KJSandman said:I'm thinking that I am not certain why you are saying that it must be tied to a licensed music track to be for the trademark infringement to be actionable. The trademark is valid in and of itself.
What I believe to be the answer Joe is referring to: Just like SC's unlicensed tracks, how can one sue for trademark infingement when the logo is not LEGALLY ATTACHED to the track, and hence not legally there?
I guess the question is the answer. Joe believes that you can't sue for trademark infringement if you have knowingly affixed your trademark to unlicensed material.
So, I have another question and pardon me if it has been answered, but is this correct? Specifically in the case of CB and tracks that may have been unlicensed by SGB but have since been adjudicated? I'm trying to figure out what constitutes "legally there."
Well, Debi did answer this one too. While the SGB didn't license most ( if not all) of their tracks, Debi is saying that CB bought the label, and then DID get all of the tracks licensed.
This means - wait for it....( in my opinion), that the trademark case MAY work for them, because they are attached to licensed tracks, meaning that THOSE logos are LEGALLY there.
What constitutes legally there?
Again, if a track is UNlicensed, then it was not produced legally. Since the producer had no permission for the track, then any logo attached to it was also put there without permission- illegally. Therefore the logo is not there, in the eyes of the law. No case.
If, on the other hand, a track is licensed, then the logo is attached LEGALLY, making it legally there in the eyes of the law. One would still have to prove damages and a bunch of other stuff, but at least there would be a case to work with.