Ed sued for trademark infringement Options

[Aitkens]

Good luck proving that in the court of law. Can Ed counter sue that Chris Shinn forgetting lyrics and having no stage presence is hurting LIVE's brand?

Without getting into the fact that you don't have any fucking clue what stage presence is, no EK cannot sue because EK is not a member of Live.

[SJN1279]

Without getting into the fact that you don't have any fucking clue what stage presence is, no EK cannot sue because EK is not a member of Live.

He still gets royalties from LIVE, and a damaged brand could mean less money for him.

[OutToDry]

Without getting into the fact that you don't have any fucking clue what stage presence is, no EK cannot sue because EK is not a member of Live.

We can provide the evidence Ed forgot many tune lyrics from the back catalog many many times.

I can document all of it. You're grasping again because your avenues are blocked again by facts!!

[OutToDry]

He still gets royalties from LIVE, and a damaged brand could mean less money for him.

You just contracdicted yourself. Ed's damaging the brand, hence the lawsuits, which in the end fuck himself over too! If he was smart, he'd do things right. This is why Levin is named in the other suit as co-conspirator and breech of fiduciary duties. He urged and pressed Ed to take control and all the other underlings.

[World Dreamer]

He still gets royalties from LIVE, and a damaged brand could mean less money for him.

No, stealing and getting sued could mean less money for him.

[PillarOfDavidson]

Hehe Just started watching all of season 4 on netflix to catch up.

Good man. I can't wait for you to see the season 4 finale.

I don't care what anybody says... Breaking Bad is in the top 2 or 3 best tv shows ever created.


Anyway... back to this thread's regularly scheduled bitch fest:

All of this back n forth on here is going to come out in the wash, one way or the other. And in the end, we get new +Live+ music.

This post has been edited by PillarOfDavidson: Jul 18 2012, 10:22 am

[thefunkyredcaboose]

This doesn't have anything to do with "hurting" the Live brand. That's just obnoxious fan talk.

It's being done to clear up confusion around the property because Ed's promotional efforts claimed that he was part of a unit that he clearly wasn't. There's nothing to it beyond that.

Clearly, the lawsuit has done it's job, so this may end up being nothing more than a "cease and desist." Though, it is entirely possible that one or more of those had been delivered already and he didn't stop. That is protocol, generally.

[themaestro]

He still gets royalties from LIVE, and a damaged brand could mean less money for him.

Right, Ed's concerns are clearly for the "brand" Live.

[themaestro]

This doesn't have anything to do with "hurting" the Live brand. That's just obnoxious fan talk.

I think the dilution of the trademark is where that originated.

[jclive]

This doesn't have anything to do with "hurting" the Live brand. That's just obnoxious fan talk.

It's being done to clear up confusion around the property because Ed's promotional efforts claimed that he was part of a unit that he clearly wasn't. There's nothing to it beyond that.

Clearly, the lawsuit has done it's job, so this may end up being nothing more than a "cease and desist." Though, it is entirely possible that one or more of those had been delivered already and he didn't stop. That is protocol, generally.

Careful, you're thinking is entirely too rational for this board! ;-)

[Jim]

No I really like Ed's music, but the LIVE songs are the ones that the general public are most familar with.

You just highlighted why this is a pretty big deal for Ed. I imagine he'll be able to bill himself as "formerly of Live", but then again I am not a copyright lawyer. But the original article linked at the start of this thread states "United Action claims Kowalczyk has no right to mention the name "Live" to promote his concerts", which implies he won't even be able to bill himself as "formerly of Live" depending on the outcome of this lawsuit.

Gonna be interesting to see what happens, but if the Live songs are what draws in the general public to Ed's shows then this could be quite devastating to Ed's solo career.

[thefunkyredcaboose]

I think the dilution of the trademark is where that originated.

I haven't read the suit, but wouldn't dilution mean someone using the trademark without consent? A lawsuit like this isn't about quality.

Could be wrong, but that would be mighty stupid. I generally know more about copyright suits than trademark stuff though.

[World Dreamer]

Gonna be interesting to see what happens, but if the Live songs are what draws in the general public to Ed's shows then this could be quite devastating to Ed's solo career.

His solo work will be more devastating.

[themaestro]

You just highlighted why this is a pretty big deal for Ed. I imagine he'll be able to bill himself as "formerly of Live", but then again I am not a copyright lawyer. But the original article linked at the start of this thread states "United Action claims Kowalczyk has no right to mention the name "Live" to promote his concerts", which implies he won't even be able to bill himself as "formerly of Live" depending on the outcome of this lawsuit.

Gonna be interesting to see what happens, but if the Live songs are what draws in the general public to Ed's shows then this could be quite devastating to Ed's solo career.

[thefunkyredcaboose]

He will bill himself as "that bald guy who sang Lightning Crashes"