Karaoke Forums

You have to consider that the Dastar case was actually about tangible goods for sale, and the Supreme Court was using that term to refer to the physical things rather than the ideas embodied in them.

The Dastar Court said that for purposes of trademark law, you look at who produced the actual physical goods that are in use (or provided the actual services being provided), not to the intangible ideas embodied on those goods, to determine who is the "origin." By contrast, the Rumsey court said exactly the opposite, that what matters for purposes of trademark law is who created the underlying content, and that the "origin" in that case is the author of the content (SC), not the person who made the goods. It's the exact opposite conclusion, and it conflicts with the Supreme Court's holding in Dastar.

Here's another angle that I believe is not being considered:

The patrons at a show are not the "customer".

The venue that hires the KJ/Host is. If a venue hires you, they would obviously hold the belief that you are not using stolen material to provide your services.

_________________
Never the same show twice!

No, in your case I believe it does not "conflict with the Supreme Court" because if you play the introduction to "All you need is love" without showing your logo -- or anyone else's logo or recording for that matter -- and ask anyone in an audience who "created the underlying creative content" then 100% will say; "The Beatles" which is far different then asking them; "who created the underlying recording?" Which is not your "service mark."

You are attempting to bend your interpretation of the law into a pretzel to fit your lawsuit business model.

Time for you to admit that displaying your logo is NOT going to confuse anyone into thinking that SC approves of anything or that the KJ is somehow affiliated. You can bulldog and push around your own "controlled licensees" because they willingly signed over those rights to you, but I don't think you'll be able to get away with years later, claiming some right(s) on a product that was sold to professional KJ's.

And you have a signed contract from them that grants you specific rights to control them. Hence the term; "controlled licensees." However, you don't have the same agreement from those who simply purchased a product years ago with no "confusion" because sound choice wasn't in the karaoke hosting business (despite any claim you might have otherwise). Now that you've acquired the mark and decided to compete with your (former) customers, suddenly claiming that there is even the likelihood of confusion I don't believe is going to fly. As a matter of fact, once venues get wind that "gem, help, certifications, etc" are now "affiliated" with you... (the company that sues venues) should quickly invalidate and taint any chance they might have of getting employment. Ask Paradigm Karaoke -- he's learned the hard way that it's best not to even mention any affiliation with your brand.

So I re-worded it "We proudly use these manufacturer products but are are not affiliated with any of these companies in any manner"
I actually need to update the rest of that page as almost all my equipment has changed too

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

Personally, I think what you did is great.... but... according pep's own web page, "Lonman Productions" is "certified." And didn't you sign a contract with them? If you did, you are already a controlled licensee and affiliated with them because you are obligated to the terms of their contract.I'm sure that you never intended such an affiliation if you signed with them and I understand your wanting to disclaim out of it because it's not the best of news now but if you signed, you're on the hook.
Either way, (and sadly) according to their web page, you are affiliated with them and in their stable.

I'm sure Mr. Harrington can review your paperwork and let you know if you are a controlled licensee or not.

From a business perspective, the patrons at the show are the product, not the customer. The idea is that the venue hires the operator to attract paying customers, so, in a sense, the operator is selling the patrons to the venue. That's how we view it as far as our karaoke services operation is concerned.

However, legally, the operative word isn't "customer" but "consumer," which is somewhat different. The consumers of the services are the patrons, because they are the ones being entertained. We view this as a three-way economic transaction in which the venue and the operator are partners: The venue pays the operator to provide karaoke services to the patrons. The operator entertains the patrons, who buy food and beverages from the venue. The operator and the venue split the proceeds, usually according to a flat-rate split ($150 to the operator, etc., regardless of the revenue), but sometimes according to a percentage or some combination of flat rate and percentage. If the arrangement isn't profitable for the venue or the operator, it won't continue for long.

Generally speaking, we go to great lengths to put venues on notice that their operators are using stolen materials before we sue them. We spend hours researching operators and venues, and we send at least two letters to venues--usually to the venue location and to the home address of the owner, and sometimes to other addresses that are associated with the business, if we can find them--via traceable methods, to give venues notice and a fair opportunity to correct the problem before we sue. Then, if they haven't corrected the problem, we sue them based on their knowing participation in the infringement.

As a licensee, you are welcome to refer to Sound Choice on your website--and, in fact, if you'd like to use the logo, just let us know where and how you're planning to use it and if it's reasonable, we'll sign off on it.

As far as your karaoke services operation is concerned? So Jim along with all of the illegal competition out there the hosts are also competing against your karaoke services operation as well? That is just great you are suing venues and the operators that work for them in order to control the market. Using the court to squeeze out the competition. No conflict of interest there, right? Of course you give them every opportunity to correct the problem, since you want the venues to settle out of court, where you would get your head handed to you. The venues and the operators are really partners? I need to tell that to the venue owner next time, I don't work for you, we are really legally partners, I wonder how that would go over? So much of all of this is just baloney Jim no matter how you slice it.

I don't know I think the whole word 'confusion' is misleading. If we use the word 'misled' then, I could see Jim's point.

I do believe that the end user and venue can be 'misled' into believing that the origin of the tracks they are using were purchased by the karaoke host, and not just pirated from some torrent or a hard drive with 200,000 tracks on it.

now whether that fits the spirit of the legal definition of 'confusion' I have NO idea

-James

I'll pass on the dubious honor of being one of your suckers, I mean licensees.

I guess Lonman, there's your answer: You are "controlled by" and work for Kurt.

Sorry.

So, now you think it's unreasonable for us to decide whether or not (and how) someone uses our logo to market their karaoke business?

I never said that... YOU did. I simply stated the fact that you referred to him as a "licensee." Which is by your description; "a controlled licensee" and even more evident that you want to excercise that control by either denying or approve (and "sign off") the use of the logo.

Yep, you're "controlling" alright. And now you can now explain to him why he is a controlled licensee based on the agreement he signed.... "Words mean things" remember? Everything in your contract is enforceable if they sign it, no matter how "unlikely" you promise it to be.

It's obvious that Lonman isn't interested in being "associated" with you as "partner." He simply wanted to use his laptop and that -- is all he was really expecting -- I don't think he was planning to marry you. You are a vendor and that's all.

I'll bet he feels like a guy that woke up bed with a waitress who said: "You were drunk through the whole wedding!"

But he might feel hoodwinked too, you'll have to ask him.

Over the last few years a younger group of patrons have been moving up and replacing many of the older patrons at my shows. These "consumers" are increasingly interested in singing to more music from their own era, which has led to a situation where Party-Time and SBI trademarks are being displayed almost equally as often as the Sound Choice trademark.

By not controlling your controlled licensee's use and display of these other brands by somehow limiting the use of these other brands are you not creating a false association of your own?

Shouldn't your controlled licensees be constrained from using other brands or limited to the number of times they can display another's mark in order to prevent confusion?

Shouldn't your controlled licensees be required to submit proof to you that their entire library is legitimately purchased, not just the Sound Choice material?

Does the lack of these controls demonstrate inadequate controlling of your licensees?

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

No, you simply said that by exercising control over the use of our trademarks and service marks to market someone's business, we have created a situation where Lonman "works for Kurt."

What I said to Lonman about the use of our logo on his website goes for anyone who wants to use our logo on their website, regardless of whether they're a licensee or not. We have rules that govern the use of our marks. If you want to use our mark on your website, you need to get our permission.

This isn't brain surgery. It's basic, and it's something that every business with a valuable trademark does. If you weren't so mad at us for forcing you to "voluntarily downsize," maybe you'd be able to see that.

It is not up to us to police others' trademarks for them. If the owners of those marks want to make arrangements with our licensees, they are welcome to do so. We do recommend in all cases that our licensees take steps to ensure full compliance with all applicable laws.

Since your relationship with your licensees is similar to the relationship you described between venues and their KJs, and your statement above is good enough for you, why wouldn't that same statement be good enough for any venue?
"We do recommend in all cases that our KJs take steps to ensure full compliance with all applicable laws."

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

I wasn't talking about other's policing their own marks, I was referring to the possibility that you will dilute your own mark as you allow your controlled licensees to display other's marks as often or more often than your own without any control.
You also set up a situation where you are turning a blind eye to the false association that could be occurring through your own licensees.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

You referred to Lonman; "as a licensee." Which is "controlled" by Kurt. (not controlled by you, because you claim you're not a partner)

JimHarrington wrote:

What I said to Lonman about the use of our logo on his website goes for anyone who wants to use our logo on their website, regardless of whether they're a licensee or not. We have rules that govern the use of our marks. If you want to use our mark on your website, you need to get our permission.

Nope. You specifically quantified when you said "as a licensee" not "as a regular person." But you're not being completely honest (again) are you?

Quote:

He doesn't really need your permission because his use is to "identify you as a vendor" and not to "imply an association or partnership with you." I know that probably breaks your heart...

ha! ha! ha! Back to the old standby insult?

If your name is so valuable to you, why is http://soundchoicesucks.com still around after 7 years?

It's called "nominative use."

Every day, my crowd gets younger, every day more tracks are released by other companies, and every day PEP products are becoming "The Oldies" and get a little less relevant.

My budget for new music (regular & karaoke) is a given, because it's what I do for a living. I buy plenty and I've spend thousands of dollars that PEP could of had part of, if not most of over the last 6+ years. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only KJ buying either, regards of whatever percentage of pirates PEP says are out there. They chose to ignore production, and just focus on lawsuits. And while they talk about how good they were once, other companies have taken up the mantle and moved forward, getting our karaoke cash.

Sure, there are pirates, and there always will be. But the companies who are making product are working hard to get back into the US market, so it can't be all bad.

Will PEP fall into obscurity, or truly rise from the ashes? It's up to them to make me and other legit KJs want to part with my money, and every day, I find it a little harder to do that with them. Regardless of what they think, there is money to be made out there aside from lawsuits.