Toqer Goes to the City Counsel of San Jose

[JoeChartreuse]

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.

 

[Guest]

1) The answer to this has not only been posted numerous times throughout these debates, but was included in the very post to which you are replying. Why did you ask again?


2) I never EVER said that the majority of tracks sold by ANY mfrs. were unlicensed. Why did you say that I did? To cause dissent between CB and myself? There is a less polite word for doing that - please refrain in the future. Another non-sequitor.

Posted by Joe Chatreuse:

because if someone were to show that the majority of tracks weren't licensed

Again it is a matter of common sense Joe!

If someone can show that a majority of the tracks used in a trademark lawsuit (even if it were relevant) weren't licensed anyone with any comon sense would have to automatically make a connection that the majority of what that manu produced was unlicensed. You can spin it anyway you want to but it comes down to believability.

Since this is directly from your post it is certainly not non-sequitor !

It has nothing to do with causing desent between you and Chartbuster, because I can't do that only you and Chartbuster can!

And to the questions that you say have already been answered, I read a lot here sometimes over and over again and to date you nor anyone else has made any valid arguments to support your veiws on the subject. So I ask again.

How is the question of the music track going to affect a trademark violation?

 

[KJSandman]

So, I am negotiating the purchase of the Music Maestro Catalog and trademark..... once completed, what's to prevent me from sending my own "letters of intent" for trademark infringement to you and everyone else that has already received one from SC? Does this explain it a little clearer?

(Aldo is really a nice guy... And Caryn is cool too.)

No, Chip it doesn't.

Don't know Aldo or Caryn. Who are they?

What's to prevent you from sending a letter of intent? Apparently not even your own circular logic. Why on earth would you buy the MM catalog knowing full well that it is full of unlicensed material? It couldn't possibly be to engage in the same practice that you rail against so vehemently.

No, Chip it doesn't make it any clearer.

 

[Guest]

Thunder asks: Joe, why do you believe that the display of the logo (trademark) has to be directly tied to a licensed music track to be valid in a lawsuit?

Joe replies: The answer to this has not only been posted numerous times throughout these debates, but was included in the very post to which you are replying. Why did you ask again?


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?

Does anyone here other than Sound Choice, Chartbuster or Stellar (respectively) know for a fact what tracks were or were not licensed?

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.

Again though, Since all of the perspective manus settled any and all of their cases does anyone really believe that the products already sold were not covered by a licensing agreement, doesn't mean the CR holder didn't say "Dont Produce Any More and recall all of those not sold" but you can't heard cats into the barn, and it is my belief that neither the CR holders nor the Karaoke manus are complete idiots and would have covered all their bases in a settlement (I know I would have and I ain't all that smart)!

My point is without knowing all the facts surrounding what was done between the CR holder and the manus then making such a statement as to what "will" happen "if" it is discovered that "the majority of the tracks are unlicensed" is at best foolish.

If anyone bothers to read the trademark laws and what constitutes a violation of trademark right they could very well discover that the trademark doesn't have to be attached or even relate to anything just improperly displayed without permission, hence the fact that even 1:1 (without permission) is a violation.

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."

I would have to say that given the statement by Debi that all legalities on the issue have been covered by Chartbuster when it comes to SGB and they now own the brand and logos of SGB.

 

[KJSandman]

How is the question of the music track going to affect a trademark violation?

That is my question also.

The trademark exists as intellectual property. The trademark exists whether there is anything attached to it or not. The unauthorized duplication of the trademark (i.e. counterfeiting) is a violation unto itself.

Is it true that if the licensing issue has not been decided with regard to underlying works, meaning it is unlicensed and there has been no judgement rendered or no suit has been filed, that the trademark does not exist?

What about when the licensing issues have been settled through judgement or settlement. The companies are out of business and their catalogs are either abandoned or dormant. Are the publishers barred from taking action against those who own and/or continue to use the material via media shift/transfer even if they own the original discs?

Since no one could legally sell you the unlicensed portion of their catalog, wouldn't it seem logical that if you purchase the rights to a dormant or abandoned catalog, you would have to settle with the publishers on the unlicensed material?

Wouldn't this prevent someone from buying MM and then suing everyone for trademark violation?

 

[Guest]

No, Chip it doesn't.

Don't know Aldo or Caryn. Who are they?

What's to prevent you from sending a letter of intent? Apparently not even your own circular logic. Why on earth would you buy the MM catalog knowing full well that it is full of unlicensed material? It couldn't possibly be to engage in the same practice that you rail against so vehemently.

No, Chip it doesn't make it any clearer.

Actually if Chip were to purchase the entire MM catalog he would have every right to sue anyone using it in a manner not origionally intended (ie: pirated) and could do so sucessfully, regardless of any tracks being licensed or not, just on the use of the trademark.

But he would be in a bidding war!:winkpill:

 

[Guest]

You just answered your entire question!

The trademark exists as intellectual property. The trademark exists whether there is anything attached to it or not. The unauthorized duplication of the trademark (i.e. counterfeiting) is a violation unto itself.

 

[KJSandman]

You just answered your entire question!

I thought so.:winkpill:

 

[c. staley]

How is the question of the music track going to affect a trademark violation?

That is my question also.

The trademark exists as intellectual property. The trademark exists whether there is anything attached to it or not. The unauthorized duplication of the trademark (i.e. counterfeiting) is a violation unto itself.

Is it true that if the licensing issue has not been decided with regard to underlying works, meaning it is unlicensed and there has been no judgement rendered or no suit has been filed, that the trademark does not exist?

What about when the licensing issues have been settled through judgement or settlement. The companies are out of business and their catalogs are either abandoned or dormant. Are the publishers barred from taking action against those who own and/or continue to use the material via media shift/transfer even if they own the original discs?

Since no one could legally sell you the unlicensed portion of their catalog, wouldn't it seem logical that if you purchase the rights to a dormant or abandoned catalog, you would have to settle with the publishers on the unlicensed material?

Wouldn't this prevent someone from buying MM and then suing everyone for trademark violation?

Talk about circular? Remember this has nothing to do with "music" or "licensing music"... it's strictly "trademark infringement" remember? The same thing that you and Thunder have been hounding on.... it doesn't have to have ANY music "attached to it" right? It's simply an "unauthorized transfer of a trademark" all by itself...

So I don't have to license the music to sue for trademark do I? Nope.

(Aldo is the owner of "music maestro" Caryn is his daughter.)

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Again it is a matter of common sense Joe!

1) If someone can show that a majority of the tracks used in a trademark lawsuit (even if it were relevant) weren't licensed anyone with any comon sense would have to automatically make a connection that the majority of what that manu produced was unlicensed. You can spin it anyway you want to but it comes down to believability.

2) Since this is directly from your post it is certainly not non-sequitor !

It has nothing to do with causing desent between you and Chartbuster, because I can't do that only you and Chartbuster can!

3) And to the questions that you say have already been answered, I read a lot here sometimes over and over again and to date you nor anyone else has made any valid arguments to support your veiws on the subject. So I ask again.

1) This is correct


2) Your actual stated reply was:


"Also what makes you believe that the majority of tracks sold by ANY of the manus are not licensed? ".

THAT was a non-sequitor because I never said it, and I believe that it WAS designed to cause dissent.

3) I believe I HAVE given a valid explaination. If you need someone else to validate it, then why bring it up to me again?

 

[JoeChartreuse]

How is the question of the music track going to affect a trademark violation?

That is my question also.

1) The trademark exists as intellectual property. The trademark exists whether there is anything attached to it or not. The unauthorized duplication of the trademark (i.e. counterfeiting) is a violation unto itself.

Is it true that if the licensing issue has not been decided with regard to underlying works, meaning it is unlicensed and there has been no judgement rendered or no suit has been filed, that the trademark does not exist?

What about when the licensing issues have been settled through judgement or settlement. The companies are out of business and their catalogs are either abandoned or dormant. Are the publishers barred from taking action against those who own and/or continue to use the material via media shift/transfer even if they own the original discs?

Since no one could legally sell you the unlicensed portion of their catalog, wouldn't it seem logical that if you purchase the rights to a dormant or abandoned catalog, you would have to settle with the publishers on the unlicensed material?

Wouldn't this prevent someone from buying MM and then suing everyone for trademark violation?

1) While the trademark stands on it's own as intellectual property, the infringement and damages must still be proven.

I've posted this example before, but: If someone paints the Toyota logo on my front door in the middle of the night, and a Toyota exec drives by in the morning and sees it, am I culpable for trademark infringement? I didn't give permission to the painter.

If a PC host plays a track to which someone ( not the KJ) illegally attached a logo, is the KJ culpable? The KJ didn't ask for it, and the music owner never gave permission for it. Without permission from the the music and lyric OWNERS, the logo is an unlicensed and therefore illegal addition to the graphics. It's not supposed to be there, so no culpability can be placed on the KJ.

This may be the 3rd or fourth time I've explained it in this thread alone, and have done so over 30 times prior, in my estimation. This explaination came to me from legal counsel, as previously stated. If it's validity is questionable for anyone, I would suggest speaking to an IP lawyer instead of constantly rehashing it on the forum. If your lawyers agree, then done. If not, then we have dissenting professional legal opinions, and nothing said here will change that.


2) As I understand it, CB bought the rights to the label and logo. They then licensed the music that the other label did not. I don't think they had to buy the unlicensed library itself, but merely license the titles afterward.

 

[c. staley]

But he would be in a bidding war!:winkpill:

And what surprises could be waiting for the winner! :winkpill:

 

[c. staley]

2) As I understand it, CB bought the rights to the label and logo. They then licensed the music that the other label did not. I don't think they had to buy the unlicensed library itself, but merely license the titles afterward.

Joe,

I think the problem is that the phrase "bought the catalog" isn't in itself descriptive enough.

1) Does "bought the catalog" mean the previous licenses (if any) that have not expired ALONG WITH the actual "sound recordings" made by SGB?

2) Does "bought the catalog" mean ONLY the "sound recordings" and no licensing? Only to license them later?

3) Does "bought the catalog" mean the sound recordings (useless because unlicensed) and the more valuable "Trademark" only?


If you were a manufacturer, what possible reason would you have for purchasing a "catalog" for a brand that has been basically placed in the same "quality category" akin to "bottom of the barrel?"

Because I've not been able to justify such a "purchase" unless it was strictly for trademark extortion which would explain why a purchase would have been made "a few years back." (because of the 3-year statute of limitations on copyright. )

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Joe,

I think the problem is that the phrase "bought the catalog" isn't in itself descriptive enough.

1) Does "bought the catalog" mean the previous licenses (if any) that have not expired ALONG WITH the actual "sound recordings" made by SGB?

2) Does "bought the catalog" mean ONLY the "sound recordings" and no licensing? Only to license them later?

3) Does "bought the catalog" mean the sound recordings (useless because unlicensed) and the more valuable "Trademark" only?


If you were a manufacturer, what possible reason would you have for purchasing a "catalog" for a brand that has been basically placed in the same "quality category" akin to "bottom of the barrel?"

Because I've not been able to justify such a "purchase" unless it was strictly for trademark extortion which would explain why a purchase would have been made "a few years back." (because of the 3-year statute of limitations on copyright. )

Chip, as previously stated, No one has claimed that they bought the catalogue- only the rights to the label and logo. My understanding is that CB also licensed- separately- all the titles that SGB did not.

 

[Guest]

Joe,

You do keep bringing up "unlicensed music" over and over again, and you have stated "if the majority of a manufacturers releases are unlicensed", the problem I see is with the fact that that your arguement has no validity unless you know for a fact that a track is unlicensed. Do you know of any that are in fact unlicensed?

 

[JoeChartreuse]

Joe,

...... and you have stated "if the majority of a manufacturers releases are unlicensed"

.... And for the second time , I've never, EVER stated that. This is the second time you have attributed this statement to me, and the second you've made the false attribution. It's also your second attempt at stirring up dissent by doing so. The first time was only a few posts ago. Did you forget?

Also, since it's untrue, and you keep referring to it, it's another non-sequitor. I'm truly starting to worry about you.

 

[possumdog]

You know I was getting confused because I thought you did say something to that effect. Maybe we are extrapolating too much from your post #101 where you stated:

"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."

Maybe we took "most (if not all)" to mean "majority."

 

[JoeChartreuse]

You know I was getting confused because I thought you did say something to that effect. Maybe we are extrapolating too much from your post #101 where you stated:

"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."

Maybe we took "most (if not all)" to mean "majority."

Please note that in the case above, I was referring ONLY to Sweet Georgia Brown. At NO time did I include ALL or even MOST manufacturers (plural) in the statement, which is what Thunder keeps implying- and apparently was able to confuse the issue.

The "most (if not all)" referred ONLY to the tracks in Sweet Georgia Brown's catalogue. This has absolutely nothing to do with most or all OTHER MANUFACTURERS.

EDIT: Since the line quoted above also referred ONLY to SGB, There shouldn't be any confusion at all.
Again, just a statement falsely represented.


To Thunder: Nice job, Steve.