Karaoke Forums

DISCLAIMER:
This is ongoing litigation - do NOT expect, demand or request any information or explanation from HarringtonLaw regarding this case. Respect the process.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Federal court in MN yesterday granted in part, a motion by the defendant to dismiss charges in relation to Lanham Act with their ongoing litigation with SC/Phoenix entertainment partners.

In short, portions of the suit that dealt with the Lanham Act and presenting a trademark "in commerce through sales and distribution" (sec. 32) were dismissed. The court apparently agreed that the defendant was not engaging in any kind of deceptive practice relating to the "sales of products and services."

While other portions (sec 43) having to do with "false designation of origin" were upheld by the court.

In the "Memorandum In Support Of Motion to Dismiss" the defendant cites that while the lawsuit filed in federal court claims to be primarily trademark violations, the charges within the complaint are -- almost completely -- "preempted by copyright law."

For more information, the federal case information is: CASE 0:14-cv-04737-PJS-FLN

REMEMBER: This is only a news bulletin, you need to make your own decisions regarding this information and it is highly recommended that you consult your own legal professional to help you understand how these decisions can possibly affect your business.

PS: I do like my popcorn plain.

I am happy to explain and discuss the legal aspects of court rulings. What I will not do is discuss the facts of ongoing litigation or their underpinnings.

I will post a link to a copy of the order as soon as I can get it uploaded, so anyone who wants to can read it instead of relying on disinformation from a guy with an axe to grind.

I will also point out that the ruling days nothing whatsoever about what the defendant did or did not do; it is solely about what the complaint alleges. The court did not "agree[] that the defendant was not engaging in any kind of deceptive practice relating to the 'sales of products and services.'" The court also acknowledged that the dismissal affected only a small part of the case.

You can get a copy of this ruling at the following link:

http://pep.rocks/MND_14_4737_037_Order.pdf

I think that if you read the order, you'll get a very different picture of what happened from what the OP described.

Specifically, the following statement is false:



(Perhaps he misread the order.)

In actuality, the court determined that the complaint did not plausibly allege that the defendant had used the trademark in connection with the sale of any goods, but did plausibly allege that the defendant had used the trademark in connection with the sale of services. The court determined that we had not stated a claim for counterfeiting, and dismissed that part of the claim without prejudice (meaning it can be re-filed if we can allege sufficient facts to state a claim). The court also allowed the state-law claims to stand.