Just curious, just what, exactly, was the last trademark case won, by whom, and what were the fines?We could also add copyright infringement if we ever needed to or wanted to ammend our complaints, but Trademark is easier and "neater" with larger statutory fines.
On the contrary, many would like to see us seek or get something substantially greater SO THAT WE DO COMPLETELY WIPE OUT SOMEONE.
Exactly my point in stating that the file sharing of 24 files pales in comparison to wholesale copying and commercial use of thousands of pirated files. Which is why we are quite confident that if one of our cases goes to court we will prevail. Don't forget that the crux of our case is the illegal and/or unauthorized copying of our content - and we are using the Trademark law as the basis for the suit. We could also add copyright infringement if we ever needed to or wanted to ammend our complaints, but Trademark is easier and "neater" with larger statutory fines.
Exactly my point in stating that the file sharing of 24 files pales in comparison to wholesale copying and commercial use of thousands of pirated files. Which is why we are quite confident that if one of our cases goes to court we will prevail. Don't forget that the crux of our case is the illegal and/or unauthorized copying of our content - and we are using the Trademark law as the basis for the suit. We could also add copyright infringement if we ever needed to or wanted to ammend our complaints, but Trademark is easier and "neater" with larger statutory fines.
Just curious, just what, exactly, was the last trademark case won, by whom, and what were the fines?
I suspect you'll have a hard time finding out, but if you do, I suspect that it will be either quite an old case (in other words, there haven't been any recent ones) or the "substantial fines" will be far less than you allude to.
http://www.ameinfo.com/25260.html
Perhaps I should have specified that judgments from the UAE (United Arab Emirates) don't count, but that only AMERICAN judgments do.
http://onthebutton.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/trademark-infringement/#comments
Ummm this one didn't get to court. They were THREATENED with it, but backed down, Doesn't count.
Of particular interest..............below
http://thelegalbroadcastnetwork.squ...demark-infringement-case-against-payless.html
This is the only link that MAY have some bearing, only because they have VIGOROUSLY defended their trademark in the past, which is one of the requirements when holding trademarks and asking the courts to remedy such situations.Makes me wonder what the court would think about recent cases in the karaoke world. They might want to know how the trademark holder has gone about defending it in the past. At any rate, the defendants mentioned in the article intend to appeal it, so it ain't quite over yet. I guess we'll have to wait and see, won't we?
http://www.hedgefundsreview.com/hedge-funds-review/news/1800255/och-ziff-wins-trademark-infringement
Ummm I guess I should have specified that England doesn't count, either.
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=120233
And this one didn't see a court room, either, since it was SETTLED.
The point is (and it is relevant) the copy is a copy and not the original (without the premission of the trademark owner) it is indeed a trademark violation.
The hunting took me all of 30 seconds every one of those were what came up on the first page of a google search of "trademark infringement" really didn't require any detailed search. There are many many more that I didn't even bother with posting which would count!
As far as defending the mark, when does that start?
Does it start when the owner makes a public statement that it is wrong and they will pursue violators.
Does it start when the owner makes an effort to defeat copying by adding a data track?
Does it start when an owner goes to the expense of adding mediaclog in an attempt to defeat copying?
Or does it start with the first suit they file against a violator?
Jammie Thomas-Rasset has appealed every single court decision she has had to date, it has only gotten worse each time she has done so.
That was evident by the links you posted, all of which, save one (which may or may not be relevant) were irrelevant due to either not hitting a courtroom or by virtue of the fact that it was case law from another country! And even the one we have yet to see how it will play out.The hunting took me all of 30 seconds
I don't need to. Someone else already did!Diafel,
Then back up your statements with some case law!
Actually, I have already read that one, did you? The question was do you actually have any case law on the subject what you posted was an opinion piece that wasn't even written by a Judge nor can it be found in any of the Law resource reference books for the courts which are based on actual case results and standard practices, ie: Michies, Leah Sandwell-Weiss, Shannon Graff Hysell, etc.
The trademark holder does not have to send cease and desist letters to all infringers nor sue every infringer. The trademark holder needs only to be reasonable. If long periods of infringing use are not objected to, the trademark holder may experience difficulty in subsequently enforcing that mark. Therefore, policing the mark is a necessary part of trademark maintenance.
The normal course of conduct is the trademark holder sends a cease and desist letter to an offending user of a mark and objects to that usage.
Accurate Merchandising, Inc. v. American Pacific, 186 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 197 (1975). This statute places an affirmative duty upon a licensor of a registered trademark, such as TELE-TENDER to take reasonable measures to detect and prevent misleading uses of his trademark by his licensees or suffer cancellation of his federal registration. 15 U.S.C. § 1064 provides that a trademark registration may be cancelled because the trademark has been ‘abandoned.’")
Wallpaper Mfrs., Ltd. V. Crown Wallcovering Corp. 680 F.2d 755 (CCAP 1982)
Hermes Int'l v. Lederer de Paris Fifth Avenue, Inc., 219 F.3d 104, 110 (2d Cir. 2000).
Ty Inc. v. Softbelly's, Inc., 353 F.3d 528, 531 (7th Cir. 2003)(For example, “Ty polices the use of ‘Beanie(s)’ vigorously by filing lawsuits, sending cease and desist letters, and opposing trademark applications for the will not cease use, an infringement or dilution law suit may result. This is the normal, rational course of conduct in trademark litigation.
Excuse me for butting in here, but I would really like to know the answer to these questions...
Is it morally right or morally wrong to use karaoke tracks that you have not paid for in a public performance?
Is it morally right or morally wrong to copy karaoke tracks made by someone else onto a hard drive and then make money by selling them or using them?
The answers to those questions should be very enlightening. If it is morally wrong, as I believe, why does the letter of the law even matter.
Excuse me for butting in here, but I would really like to know the answer to these questions...
Is it morally right or morally wrong to use karaoke tracks that you have not paid for in a public performance? I would say wrong, as everyone else has said before too.
Is it morally right or morally wrong to copy karaoke tracks made by someone else onto a hard drive and then make money by selling them or using them?
Isn't this really the same question worded differently?
The answers to those questions should be very enlightening. If it is morally wrong, as I believe, why does the letter of the law even matter.
No it's not - you need something more. Where are the damages?The point is (and it is relevant) the copy is a copy and not the original (without the premission of the trademark owner) it is indeed a trademark violation.
Here's my answers, and excuse me for getting a little technical here, but I do know what you're trying to get at.Excuse me for butting in here, but I would really like to know the answer to these questions...
Is it morally right or morally wrong to use karaoke tracks that you have not paid for in a public performance?
Is it morally right or morally wrong to copy karaoke tracks made by someone else onto a hard drive and then make money by selling them or using them?
The answers to those questions should be very enlightening. If it is morally wrong, as I believe, why does the letter of the law even matter.
It all depends on how you come about those tracks. I have several discs that I have not paid for in my collection and I DO use them in public performances, yet they are NOT pirated. How can that be,, you ask?Is it morally right or morally wrong to use karaoke tracks that you have not paid for in a public performance?
Jennifer, it's Morally wrong for both cases.
A place to debate everything and anything!
