Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 2:03 pm
It's a new ball game Danny only the publishers can sue for tract content. This leaves the manus on the outside looking in as far as content of product. The other issue of trademark infringement is also gone unless the plaintiff can prove two points.
1. the trademark has been copied.
2 That confusion resulted from the trade mark being copied, and the person doing the copying sold the copied article as original SC or CB product.
What host copies the disc and then tries to sell it? Most just use it for their own business. This case involving SC v.s. Light Year Music aka The Kandy Store showed SC couldn't even win against CAVS product that had been preloaded. The jury found totally in favor of the defendant, not one dissenting juror.
1. the trademark has been copied.
2 That confusion resulted from the trade mark being copied, and the person doing the copying sold the copied article as original SC or CB product.
What host copies the disc and then tries to sell it? Most just use it for their own business. This case involving SC v.s. Light Year Music aka The Kandy Store showed SC couldn't even win against CAVS product that had been preloaded. The jury found totally in favor of the defendant, not one dissenting juror.