Karaoke Forums

Here's one other side effect of the court's ruling:

The Chartbuster Karaoke trademark which PEP purchased is for all intents and purposes, dead meat. PEP purchased only the trademark and only the "rights to sue for past and present trademark infringement." They have no other rights according to the paperwork filed with the USPTO.

They can still sue someone who is selling products with a false CB mark, but as far as suing a KJ for any kind of shifting or displaying.... that's dead in the water because the court found that as not being trademark infringement and "not actionable."

Not to mention that since CB sold the product in a digital format for playback on a computer, proving any media shifting case was already an uphill battle. I feel sorry for the ones that fell for their "registration of CB material" baloney because that was another wasted chunk of change.

Looks like PEP better get on the ball and go after the only targets left: hard drive sellers only for the SC mark. (which is what KJ's wanted them do years ago anyway). But even that will be difficult - or impossible with CB since they have zero sales records and the drives were sold "out the back door" on different kinds of hardware and formats.... Suffice it to say that for all intents and purposes, the CB mark is freeware because proving and prevailing on a case would be difficult.

So why aren't all the SC cheerleaders like Chris Avis, Hal Kinney, InsaneKJ and a host of others chiming in with their opinions?

After 6 years of jumping up and down on their behalf, why so silent now?

Will this open the door for counter suits for those that were sued, that were just technical infringers? Even if they were dismissed they may have had legal fees that they had to fork out to defend themselves against the now baseless claims.

You'd have to check with your own attorney... Unless you want to trust PEP's legal counsel to tell you the truth...

But this might explain why there were so many cases that were "voluntarily dismissed" with no cash settlement and swept under the rug quickly. Like Expressway Entertainment in New York and others.... They just quietly went "poof" didn't they?

If I were one of those that were currently stuck paying some sort of settlement with them on a payment plan, I'd stop that crap today and file against them to stop it since it has been deemed not actionable in the first place by the appellate court.

But that's just me.... your mileage may vary.

Seems like the end of "Suits make sales."

Baiting much?

The good folks here should recognize by now that the so called "cheerleaders" have mostly taken leave of this place.

My opinion?

This isn't the first time you have prematurely proclaimed victory in battles you are too much of a (@$%&#!) to even be directly a part of. It won't be the last. PEP is still in business. Harrington has said it isn't over.

The decision doesn't impact me at all. Not one bit. Business as usual for me. I have better things to do with my time than go round and round with ONE self-absorbed, bitter karaoke host that wants nothing more than to see yet another karaoke company meet their demise.

_________________
-Chris

Nope. I'm not baiting it all.

While I was wondering about the cheerleaders opinions regarding this matter, you don't seem to have any regarding PEP and the recent appellate court ruling against them. instead, you simply want to throw poisonous barbs at me. Predictable.

Harrington may have said that it's not over, but as far as trademark infringement is concerned, it is. He will need to find some other angle in order to sue KJ's and perhaps this will be the incentive they need in order to get back into production.

But don't hold your breath on that one because you've already been waiting six years.

While you claim that the cheerleaders "have taken leave of this place," their exit from the support of sound choice has not been recent. Remember; I was banned from here for three years, so were others, and there were some that just left on their own volition.

The ramifications from the appellate court's ruling I'm sure will affect you economically – and not in a good way. Ultimately, the outcome from this ruling will generally improve the quality of the karaoke entertainment that is provided to the general public. Nobody likes a pirate, and nobody likes a karaoke show that is lifeless. For those karaoke hosts who have been relying on "the library" in order to bolster their income and not necessarily their talent or hosting skills, the competition will heat up once again as every person with a laptop and a microphone will think they have the skills to successfully host a karaoke show.

But then again, there are plenty of other hosts who do not use the brand, have not used the brand, or will not use the brand and they've been running successful karaoke shows for years. the ones with talent will survive and the ones with no talent will find themselves relegated to a lower level consisting of a revolving door from tiny gig to tiny gig, to tiny gigs. there are plenty of clubs that are like that – they have no loyalty to karaoke host. They're always looking for cheaper price.

Removing their brand from my system hasn't hurt me one bit because our patrons are focused on partying and having a good time. They are not there "to sing sound choice songs." But the recent ruling makes it easy for me to add that portion of my library back into the mix without fear of a trademark infringement lawsuit.

And I might just do that... perhaps Sound Choice should have purchased back my library when it was offered to them years ago.

I am simply calling a duck, a duck. Or in this case, a (@$%&#!) a (@$%&#!) (btw.....I am using "(@$%&#!)" as a euphemism for coward just so there is no confusion on anyone's part)



How will it impact me negatively.....but not you? Again with the narcissism.

None of your characterizations describes me or how I operate my business. I already know how to beat out the pirates. I know how to retain my gigs. I know how to take gigs from pirates. It doesn't have any material impact on anyone that takes what they do seriously and operates like a business.

Besides, the pirates never left. They just stomped their feet, pulled SC and then CB, did a little bitching about how they don't have a free ride any longer, and then went back to running their shows. You are part of a very small minority of very bitter people who were forced to do something they didn't want to do and can't shut up about it.



Don't be a (@$%&#!) (see above). Just do it.

_________________
-Chris

I'm done. I'm going to keep paying my GEM license because that's the contract i signed, for better or worse, and I will pay for the tracks that i want to use, but I'm done worrying about where they come from, wether it is legal or not and trying to educate others about the right thing.

No one cares. The singers don't care, the venues don't care and now even the courts don't care.. So **** it.


Welcome to the wild west.. The bad guys pretty much won.
-James

You don't seem to be aware--and why would you? You were never really one to see details--that this ruling only affects, at most, our ability to sue regarding infringement of the "goods" trademarks by venues in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana.

We still have registrations covering the Sound Choice mark as a service mark, backed by about two decades of continuous use, both directly and by our controlled licensees.

And our suits for trademark infringement will continue in the states not covered by the Seventh Circuit.

So, enjoy your premature ejaculations of victory.

In other words, the 7th district... And only for now. The game ain't over yet and it's back to the drawing board.
(Hint: It's easy to poison a well, but hard to take the poison back out - like "un-ringing a bell" or "un-burning a bridge." But they didn't cover that part of marketing while you were getting your law degree.)

And you have exactly ZERO for the Chartbuster Karaoke mark. So now you're going to turn around and sue for the Sound Choice "service mark?" And those that signed your licenses AND audits are your "controlled licensees" but I just don't think that all the other KJ's expected that when they signed your license(s), you to be using them in your lawsuit business. But I've known you've had that one in the wings all along it's the only thing that can now keep you alive (for a while) in the lawsuit business. (Congratulations to all the contract holders out there, you didn't know you were going to be a tool like this did you?)

PEP wasn't able (just a couple weeks ago) to do anything in your motion about the logo that had been stripped from a track... That Illinois court handed you your rear-end and pointed to the door as well. And your trade dress argument didn't hold much water. Planning to appeal that too?

You've not been batting very well lately Sparky, but maybe you can wrangle something to sue for out of somebody. You've managed to manufacture a really big mess all by yourself and it looks like you'll be trying to clean that up for a very long time.... Good luck with that.


And what will happen when that ruling is tossed in your face in the other districts? Yeah, you know and I know that the feds will -- more often than not -- rely on the rulings of an appellate court... in another district. Good luck with that one too.

Aren't you "Mr. Grouchy?" You should be happy that your home-spun legal theory has made you and your client several hundred thousand dollars over these years. And it's all fun and games until the Feds take your dentures away right?.

You're lucky they didn't invalidate the trademarks altogether.

But that could be a whole new episode.

I don't think so in most cases. From what I understand, most "settlements" consisted of GEM sales. Even though it could be considered a strong arm sale IF (and that's a huge IF) this ruling becomes a precedent it's still an exchange of goods for cash.

Of course you can, but the stakes are much higher with an appellate court ruling against you. Why not just pay what you owe to Stingray and make deal to act on their behalf and sue for copyright infringement? Then again, after they got dragged into your Sony suit and coughed up the kind of money they did to settle, I have a feeling they probably wouldn't take your call.



I would wager that PEP didn't pay anything for CB...a revenue split on winnings is more realistic.

_________________
-Chris

Just a question here. Wouldn't other courts use the decision made by the Seventh Circuit? It seems like precedent (sp?) has been set in the legal system.

Courts in other circuits are free to disregard the decision in the Seventh Circuit.

Courts in the Seventh Circuit can come to a different conclusion as long as the facts are different, which is why I mentioned that this ruling does not affect our service mark registrations. The analysis is much different on whether infringement is occurring in connection with those marks, so we do not expect to be hampered in the slightest.

I'll believe it if and when you ever win a case in court, Jim. It sure seems like it's been a while.

What do you consider to be a "win"?

Because I consider a "win" to be when we reach a resolution in a case that meets our goals, which are to get compensated fairly for past infringement and to stop future infringement. By that measure, we win cases nearly every day.

Except that the Seventh District has issued their ruling that your suits are "not actionable" and they do NOT infringe on your trademark.

Until now, your paycheck has been dependent on the Federal court NOT making any clear-cut determination on this issue of media shifting and trademark infringement. You did not want the courts to be in a position to rule against you and you'd settle out if you thought it would get too close.

That ain't happening anymore. It's been defined, and it's not infringement. Too bad for you.

You want it to be infringement because you need it to be infringement to get paid. Your desire and financial necessity will not magically transform it into the infringement you so desperately require. Just because you repeat it will not make it so.

And yes, you are correct that any other district can do what they want and I'm saying that more often than not, districts will align with the appellate courts in other districts.

And if you think you can use the same old arguments in the other districts, you'd better be prepared to pull a pink bunny out of your rear.

what's the difference between a Trade Mark and a Service Mark? seems like a court would find the same determination for both. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

trademark is an object, service mark is for a service
Burger King = Service Mark
Whopper = Trademark

at least to my understanding

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