Buffett sues alleged trademark infringer

[crawfish]

While it is true that my client may sell certain licensed Jimmy Buffett products, in competition with the songwriters own website, the products Buffett complained about represents 1% of the products UnderOneHut.com offers.

And if Jimmy lets that 1% go without challenge, he could lose his own trademark....

(where are AF and KLL? they explain this much better than I do.....)

BB Buster, I hope you're not looking for support here, because you're sure not getting mine.....

yeah maybe we should all send Jimmy some money so he will have fuel for his jet to fly down to the caribbean for Christmas. Poor lttle Jimmy.......gimme a F**KING BREAK!

[SchoolGirlHeart]

While it is true that my client may sell certain licensed Jimmy Buffett products, in competition with the songwriters own website, the products Buffett complained about represents 1% of the products UnderOneHut.com offers.

And if Jimmy lets that 1% go without challenge, he could lose his own trademark....

(where are AF and KLL? they explain this much better than I do.....)

BB Buster, I hope you're not looking for support here, because you're sure not getting mine.....

yeah maybe we should all send Jimmy some money so he will have fuel for his jet to fly down to the caribbean for Christmas. Poor lttle Jimmy.......gimme a F**KING BREAK!

Weren't listening much, were you? If he doesn't go after every infringer he knows about, no matter how small they are, he could lose the right to his own trademarks. It has to do with protecting what's his, just like you'd protect what belongs to you......

[crawfish]

While it is true that my client may sell certain licensed Jimmy Buffett products, in competition with the songwriters own website, the products Buffett complained about represents 1% of the products UnderOneHut.com offers.

And if Jimmy lets that 1% go without challenge, he could lose his own trademark....

(where are AF and KLL? they explain this much better than I do.....)

BB Buster, I hope you're not looking for support here, because you're sure not getting mine.....

yeah maybe we should all send Jimmy some money so he will have fuel for his jet to fly down to the caribbean for Christmas. Poor lttle Jimmy.......gimme a F**KING BREAK!

Weren't listening much, were you? If he doesn't go after every infringer he knows about, no matter how small they are, he could lose the right to his own trademarks. It has to do with protecting what's his, just like you'd protect what belongs to you......

YEAH I WAS LISTENING.......THE GUY IS A GAZILLIONAIRE....................GIMME A F**KING BREAK!

ARE YOU LISTENING?

[SchoolGirlHeart]

YEAH I WAS LISTENING.......THE GUY IS A GAZILLIONAIRE....................GIMME A F**KING BREAK!

ARE YOU LISTENING?

Yep, he's rich. So what? And unless he challenges infringements, he'll lose the exclusive right to use his own trademarks. He'd lose millions. Geez, if I had millions to lose, I'd sure as he!! protect it....

[springparrot]

This story made our local NBC news tonight complete with video from the Today show

[JustDucky]

How 'bout we just wait and see what happens? Obviously JB&Company know more than any of us do about just what the h-ell is going on.

HA HA! COME ON! YEAH!

You remember that little run Jimmy says in the long intro of A Love Song (From A Different Point Of View) where he says Sue me baby sue me.

There you go. If we couldn't laugh...

[crawfish]

oh com'on all you "diehards" send Jimmy some money so he won't go broke!

[SMLCHNG]

You can stop with the sarcasm now, thanks.

[crawfish]

You can stop with the sarcasm now, thanks.

ok Nurse Ratchet

[JustDucky]

Hey SMLCHNG, what is the inspiration for your name? It's very...odd.

[SMLCHNG]

You can stop with the sarcasm now, thanks.

ok Nurse Ratchet

That really wasn't necessary.

[JustDucky]

Someone explain this -

If JB can lose his trademark, which makes NO sense whatsoever, because some...guy is selling t-shirst etc...how could he lose the trademark? It's paid for! You don't lose a trademark because someone is selling boot versions of your thing. Or whatever the hell it is that is 1%. Oh ka-rap, that almost sounds like a Walton & Johnson line.

Jimmy could not stop me from covering one of his songs (yes, one that he actually wrote) and putting it on myspace since no money is being made. There's no exchange. There's no violation. It's free.

Right?

RIGHT!

Say the dude bought a bunch of Margaritaville flip-flops or whatever it is, he bought them, Jimmy got paid. So he sells them, makes his money back (I know this is really baiting it but I want to read what people think and or know), what is the crime? Is that equal to scalping? It's PAID for.

I think that's what the whole disbelief with P2P was about.

[SMLCHNG]

Hey SMLCHNG, what is the inspiration for your name? It's very...odd.

Odd? Um, ok. My name is Penny. My father calls me "Small Change". It's just an abbreviation for that.

[SchoolGirlHeart]

Someone explain this -

If JB can lose his trademark, which makes NO sense whatsoever,

doesn't matter if it makes sense..... it's trademark law.... if you don't defend it, you lose exclusive right to it...

[SMLCHNG]

Here's something that KeyLimeLee posted a while ago.. he's a musician and rather knowledgable.

You don't need to enforce copyrights - a copyrighted work is a copyrighted work from the moment it is created until that copyright expires (I believe it's currently life plus 20). Technically it doesn't even need to be filed with the Library of Congress - trademark protection is instantaneous. But filing with the LoC gives you more option to enforce protection.

A trademark, on the other hand, must be vigorously defended. If it is not, it opens the door for folks to claim that the trademark is invalid, since whatever the mark may be is in the public domain.

The difference is as follows:

"Margaritaville" the words and music is copyrighted, meaning I can't write a song similar or publish the words without permission. That would be infringing. I can, however, write another song called "Margaritaville" because you can't copywrite a word - only a complete work.

I *CAN* also record a new version of the song without seeking Jimmy's permission (since it has been commercially released) but I must pay either the Harry Fox Agency or the publisher the standard mechanical royalty rate and Jimmy would get all the royalties from the song and maintain the copyright.

"Margaritaville" the sound recording (the original recording) is copyrighted as well seperately from the words and music. As such, I can't record, distribute or sell copies of that sound recording without being in violation.

"Margaritaville" the word is Trademarked for the food service industry (amongst other industries), meaning that while I can write a song called "Margaritaville" I cannot open a restaurant called "Margaritaville" since that term is trademarked.

My sense in talking with folks in the Buffett organization is that trading is tolerated as long as folks are reasonable (no one has told me that - it's just the sense I get). They probably figure that the recording quality off of RM is so low that no one will distribute too many anyway. But again, under copyright law they are under no obligation to enforce it unless they want, in contrast to trademark law where they have to enforce in every instance.

Most likely the Geisel issue was about enforcing the Cat In The Hat trademark, not copyright.

[JustDucky]

Oaky. See? I asked, I found out. Obviously I missed...the obvious.

HA HA! Too much Corona.

[AlbatrossFlyer]

just can't resist....

as the owner of 2 registered service marks (SM) the little r in the circle. same dif as a trade mark (TM) also the little r in the circle.

okay here goes.... federal law governing SMs & TMs say that i must defend my SM against all known infringers or if i don't, i lose my SM. if i don't defend my SM it then enters the public domain and anyone can use it without restriction or compensating me for using it.

it's that simple. period, end of discussion, that's the law..... whether you think it's right, wrong, or indifferent, you opinion doesn't matter a rat's ass. it's the law, and until you change the law that's the way it is whether you agree with it or not.

and don't confuse copyrighted song lyrics with TM'd material different set of laws, different rights and obligations.....


imagine coke not defending the coke or coca cola names. what's to stop pepsi from selling pepsi labeled as coke?

[SchoolGirlHeart]

just can't resist....

as the owner of 2 registered service marks (SM) the little r in the circle. same dif as a trade mark (TM) also the little r in the circle.

okay here goes.... federal law governing SMs & TMs say that i must defend my SM against all known infringers or if i don't, i lose my SM. if i don't defend my SM it then enters the public domain and anyone can use it without restriction or compensating me for using it.

it's that simple. period, end of discussion, that's the law..... whether you think it's right, wrong, or indifferent, you opinion doesn't matter a rat's ass. it's the law, and until you change the law that's the way it is whether you agree with it or not.

and don't confuse copyrighted song lyrics with TM'd material different set of laws, different rights and obligations.....


imagine coke not defending the coke or coca cola names. what's to stop pepsi from selling pepsi labeled as coke?

'bout time you showed up.....

[SMLCHNG]

'bout time you showed up.....

That's what I was thinkin'.

[Coconuts]

Someone explain this -

If JB can lose his trademark, which makes NO sense whatsoever, because some...guy is selling t-shirst etc...how could he lose the trademark? It's paid for! You don't lose a trademark because someone is selling boot versions of your thing. Or whatever the hell it is that is 1%. Oh ka-rap, that almost sounds like a Walton & Johnson line.

Jimmy could not stop me from covering one of his songs (yes, one that he actually wrote) and putting it on myspace since no money is being made. There's no exchange. There's no violation. It's free.

Right?

RIGHT!

Say the dude bought a bunch of Margaritaville flip-flops or whatever it is, he bought them, Jimmy got paid. So he sells them, makes his money back (I know this is really baiting it but I want to read what people think and or know), what is the crime? Is that equal to scalping? It's PAID for.

I think that's what the whole disbelief with P2P was about.

It's not the trademark, it's the copyright, and this is a product the hut guy made money on (otherwise they wouldn't have had to sue for the second time). If Buffett doesn't protect his copyrights, he loses them. This is a David and Goliath thing, but if Buffett doesn't sue, when Outback decides to open a Cheeseburger in Paradise chain without him, he has no legal recourse (and from my understanding, they had the whole thing ready to go, and then Buffett's lawyers heard about it, and that's when Buffett got involved).

And I think the huge issue is the T-shirt with the publicity photo on it, and probably the banner. I guarantee you that photo is copyrighted, and the photographer didn't get paid for the reproduction, the owner of the image (ie Jimmy), didn't get paid to use it.

And not enforcing the trademark/copyright makes it worthless.