Karaoke Forums

Even if the GTD mics were knock offs Jim, what does it matter? You might have a case if the host was going out of their way to advertise only genuine SC tracks are used by the karaoke service. If they aren't making any false claims and are just using your product along with various other brands I don't see how anyone could in anyway feel that the service is linked directly to SC. Any more so than all of the other brands used while performing.

That's not gonna fly. Tracks that show your logo -- even if there are a lot of them -- are not going to "confuse" anyone as to the "origin" or even "affiliation" of a KJ.
And even if he was using exclusively GTD mics, fakes or not, there is still no "confusion" that he would somehow be associated with GTD. He's not selling them or even advertising for them.

Nice try.

If he were using fake GTD mics, then he has bigger issues since they are so cheap to begin with.

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

OR... "He's using a lot of the Sound Choice brand. He must really like that brand." OR, "He must have bought a lot of their song tracks."

Of all the people I have known throughout the years (who are Karaoke Brand Name knowledgeable), nobody that I know of, has ever said they thought Sound Choice must have given their approval for all of these KJs to run their shows because they (the KJs) were using SC music. After all, Sound Choice (like many other Manufacturers) sold their brand to the general public.

As for the rest of the people I have known at karaoke (who don't know the difference between Sound Choice and Music Maestro (or who could care less)), well, since they don't know one brand from the next, there is no confusion... just ignorance or apathy. All they care about, is getting up to sing.

Over all of the years of us here (on this Forum) running karaoke shows, how many times can you remember people singing a song, and then coming up to you to ask why that song didn't sound right (because they believed all these songs were the originals). AHA!!!!! I think I found the "CONFUSION"... all these people aren't confused about whether the song being displayed on the monitor/screen was made by Sound Choice (regardless of whether it is a counterfeit or not), they're confused because they think they are singing from the original artists' renditions.

My other thought on this is that Sound Choice has been out for how many years, and is only NOW starting to sue over use of the service mark?

Hell I can sell original discs that are factory sealed, and even then NO ONE would be thinking I was someone from Sound Choice.

Again, if you had a logo on a shirt, an ID badge, etc. you might pass as someone who works for PEP, but otherwise, people look at logos as "that KJ likes the brand" not that they represent it.

Seriously what I find most insane about all this is that any other company would love to free advertising that PEP gets during a gig, not want to sue a user over it.

But go ahead and keep KJS afraid of your brand... no better way to slip into obscurity as people stop playing your tracks.

your accusation is that displaying the SC logo on an SC track deceives people into believing that i am somehow affiliated with SC, or that my shows are approved by SC.

i don;t have SC on my advertising, fliers, card, books, or anything but an actual SC track.
“[s]o long as Universal’s mark is not overtly used to market the performance, there is no risk that a theater patron might think that Universal is sponsoring or endorsing the performance.” "

"That the Sound Choice mark is embedded in the creative content of the karaoke track and is visible to the public whenever the track is played does not falsely suggest that Slep-Tone is endorsing the performance, as the plaintiffs have alleged"

copies to HDD are not fake anyway
"What pub patrons see and hear is the intangible content of the karaoke tracks. They will see SlepTone’s trademark and trade dress and believe, rightly, that Slep-Tone is the source of that intangible content."

if that did not work for unfair competition, how can this possibly work for unfair competition?

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

IN SUMMARY, one thing is a given that all can agree on: Rampant exploitation of a company's property that is acquired by ill-gained methods SUCKS. However, another fact of the matter, in many cases, is this: The END does not justify the MEANS. If an entity does not have a plan of action to specifically and actively protect their product from being stolen, using laws that may or may not specifically apply to try to recoup after these failed efforts is not a sound approach. In this case, the fact that the company existed almost exclusively because of the intellectual property of others (more so than probably any other company you can think of), it would seem that it complicates matters even more...

I find that the sentence given directly contradicts the central holding in the Dastar Corp. case, as follows:

"[A]s used in the Lanham Act, the phrase 'origin of goods' is in our view incapable of connoting the person or entity that originated the ideas or communications that 'goods' embody or contain."

and

"In sum, reading the phrase 'origin of goods' in the Lanham Act in accordance with the Act's common-law foundations (which were not designed to protect originality or creativity), and in light of the copyright and patent laws (which were), we conclude that the phrase refers to the producer of the tangible goods that are offered for sale, and not to the author of any idea, concept, or communication embodied in those goods."

Whatever the value of this "free advertising" is, it's not worth the value of the music the KJ stole.

After all, we're not talking about people who bought our product. We're talking about people who stole it.



At this point, I have to say that's unlikely to happen. Our brand still comprises more than 50% of the commercial market's overall use, 7 years after we released our last new track. That being said, we would be happy if KJs stopped stealing our music. If 10% of the current users paid for the product and the rest quit using it, we would never need to sue anyone again, and there would be plenty of resources to record new music.

But the question does boil down to whether or not there are patrons that could become confused, and this law states it only applies if there are. My whole point was that this particular demographic of confused patrons does not exist among karaoke customers. Will you be bringing customers into court to hear them testify "I was so confused!"???

Then to the latter part of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1), even if there are patrons willing to testify "I was so confused!" by the appearance of a Sound Choice track during the course of a karaoke show, there is still the burden on you to somehow demonstrate that this confusion harmed PEP. Sales of your product to this demographic are non-existent (as non-existent as the demographic itself), so how can those sales be harmed in the first place?

Now say I'm entirely wrong, and you're entirely right, and this is the great new way to pursue piracy.

"False association" now is the key to infringement. But if this infringement by false association occurs, then it's equally applicable to every show run by someone other than an official representative of PEP that uses Sound Choice tracks. That's not just illegal KJ's, that's all of us, legal hosts with 1:1 correspondence and legal hosts who play from original discs as well! If people are going to be confused by the display of your logo and brand, then they are going to be equally confused regardless of whether the host is playing a legal copy, a pirated copy, or even an original disc -- it all looks the same to the patrons.

PEP is trying to arm itself with a big, new stick. I think it very unlikely this approach will hold water in court, but then it was very unlikely Trump would become President -- strange stuff happens. What if the big, new stick is someday used against someone other than a pirate? Once the precedent gets set in court, any KJ using Sound Choice could be sued over "false association". The temptation would always be there to leverage more money from all of us, and while it might not happen today there's nothing to stop it from happening tomorrow if this potential, new weapon falls into the wrong hands.

Here's a good example of how the vernacular use of a term can differ from the legal use of that term.

Likelihood-of-confusion analysis does NOT boil down to whether or not there are patrons that could become confused. Rather, that analysis looks at a number of factors (they vary somewhat by circuit, but there's a lot of consistency) including how similar the marks are, how similar the goods and services are, what the channels of trade are, whether the parties are direct or indirect competitors, and so forth. "Evidence of actual confusion" IS a factor, but it is usually only decisive if the plaintiff shows evidence of actual confusion. The absence of actual confusion does not mean confusion is unlikely. We don't have to show evidence of actual confusion--although we might be able to do that.



Even if we don't (currently) directly sell products to this demographic, our licensees (including our wholly owned subsidiary Sound Choice Entertainment, LLC) do provide services to this demographic. Moreover, sales aren't the only measure of harm. When someone acts like one of our licensees but doesn't submit to a licensing contract (with its quality control provisions) and doesn't pay us for the music used, that causes us harm even if we're not directly seeking to serve the same market.



No, and here's why. People who have licensing contracts with us (GEM, HELP, Certification), who display our marks, are showing a true association. People who play from original discs have a valid defense against an infringement action based on trademark fair use (they are using the product we sold them for the purpose for which it was sold), even if that would ordinarily be an infringement.



Even if it all looks the same to patrons, that's not the question. The question is, is this a true association or a false association? If you are in fact associated with us by virtue of a licensing contract, then the display of our marks is perfectly consistent with that association, and consumers aren't going to be confused. When that association is false, however--no licensing contract, no fair use, etc.--that's where confusion becomes likely.



I don't believe it can be effectively used against a non-pirate, because the source of the confusion is the false association. A non-pirate who displays our marks is creating a true association, by definition, that doesn't damage us and carries no risk of confusion. (I also disagree that this is a "new" stick, but it's not necessary to resolve that question.)

Exactly exactly.

The customers aren't walking in from a vacuum. They themselves all use name brand this and name brand that. They have favorites. They boast to friends "I use this brand." "You should stop buying Levis and buy Lee instead like I do, Lee jeans are better." They know better than to assume their friends are associated with all these companies, and they'd laugh at any friends who assumed the same about them. People just aren't that stupid, especially when it comes to things they buy, including entertainment.

I'm not disagreeing, but I can't call it logical. If the people who could be confused do not in this case exist, then confusion has to not only be unlikely, but impossible. Say I was misrepresenting Earth to confuse the Martians in the audience. Say there's a law against duping Martians. I cannot actually break that law, even going through the motions of doing so, if there are no Martians in the audience.

It's no more likely this third demographic of karaoke customers, the "confuseables", exists and is present in the audience than there are any Martians.

You can't confuse those who don't pay any attention, and you can't confuse those who already know the score. I've got 25 years experience telling me no other type or group of patrons exists. Therefore, confusion is so unlikely as to be impossible.

If I run the Sound Choice version of Let it Be in my show, then stop the show to administer a pop quiz to the audience, when I ask who made the previous track 95% will answer "The Beatles". Associating even the track with a manufacturer is almost non-existent. Jumping from that to associating any KJ with any manufacturer is even far less likely, no matter how often some logos go by on the screen.

I'm sure this question got answered long before I joined this forum, but how can it be there is absolutely no way to go after pirates based solely on their possession and use of stolen property? There has to be something more direct. On the other hand, I'm sure if there was PEP would already be using it.

The whole point is there is no confusion. The confusion is created, manufactured by the party that stands to profit from the confusion, PEP. All they have to do is create the illusion of confusion to try and push their agenda.

Oooh... there's an angle! PEP can sue web site owners for using their logo! MAJOR confusion!!!!!

_________________
DJ Don

Doesn't SC Entertainment uses other brands besides Sound Choice - wouldn't this cause more confusion since they aren't using SC exclusively? But running a show just like every other kj in the world with multiple brands?

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

Their logo isn't on that page, just text of all the brands. Only place the logo shows up is the SC certified logo. if I need to remove that to not cause confusion, I will.

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

You mean if you need to remove the logo so you don't get sued...

I was being facetious.

_________________
DJ Don

actually, they own a standard character mark as well.
The Standard Character Mark (also known as a word mark) is used to register words, letters, numbers or any combination thereof.just having the name on your site is infringement alluding to the assumption that you are affiliated with Sound Choice Entertainment LLC.

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

ok, i'm not following where you are going. if anything, verifying "tangible goods for sale" makes all your cases wrong.

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