal. Logically, it doesn't seem right for it to be possible for someone to sue for something that occurred when they did not own it...


Logically, it doesn't seem right for an infringer to get away with it just because the trademark ownership changed, either.

Part of what PR acquired is the right to sue for past infringement. That's an asset just like any other.

See, this is why I don't like Law. YOu people make up your rules as you go along. They should NOT be entitled to past infringement. How can they charge for past infringement? They weren't selling Karaoke, they weren't damaged by pirates. Pathetic how this country works.


Its like any company that is purchased - you buy their debts as well as their assets. In this case, the asset is the trademark. That trademark has protections. If someone infringed on the trademark, then they infringed. Who owns it and when doesn't matter.

-Chris

BULL!! They weren't selling karaoke tracks. there is no deficit to them. They are just being greedy bastards. To make money suing people over a product that you didn't create is just pure greed. That's the bottom line. They are in business to sue people for use of a product that they did not create. That is unethical, greedy, and is half the reason why this country is in the toilet that it is in.


I am not arguing for or against the moral or ethical piece of this. Just pointing out that if you own the trademark, then you can protect that trademark with the means provided by the legal system.

Keep in mind that while PR, LLC is not Chartbuster, the principal backers of PR, LLC seem to be the same principal backers of Chartbuster. They have a vested financial interest in protecting their investment in Chartbuster material. It may be an unseemly way to go about protecting their investment, but they have every right to do it.

-Chris
Author:  doowhatchulike [ Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Here's Some CB/DT/KC/PR/?? Food For Thought...
Maybe there will be as many vultures to leap into the fray that have a beef against CB for potential issues caused by their dissolution. I cannot imagine there not being SOMEONE getting stiffed by this action...
Author:  earthling12357 [ Sun Jul 29, 2012 12:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Here's Some CB/DT/KC/PR/?? Food For Thought...
If Piracy Recovery is a completely separate comany from Digitrax, and Digitrax owns the Chartbuster library, while Piracy Recovery only owns the Chartbuster Trademark, then Piracy recovery wouldn't own a valid trademark because there was no "good will" (product ownership connection) transfered with the trade mark. Of course this would not be a big problem if Piracy Recovery and Digitrax were merely divisions of the same company (Chartbuster).
A corporation is not dissolved simply by closing it's doors. It would appear that Chartbuster is still in business, just hiding their name perhaps through the use of new names.
Author:  JimHarrington [ Sun Jul 29, 2012 2:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Here's Some CB/DT/KC/PR/?? Food For Thought...
earthling12357 wrote:
If Piracy Recovery is a completely separate comany from Digitrax, and Digitrax owns the Chartbuster library, while Piracy Recovery only owns the Chartbuster Trademark, then Piracy recovery wouldn't own a valid trademark because there was no "good will" (product ownership connection) transfered with the trade mark.


While this is sound reasoning based on the premise, the premise is wrong. PR and DT are related companies, though they are separate LLCs.

earthling12357 wrote:
Of course this would not be a big problem if Piracy Recovery and Digitrax were merely divisions of the same company (Chartbuster).


They are not divisions of Chartbuster.

earthling12357 wrote:
A corporation is not dissolved simply by closing it's doors. It would appear that Chartbuster is still in business, just hiding their name perhaps through the use of new names.


PR and DT are owned by people who were investors in CB, who took security interests in CB's assets, and who foreclosed on those security interests, taking the assets in order to protect their investments. PR and DT were formed to hold and exploit those assets. The principals of CB are not owners of PR or DT. CB is not "in business" although the entity that owned the CB business may still exist.
Author:  doowhatchulike [ Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Here's Some CB/DT/KC/PR/?? Food For Thought...
So does this situation exclude the investors from liability for any possible wrongdoing involved in the A to Z process of creating the CB product?
Author:  c. staley [ Sun Jul 29, 2012 7:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Here's Some CB/DT/KC/PR/?? Food For Thought...
doowhatchulike wrote:
So does this situation exclude the investors from liability for any possible wrongdoing involved in the A to Z process of creating the CB product?


Gee, it seems to me that it would.... they were the ones making it possible for them to operate.... I would believe that since they "sliced it up" that they would also be just as responsible for it's actions -- just like a bar owner has "complete control" over the source of the entertainment -- hmmm...

Would there be something just as "vicarious" going here?....
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 8 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/