Karaoke Forums

From Pacer:

Case 1:09-cv-1390 (Virginia - Eastern District Court)

Full docket text for document 73:
ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of Slep-Tone Entertainment Corporation and Sound Choice Studios, Inc. against Hot Shot Enterprises, LLC for trademark infringement in the amount of $10,000; and FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Hot Shot Enterprises, LLC is permanently enjoined from infringing the Sound Choice Marks and must refrain from any further infringement and remove and destroy all infringing material from any medium containing infringing material that is within Defendant's possession, custody, orcontrol, and certify under oath within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Order that such removal and destruction has been completed. Signed by District Judge Claude M. Hilton on 5/16/2011. (tche)

_________________
Never the same show twice!

does that count as precident? (SP?)
only $10,000, must not have had that many songs.

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

And what were the circumstances of the judgment? Was it by default?
In other words, did the defendant show up in court or was the judgment entered because they didn't?

Just checked. It's a default judgment. The defendant didn't show. No precedent was set. I didn't think it was an actual win.

Well, a default judgement was entered after the defendant attempted to negotiate a settlement and then never contacted the plaintiff or appeared in court. So it can be construed that it can cost you $10,000 to ignore the suit.

You willing to take the risk?

I didn't think so.

Have a nice day.

_________________
Never the same show twice!

Will some people NEVER learn ? Way to Sound Choice. I hope all the pirates who think they can beat SC in court get what they deserve.... and more.

It seems like there are still people here that just don't get it, and probably never will.

_________________
My first choice IS Sound Choice.

Was the owner named in the lawsuit, or only his/her LLC? If only the LLC was named in the suit, I'd say he took very little risk at all and probably made the right choice letting the case default.

I think both sides can agree that this really isn't the landmark decision we've been awaiting, but I don't want to deny the cheerleaders the opportunity to earn thier keep, so get those hands in the air!!!!

I've never once advocated ignoring a lawsuit and I never will. That would clearly be stupid and can and probably will result in a default judgment against you, as can be seen here.
But I still strongly believe that if a person is legit, it can be fought and won, if done in the right way.
Not to take any wind out of your sails, but this is still only a default judgment. It really means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
No precedent was set and I'm sure we would all like to see one and be done with the question once and for all.

Just curious. Can you show me the link that states that the defendant was negotiating with SC and then bailed? Just looking for confirmation on your facts. We all know that credibility comes into question here on a constant basis.

On this KJ Sandman and I agree. Though I know many do and will ignore it, it's not the best idea, and I wouldn't do it. If sued, the best idea is to take it to court. Not only has been my position that SC would lose in a heartbeat when all facts were brought to bear, but you would help put an end to the harrassment of other legitimate KJs. This case was filed Dec 18th, 2009 (per Justia), giving the defendant a year and a half to gather all the information that they needed.

Doing NOTHING about any lawsuit is and always will be a bad idea.


Oh yeah- STILL no court precedent set. I also believe that if the defendant had answered and made it clear that they would show up and fight, SC wouldn't have. They would reschedule, stall, etc.. and, after enough time, lose by default ( yup, they have a default loss as well) like they did with Ernie.

They simply cannot afford to have a precedent set. It would end there income collection efforts immediately.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Diafel... The link is on pacer.gov

You can question their credibility if you like.

I've already posted the text of the final docket.

The case number is listed in my OP, if you take the time and $ to read the documents available you will find what I stated to be verified.

You have not "taken the wind out of my sails". I happen to agree with you that this does not hold the same weight as a case that was actually defended in court. It does however put several items on the record. I'm not certain if a default judgement counts as legal precedence, but it sure looks like the writing is on the wall.

The next case will most likely be much better prepared by both plaintiff and defendants. This is especially true if the defendants even bother to show up.

Sound Choice presented their evidence of 2 instances of trademark infringement in one night at one location. By default both instances were judged to be trademark infringement and each instance was penalized $5000. You'll see (if you read the docs) that SC protested the judge's ruling on several grounds upon which they make several valid points. I really don't think this judge understands the information he was given. IMHO - he displayed an utter lack of comprehension when it came to what a karaoke show is and how it is operated over time. He did however, give the plaintiff's an explanation and I believe that explanation will provide the framework for a different and more severe outcome in future cases. I also believe this will be a deterrent for quite a few individuals who don't want to risk a judgement against them for what could easily be $5000 per instance. Some will say that amount is not enough.

What caught my interest was that the judge's opinion on SC's "media-shifting" policy is that it is unenforceable. I'd like to see that matter settled as well.

Let's keep this civil. I will refrain from sarcasm and personal comments directed at you and your opinion. I didn't start this thread to gloat, though I can understand how it will be taken that way. Honestly, I want/wanted to discuss what I read (and hopefully you will read) as I reviewed the entirety of the case presented on pacer. I have expressed my being pleased with what has happened. I'll do my best not to antagonize anyone who isn't.

It is a fact that SC won this case. It is a fact that by having a default judgement entered against them, Hot Shot Entertainment has admitted to the charges against them. The court order states that in fact, HSE did infringe upon SC's trademark.

_________________
Never the same show twice!

I just read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent

I don't see anywhere where is says that a default judgement cannot set legal precedence.
I did a quick search to see if I could find some info that indicated that a default judgement had indeed set such a precedence.

Is someone with a deeper knowledge of this subject available to comment?

Does this set a precedent? If so, please explain. If not, why not?

_________________
Never the same show twice!

1) Agreed on wishing for a resolution, and with the judge's current ruling. It'll have to wait for the Feds to sort it out.

2) Again, in the same vein, SC LOST by default to Ernie.

Tie score, and no one has been to court yet. At this point I really wish they would, just to get some sort of practical input. So far, we are where we started...

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Joe, I believe that Ernie settled with Sound Choice.

The evidence seems to support that.

The case was dismissed, not entered as a judgement against the plaintiff.

Where is Ernie now? Why hasn't he verified what you've stated?

_________________
Never the same show twice!

I don't know what Ernie's reasons for silence are, and I won't guess.

I do know that SC's loss by default was posted here from one of the legal sites- I can't remember which one (Pacer?), but maybe Chip knows:


about the Arizona Suits

=================================
Order entered by Judge Mary H. Murguia on 11/17/10. On October26,2010, this Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to show good cause why it had failed to respond to Defendant Ernest McCullars Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 64). In that Order, the Court stated that the Defendants Motion to Dismiss would be summarily granted pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i) should Plaintifffail fail to show good cause within 10 days of the Courts Order. The deadline has passed and Plaintiff has not responded in any mannor whatsoever to the Courts Order. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Defendant Ernest McCullars Motion to Dismiss.(Doc. 56)
=================================

In other words, SC defaulted in exactly the same way as the defendant above did- with the same results.

Your info regarding the settlement may only be partially true. My understanding is that Ernie signed a settlement prior to the dismissal, paid a very small portion of it, and SC defaulted on it's conditions, making it null and void.

Also, since the settlement was based on SC dropping Ernie's case, and then SC lost by default anyway, there were no further grounds for it's content.

Either way, the settlement details aren't germaine to this particular discussion. What IS germaine is that both SC and Hot Shot's losses were compatable defaults for the exact same reason- no show.

I don't see a precedent set.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Joe, a dismissal of a case that has already been settled is not a judgement for or against either party.

The circumstances are not "the same" by your own admission (and his), Ernie entered into a settlement agreement. The plaintiff's case was moot after that fact.

The dismissal came as a result of SC's not contesting the dismissal, and I believe it is because they already had a settlement agreement in place.

Whatever happened with the settlement agreement is another issue entirely.

I have a feeling that we aren't hearing from Ernie because he finally wised up and realized he was hurting himself by disclosing details publicly.

_________________
Never the same show twice!

1) I should have been more clear- my bad. The consequences of the losses were not the same. Hot had to PAY ten grand, whereas SC just didn't get any money.

2) Reading the statement of the judge, I see that SC lost - by default- because they refused to respond to a court order:

"October26,2010, this Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to show good cause why it had failed to respond to Defendant Ernest McCullars Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 64). "

SC didn't answer that court order. If there had been a settlement, SC would have answered with that information. They didn't. They defaulted for refusing a direct order of the court.

Again, we have two default losses, one to each side. No precedent.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

Just because a Defendant fails to appear DOES NOT mean the Plaintiff automatically wins. The Plaintiff still has to show evidence in their case. If they have the evidence, the judge in most cases (as long as the administrative paperwork, ie filing, service of documents, etc are correct) will rule in favour of the Plaintiff. If the Plaintiff does not show enough evidence, the judge will dismiss it, either with or without prejudice.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

That may be true in Canada, Timberlea, but not here. If the Defendant does not answer, the Plaintiff can move for a Default Judgment -- and they can basically ask for anything they want and get it.

For clarification -- with regard to legal precedent (because there seems to be a lot of speculation on this board about that) -- you do not set legal precedent with a default judgment. Setting legal precedent requires new case law -- a specific legal ruling by a judge in a published decision -- not a default. This doesn't count. This is not a ruling that establishes the law.


Birdofsong

_________________
Birdofsong

Thanks for that info Birdofsong. A straight answer to a straight question is appreciated.

No, it isn't landmark. It isn't precedent. Could it be a deterrent?

In this case the default judgement was asked for and received. The plaintiffs still had to present evidence and stipulate damages. The judge decided to reduce the amounts citing several points as I read through the court's reports.

Diafel, why would someone who is legit fight SC in court? You're saying don't submit to an audit if you are named, is that correct? One of the points in this case is that SC was unable to effect a discovery to determine anything about the defendant so the judge let the trademark violation stand without opposition. If you are legit and go to court, the plaintiff's can and most likely will perform discovery and determine you are legit. The case will be settled or dismissed. SC has no interest in going after legit operators.

Hot Shot Entertainment LLC was named. One of the points for appeal is that by ignoring the courts and allowing a default judgement, the LLC probably (until appeal) saved themselves thousands of dollars. That judge needs to be educated on what a pro, weekly, commercial karaoke show is. Also, the default judgement will include attorneys' and court costs bringing the amount up to several times the penalized amount.

_________________
Never the same show twice!

Why would someone who is legit fight SC in court?
IMHO:
The whole idea that a vendor can take your money in a sale and then years later file a lawsuit against you demanding proof of purchase under completely different reasons is crap, period.

And a few other tort reasons like interference in business, malicious prosecution and so on....

You have to understand that their suit is filed for trademark infringement and ANY discovery will be limited to what was ACTUALLY infringed upon.... not what "could have" been infringed upon. So they will be limited ONLY to those tracks that they have evidence of infringement. It's not a supermarket for them.

Besides, this is all moot because SC will turn and run at the first chance offered them. They do NOT want a precedent. And if it were me, I'd certainly make an appearance in court so that they'd be unable to turn an run. . .