KARAOKE SCENE MAGAZINE ONLINE! - Trademark Infringement, How It's Done These Days Public Forums Karaoke Discussions Karaoke Legalities & Piracy, etc... Karaoke Scene's Karaoke Forums Home | Contact Us | Site Map  

Karaoke Forums

Karaoke Scene Karaoke Forums

Karaoke Scene

   
  * Login
  * Register

  * FAQ
  * Search

Custom Search

Social Networks


premium-member

Offsite Links


It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 1:40 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Oct 02, 2016 6:58 am 
Offline
Super Extreme
Super Extreme
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 7666
Songs: 1
Location: Hollyweird, Ca.
Been Liked: 1080 times
Costco Wholesale Corp should hand over $5.5 million to compensate Tiffany & Co for selling counterfeit Tiffany diamond engagement rings, a federal jury said on Thursday.

Tiffany is also entitled to punitive damages, the jury in Manhattan said. Lawyers for both sides were presenting evidence on Friday to help determine the amount of punitive damages.

The trial, which began on Sept. 20, was aimed at determining the amount in total damages that Costco is liable for, after U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain ruled last year that Costco had willfully infringed Tiffany's trademark by selling rings bearing the luxury retailer's name.

Tiffany spokesman Nathan Strauss declined to comment on Friday. In a statement on its website, Costco said it would not comment because jury deliberations were continuing.

The $5.5 million represents the amount of profit Costco made from the sale of the rings that would fairly compensate Tiffany, said the jury, which was made up of five men and two women.

The amount far exceeds the $781,000 that Costco had argued at the start of the trial was the maximum it owed. Costco said about 2,500 rings it sold were found by the court to have infringed Tiffany's trademark. ---


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 02, 2016 7:11 am 
Offline
Super Poster
Super Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:11 am
Posts: 846
Location: Ocean County, Jersey Shore
Been Liked: 197 times
Ah.. so Costco was profiting by actually SELLING the rings, not just displaying the Tiffany's trademark that people who are already in the store may or may not see. Costco wouldn't make any money just displaying the trademark because there would be no 'consumption' or purchase. They actually had to SELL the counterfeit rings and make a profit from it. Funny how that works.

_________________
DJ Don


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 02, 2016 10:38 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
djdon wrote:
Ah.. so Costco was profiting by actually SELLING the rings, not just displaying the Tiffany's trademark that people who are already in the store may or may not see. Costco wouldn't make any money just displaying the trademark because there would be no 'consumption' or purchase. They actually had to SELL the counterfeit rings and make a profit from it. Funny how that works.


Do you think that KJs aren't selling something? That venues are providing karaoke entertainment out of the goodness of their hearts, with no expectation of anything at all?


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 02, 2016 11:05 am 
Offline
Super Poster
Super Poster

Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:07 pm
Posts: 576
Been Liked: 108 times
KJ's wouldn't get paid a plug nickel if all they were displaying were logos of various karaoke companies. They get paid for providing music and lyrics so someone can sing. The logos are immaterial to that function, as is the trade dress as decided by the District 7 federal court system. Sound Choice owns no rights to the music or the lyrics of any songs. That is why they will continue to lose in court now that District 7 has laid down the law.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 02, 2016 11:06 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
Karaoke Croaker wrote:
Sound Choice owns no rights to the music or the lyrics of any songs.


This is false.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 02, 2016 11:35 am 
Offline
Super Poster
Super Poster

Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:07 pm
Posts: 576
Been Liked: 108 times
I'll believe that when you ever win a case in court rather than scaring someone into a settlement.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 02, 2016 12:42 pm 
Offline
Super Poster
Super Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:11 am
Posts: 846
Location: Ocean County, Jersey Shore
Been Liked: 197 times
JimHarrington wrote:
djdon wrote:
Ah.. so Costco was profiting by actually SELLING the rings, not just displaying the Tiffany's trademark that people who are already in the store may or may not see. Costco wouldn't make any money just displaying the trademark because there would be no 'consumption' or purchase. They actually had to SELL the counterfeit rings and make a profit from it. Funny how that works.


Do you think that KJs aren't selling something? That venues are providing karaoke entertainment out of the goodness of their hearts, with no expectation of anything at all?


No. KJ's are providing a service. Venues are providing entertainment and selling goods in the form of food and alcohol. Simply displaying a trademark is not selling goods. No one is profiting from the display of a trademark from a disc any more than they are from shifted media. Money is not exchanged between a KJ and the patrons for physical good, unlike a KJ purchasing a karaoke disc, which is a physical good, then displaying a trademark from it or from shifted media. The trademark displayed from disc or shifted media are one in the same trademark. The courts are slowly but surely catching on to that.

_________________
DJ Don


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 02, 2016 12:50 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
JimHarrington wrote:
Karaoke Croaker wrote:
Sound Choice owns no rights to the music or the lyrics of any songs.


This is false.


I doubt that it's entirely false -- which is what you are insinuating.

Sound Choice might have copyright protection on the sound recordings only of the small number of songs that were recorded after the sale of the entire catalog to Stingray, but that's it.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 02, 2016 1:19 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
Karaoke Croaker wrote:
I'll believe that when you ever win a case in court rather than scaring someone into a settlement.


You mean, like Slep-Tone v. Granito? (District of Arizona, jury trial, judgment for the Plaintiff.)

Or In re Slep-Tone Entertainment Consolidated Cases (Slep-Tone v. Green Grass Mall et al.)? (Northern District of Florida, bench trial, judgment for the Plaintiff.)

Or Slep-Tone v. Golf 600? (Southern District of New York, summary judgment for the Plaintiff.)

Or Slep-Tone v. Couche? (Middle District of Florida, bench trial, judgment for the Plaintiff.)

These are just a few off the top of my head with judgments on the merits, in our favor.

People are "scared into settlements" because it's the most reasonable solution to the problem: We win, most of the time, and people are scared of losing on the merits, most of the time.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 02, 2016 1:22 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
c. staley wrote:

I doubt that it's entirely false -- which is what you are insinuating.


The statement as presented is entirely false. KC states that we own no rights in the music and lyrics, and that is false. You could modify his statement and make it true, but as it stands, it's false.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 02, 2016 1:52 pm 
Offline
Super Poster
Super Poster

Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:07 pm
Posts: 576
Been Liked: 108 times
IF YOU REALLY owned the rights to the music or the lyrics; you'd have been filing law suits against everyone for that too. You only file law suits in regards to your logo because you think you have a chance of winning them. Lately, even that doesn't seem to be the case. I give you an "E" for effort though. You never quit trying to make money for doing nothing. There are actually some companies out there that are still creating karaoke tracks and making money at it. Not everyone is a quitter.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 02, 2016 3:43 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
Karaoke Croaker wrote:
IF YOU REALLY owned the rights to the music or the lyrics; you'd have been filing law suits against everyone for that too.


Phoenix Entertainment Partners, LLC v. Boyte, 4:16cv2911 (S.D.Tex.)

How many times are you going to be shown to be wrong before you give up?


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 02, 2016 5:41 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
JimHarrington wrote:
Karaoke Croaker wrote:
IF YOU REALLY owned the rights to the music or the lyrics; you'd have been filing law suits against everyone for that too.


Phoenix Entertainment Partners, LLC v. Boyte, 4:16cv2911 (S.D.Tex.)

How many times are you going to be shown to be wrong before you give up?

Considering that you filed that lawsuit just last Thursday, Sept. 29th, I can see why Karaoke Croaker might not know that. Your copyright protection covers the "sound recording of the audio track." And Karaoke Croaker is correct that you don't own the copyright to the original song, nor do you own the copyright to the lyrics.

Once again, you're simply using a technicality to prove something entirely unrelated to what Karaoke Croaker meant in an attempt to convince people that you're somehow right. And you knew exactly what Karaoke Croaker meant.

With the hundreds of lawsuits you've filed, why couldn't you present a single example that was dated in any of the previous 5 years instead of last Thursday?

But what's more interesting is that you've included some of the songs that you produced after the sale of the catalog to Stingray and before you shutdown recording altogether....

And, for good measure, you've included your "SCE" and "controlled licensees" junk to hopefully counter the "District 7 slamdunk"

Here are some of the songs they complained about that they sold on discs....
Consider this part of their new "hit list" with the song title, Disc Name and when it was released:
----------------------------------------------------------------
;1, 2, 3, 4 (style of Plain White T's) Hits Of June 2009 - Vol. 1 6/5/2009

America's Suitehearts (style of Fall Out Boy) Hits Of May 2009 - Vol. 1 5/7/2009

Chasing Pavements (style of Adele) Pop Hits - Vol. 203 8/21/2009

The Climb (style of Miley Cyrus) Hits Of June 2009 - Vol. 1 6/5/2009

Gives You Hell (style of The All-American Rejects) Hits Of April 2009 - Vol. 14/20/2009

Here Comes Goodbye (style of Rascal Flatts) Hits of July - Vol. 1 7/2/2009

If U Seek Amy (style of Britney Spears) Hits Of May 2009 - Vol. 1 5/7/2009

I'm Yours (style of Jason Mraz) Hits Of April 2009 - Vol. 1 4/20/2009

Just Dance (style of Lady GaGa / Colby O'Donis) Pop Hits - Vol. 203 8/21/2009

Kids (style of MGMT) Hits of July - Vol. 1 7/2/2009

Love Game (style of Lady GaGa) Hits of July - Vol. 1 7/2/2009

Love Lockdown (style of Kanye West) Pop Hits - Vol. 203 8/21/2009

Low (style of Flo Rida) Pop Hits - Vol. 203 8/21/2009

My Life Would Suck Without You (style of Kelly Clarkson) Hits Of May 2009 - Vol. 1 5/7/2009

Nothin' To Die For (style of Tim McGraw) Hits Of June 2009 - Vol. 1 6/5/2009

Paper Planes (style of M.I.A.) Pop Hits - Vol. 203 8/21/2009

Psychosocial (style of Slipknot) Hits Of 2009 - Vol. 1 3/16/2010

Second Chance (style of Shinedown) Hits Of May 2009 - Vol. 1 5/7/2009

Sex On Fire (style of Kings Of Leon) Hits Of April 2009 - Vol. 1 4/20/2009

Something In Your Mouth (style of Nickelback) Hits of July - Vol. 1 7/2/2009

You Belong With Me (style of Taylor Swift) Hits Of 2009 - Vol. 1 3/16/2010

You Found Me (style of The Fray) Hits Of April 2009 - Vol. 1 4/20/2009

You're Gonna Go Far, Kid (style of The Offspring) Hits Of 2009 - Vol. 1 3/16/2010

You're Not Sorry (style of Taylor Swift) Hits Of June 2009 - Vol. 1 6/5/2009


Last edited by c. staley on Mon Oct 03, 2016 3:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 02, 2016 11:32 pm 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:24 pm
Posts: 5105
Location: Phoenix Az
Been Liked: 1279 times
"As we have discussed, the defendants are not selling compact discs with karaoke tracks and billing them as genuine Slep-Tone tracks, in the way that a street vendor might hawk knock-off Yves Saint Laurent bags or Rolex watches to passers-by. Whatever wrong the defendants may have committed by making (or causing to be made) unauthorized copies of Slep-Tone's tracks, they are not alleged to have held out a tangible good sold in the marketplace as a Slep-Tone product. Consequently, the defendants' alleged conduct is not actionable as trademark infringement."

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


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 8:19 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
Paradigm Karaoke wrote:
"As we have discussed, the defendants are not selling compact discs with karaoke tracks and billing them as genuine Slep-Tone tracks, in the way that a street vendor might hawk knock-off Yves Saint Laurent bags or Rolex watches to passers-by. Whatever wrong the defendants may have committed by making (or causing to be made) unauthorized copies of Slep-Tone's tracks, they are not alleged to have held out a tangible good sold in the marketplace as a Slep-Tone product. Consequently, the defendants' alleged conduct is not actionable as trademark infringement."

and that's why they've added the new charge of copyright infringement (for an audiovisual work) as well as the unfair business practices for their brand-new, wholly-owned subsidiary, sound choice entertainment.

They realize that they can no longer sue on trademark alone.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 8:18 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
Paradigm Karaoke wrote:
"As we have discussed, the defendants are not selling compact discs with karaoke tracks and billing them as genuine Slep-Tone tracks, in the way that a street vendor might hawk knock-off Yves Saint Laurent bags or Rolex watches to passers-by. Whatever wrong the defendants may have committed by making (or causing to be made) unauthorized copies of Slep-Tone's tracks, they are not alleged to have held out a tangible good sold in the marketplace as a Slep-Tone product. Consequently, the defendants' alleged conduct is not actionable as trademark infringement."


I'll point out that the defendant in that case was a venue that owned its own system, not a mobile entertainment operator. An operator who brings karaoke tracks into a venue in exchange for money is definitely "[holding] out a tangible good sold in the marketplace as a Slep-Tone product." Ergo, suits in the 7th Circuit will continue, with the blessing of the 7th Circuit based on the very language you pointed out.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:02 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2001 6:55 pm
Posts: 4433
Location: New York City
Been Liked: 757 times
JimHarrington wrote:
An operator who brings karaoke tracks into a venue in exchange for money is definitely "[holding] out a tangible good sold in the marketplace as a Slep-Tone product.

You make that sound like the "Operator" is SELLING those Karaoke Tracks. He's NOT.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 6:05 pm 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
cueball wrote:
JimHarrington wrote:
An operator who brings karaoke tracks into a venue in exchange for money is definitely "[holding] out a tangible good sold in the marketplace as a Slep-Tone product.

You make that sound like the "Operator" is SELLING those Karaoke Tracks. He's NOT.


"Sale" doesn't necessarily mean an outright sale. If Netflix "rented" counterfeit DVDs to their subscribers, do you think the studios would be powerless to stop them?


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:17 am 
Offline
Super Extreme
Super Extreme
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 7666
Songs: 1
Location: Hollyweird, Ca.
Been Liked: 1080 times
JimHarrington wrote:
cueball wrote:
JimHarrington wrote:
An operator who brings karaoke tracks into a venue in exchange for money is definitely "[holding] out a tangible good sold in the marketplace as a Slep-Tone product.

You make that sound like the "Operator" is SELLING those Karaoke Tracks. He's NOT.


"Sale" doesn't necessarily mean an outright sale. If Netflix "rented" counterfeit DVDs to their subscribers, do you think the studios would be powerless to stop them?


Interesting..

Since there are no processes in place to discover a "Counterfeit" DVD, the chances of that discovery is slim.

Netflix currently relies 90% on streaming the videos, and an even slimmer chance of finding a bogus disk.

Anyway, streaming is essentially a copy, so they never run "Out of Stock".


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:26 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster

Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
jdmeister wrote:
Anyway, streaming is essentially a copy, so they never run "Out of Stock".

Making more copies? Isn't that a gem of a way to do business?

(pun intended)


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 96 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Privacy Policy | Anti-Spam Policy | Acceptable Use Policy Copyright © Karaoke Scene Magazine
design & hosting by Cross Web Tech