Ed sued for trademark infringement Options

[OutToDry]

My point is that if they use the same login, either could add "EK" to the post. Would be in horrible bad taste if someone made those posts posing as Ed. Similar bad taste that they were even made at all. Hope we dont see anything else like that, from either side.

Agree with you, we wont on the other side I can assure you.

[OutToDry]

so this thing is like everywhere now, most internet press and radio too

[Bremang]

here is the filed suit in NYS Supreme Court (same as old one)

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/medi...84736288%29.PDF

York Daily Record Article Here

http://www.flipsidepa.com/entertainment/ci...urce=rss_viewed

This has the entire dispute layed out since all the dealings from 2005 to today.


Fizzy Lifting Drinks not included!

Thanks! Where was the complaint acquired?

Sorry for the comments earlier.

For the record, this complaint is not filed in NYS Supreme Court, it is filed in the southern district of NY - a federal court......i don't remember civ pro very well, but I think it might have to do with how CCP are mostly applying federal law in their claims (U.S.C)

Looking forward to reading

[possum]

I'd like to know the opinions of anyone that is or was on the fence about supporting Ed. Have these recent events changed anything? I believe Dancing Queen and others fall into this category. Thoughts?

I've always sided with CCP, so the recent suit and petty comments really have no affect on my mind set. He'll never get another penny from me for his music or shows.

[OutToDry]

Thanks! Where was the complaint acquired?

Sorry for the comments earlier.

For the record, this complaint is not filed in NYS Supreme Court, it is filed in the southern district of NY - a federal court......i don't remember civ pro very well, but I think it might have to do with how CCP are mostly applying federal law in their claims (U.S.C)

Looking forward to reading

youre right it wasnt the supreme, my bad. I took it from the linked url within the flipside article

[briburge]

I'd like to know the opinions of anyone that is or was on the fence about supporting Ed. Have these recent events changed anything? I believe Dancing Queen and others fall into this category. Thoughts?

I've always sided with CCP, so the recent suit and petty comments really have no affect on my mind set. He'll never get another penny from me for his music or shows.

Just more depressing shit. I just feel sad about the whole thing. I remember the hack 80's bands that went through this shit when the money and fame dried up (Ratt, Warrent, etc) sad to see live go through the same years later.

[OutToDry]

It's not about the money, its the principal of the matter. This new thing it to get an injunction to stop the use of Ed's LIVE marks. You can disagree, so we can agree to disagree.

if your overly sad, get yourself some prozac then.

This post has been edited by OutToDry: Jul 20 2012, 12:05 pm

[briburge]

It's not about the money, its the principal of the matter. This new thing it to get an injunction to stop the use of Ed's LIVE marks. You can disagree, so we can agree to disagree.

if your overly sad, get yourself some prozac then.

Your right little boy. This has nothing to do with money. Put your Ccp Pom poms away and relax for a while. Ur so angry I feel bad for you

[Opinechik]

I'd like to know the opinions of anyone that is or was on the fence about supporting Ed. Have these recent events changed anything? I believe Dancing Queen and others fall into this category. Thoughts?

I've always sided with CCP, so the recent suit and petty comments really have no affect on my mind set. He'll never get another penny from me for his music or shows.

I've tried to keep an open mind about the whole situation since coming here. I felt as though I didn't really know the players or the situation well enough to judge. I'd even say giving Ed the benefit of the doubt, to a certain extent.

However, I think it's completely wrong (multiple reasons) the way he has been billing himself.
Add in the comments and it's all starting to leave a very sour taste in my mouth and pointing to 2+2 do in fact equal 4.

The thing that bugs me most about the comments, is the fact that he deleted them .(I believe it was Ed, not Nick, saying it and getting rid of it)
He should have just left them there, and taken people's reaction to them in stride (or even try to apologize) instead of surreptitiously deleting them because he starts to get backlash. Fucking own it if you're going to say it to begin with.

[Pokey]

Deleting them does reek of "shit I don't want anyone else reading these and being swayed against me, cover it up!!" Act of a guilty man perhaps.

[Opinechik]

Yep, sure does, imo.

[FishOutaWater]

It's not about the money, its the principal of the matter. This new thing it to get an injunction to stop the use of Ed's LIVE marks. You can disagree, so we can agree to disagree.

if your overly sad, get yourself some prozac then.

Here is what I would like to think it is about, more than the money and Ed's past profits off of the Live name. I would like to think it is mostly about Live's future. Live continues to exist, without Ed and with Chris Shinn as the lead singer. They have built a brand, and as intellectual property, Live is a "thing". What Ed is doing creates confusion and devalues Live and impairs Live's ability to succeed in the future because of the dilution and diminution of the value of the trademark. The purpose of the trademark is to preserve the identity of what Live is to the music-consuming public. Ed's past use fo the trademark and potential continuing future use harms the trademark because people won't know what the heck Live is anymore. If they buy a ticket to see Live, they won't know if they are getting Ed at the microphone and if they by a ticket to an Ed show, they won't know if they are getting Live or that horrible novelty act that he puts up there and then praises on Facebook. And when Ed performs with that horrible act and people think they are seeing Live, it devalues the quality fo the Live brand (because that band sucks compared to CCP). When the new Live record comes out, people wouldn't know who the frick is in and who is out or what they are getting.

I don't think it is mainly about money or even principle. I think it is about protecting the future of Live and what CCP + C are going to do with it next. And to me - that is a virtuous goal. Ed is trying to hijack use of the name Live and the ability to materialize off of it for himself. As a Live fan who is excited about the furture of Live and hopes that Live sees future success, I support the idea of enjoining Ed from doing what he is doing, because he is harming that goal. CCP don't want Ed messing with something that they own - and really something that belongs to the fans on a whole different level.


P.S. - To address Nick's point about how Ed was sort of in Live for the last several years and only out recently - and Live hasn't really played a paid-ticket show with Shinn yet - the complaint clearly states that CCP removed Ed from the band Live around the end of 2009. This is an interesting structure that Live put together. The publishing is in Black Coffee, owned 25% each. The intellectual property and the "band" if you will, was owned by the four of them 25% each with Chad Taylor as the President from the beginning. The four of them, as members of the band, worked for and performed services for, United Action as members of the band. The complaint states that Ed was out as a member of the band around the end of 2009.

[zmanpga]

CCP reached out to Ed numerous times as we all know, ED said no again and again, the last straw was the last straw

[+AllOverMe+]

From another disgruntled cg fan on Ed's page:

"I have two words for ya: Chad Gracey"

Thanks Roland!

Haha..genius from that Roland guy!

It's a Dutchie i can tell ya!

[Pokey]

ok I may have broken my own rule regarding facebook just to have a little fun haha