Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Copyrightable Karaoke Tracks Not Protected By Trademark Act
Slep-Tone Entertainment Corporation and its successor in interest, Phoenix Entertainment Partners, filed more than 150 Lanham Act suits throughout the country. The suits alleged that defendants had committed trademark infringement by making unauthorized copies and performing commercial karaoke files containing Slep-Tone's registered trademark “Sound Choice” and graphically displayed trade dress. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of one of those suits, brought in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois against Basket Case Pub and its president and sole owner, Dannette Rumsey, because the karaoke tracks were not “tangible goods” that the pub had sold in the marketplace as a Slep-Tone product. Phoenix Entertainment Partners, LLC v. Rumsey, __ F.3d __ (7th Cir. 2016).
Case Background
For nearly 30 years, Slep-Tone has produced and distributed 16,500 recorded audio and graphic karaoke tracks intended for use with professional karaoke systems. The audio component is the recorded version of a popular song that omits the lead vocals, and the graphic element displays the lyrics of the song with visual cues such as color coding and various icons, synchronized with the music to aid singers in performing the songs. Slep-Tone claims a trade dress including the typeface, style, and visual arrangement of the song lyrics, a design version of the Sound Choice trademark, and the style of entry cues displayed for the singers to show when they should begin singing. The karaoke tracks are sold to Slep-Tone's customers on compact discs and MP3 media.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?