Author Topic: CCI vs. SLCC II  (Read 28346 times)

Offline Transmute Jun

  • Stan Lee's Hospitality Suite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Mar 2012
  • Posts: 23720
  • Karma: 5
  • Queen of the Bird Missiles
  • Liked: 9714
Re: CCI vs. SLCC II
« Reply #180 on: September 11, 2018, 06:56:36 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Could that be a contributing factor in SVCCs decision to move to August instead of the same weekend as Wondercon?

I doubt it. SVCC just wanted to avoid WonderCon dates because they were going to lose vendors and attendees.

Offline perc2100

  • Volunteer HQ
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2012
  • Posts: 4318
  • Karma: 0
  • Liked: 1770
Re: CCI vs. SLCC II
« Reply #181 on: September 18, 2018, 09:38:25 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Kinda interesting to say the least.  I mean, "con" is short for "convention", so what's the difference by calling it "comic con" vs. "comic convention".  But hey, great win for the CCI folks.
A legally binding exclusive Trademark.  The same as any other trademarked organization name that cannot be infringed upon w/out express permission.  SLCC obviously, admittedly illegally broke the trademark, rolling the dice hoping that judges would think  "Comic-Con" wasn't an enforceable trademark and lost (for the same reason I can't open a burger joint and sell a "Bigger Mac" or something w/out getting sued).  SLCC aggressively infringed upon CCI's trademark, CCI sued and won because they own the trademark for "Comic-Con." 
CCI NOT would've constituted an unenforced trademark and would thus open the doors for a plethora of cheap knockoffs and CCI wisely fought that battle to maintain control.

Friends of Comic Cons

  • Guest
Re: CCI vs. SLCC II
« Reply #182 on: Today at 04:09:47 PM »

Offline epicaz

  • Ballroom 20
  • ****
  • Join Date: Apr 2012
  • Posts: 742
  • Karma: 0
  • Liked: 264
Re: CCI vs. SLCC II
« Reply #182 on: September 18, 2018, 10:10:52 AM »
As much as I love CCI, I've seen such a negative response across the national con community in response to these trademark lawsuits. I don't think there's anyone outside of SDCC attendees that see it favorably, outside of legally in their right, and I understand why it would look elitist and attract jabs toward SDCC's Hollywood shift. Other cons renaming themselves to avoid trouble has only attracted attention to 'why', I know the fandom around Phoenix Comicon was pretty vocal about how they felt.

Offline perc2100

  • Volunteer HQ
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2012
  • Posts: 4318
  • Karma: 0
  • Liked: 1770
Re: CCI vs. SLCC II
« Reply #183 on: September 19, 2018, 08:57:15 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As much as I love CCI, I've seen such a negative response across the national con community in response to these trademark lawsuits. I don't think there's anyone outside of SDCC attendees that see it favorably, outside of legally in their right, and I understand why it would look elitist and attract jabs toward SDCC's Hollywood shift. Other cons renaming themselves to avoid trouble has only attracted attention to 'why', I know the fandom around Phoenix Comicon was pretty vocal about how they felt.
You're right, and SLCC people inflamed the situation before, during, and after their trial in such a way that it infuriated the sitting judge.  Most people will get over it quickly, since it's literally an issue that is meaningless to anyone outside of CCI and SLCC organizers.  I think the boom in major comic conventions (thanks to SDCCI's wild popularity in the early/mid-00's IMO) is a relatively new thing: like, the era is in its infancy.  This is just one trade mark holder protecting their trade mark from an organization that clearly infringed upon said legal trade mark: nothing more.  Blowing it up into anything else (as SLCC organizers tried to do, making things worse) is irrelevant and just static.  I get the confusion, but I think the vast majority of convention attendees have little/no idea about ANY of this court case lost by SLCC: folks who hang out on chat boards, social media, etc. are a very small vocal minority

Offline hikanteki

  • Fulfillment Room
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2012
  • Posts: 1812
  • Karma: 0
  • Liked: 602
Re: CCI vs. SLCC II
« Reply #184 on: September 23, 2018, 06:48:12 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Judge Issues "Comic-Con" Injunction

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

A 4 million judge-issued injunction for a verdict of $20,000.

If it wasn't clear before that this judge had his own agenda...it's definitely obvious now.
SDCC 07 12-14 16-19 22-24 | CCSE 21 | ECCC 12-19 21-23 | WC 10-11 16 19 22-24 | RCCC 15 21-22 24 | SVCC 16-19 21-22 | DCC 16 22 | SLCC 19 21 | SFFX 22-24 | ABQCC 23-24 | SWC 15

Offline Iris

  • Supporter
  • Hall H
  • *****
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Posts: 1330
  • Karma: 1
    • Website links to my discord for alternate contacting
  • Liked: 708
Re: CCI vs. SLCC II
« Reply #185 on: September 24, 2018, 11:58:45 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A 4 million judge-issued injunction for a verdict of $20,000.

If it wasn't clear before that this judge had his own agenda...it's definitely obvious now.

Actually, this is pretty common. When one party wins, the other usually has to pay attorneys' fees to the winning party. Because they caused the fees to rise etc. We do it all the time, in the complaint we'll list attorneys' fees if we win to be paid so our client isn't saddled with the debt. If it had a different outcome, CCI would be paying SLCC's fees, and I have no doubt they'd be huge too. With a case this large, I'm not surprised the fees are huge. CCI likely would've had to provide documentation of the attorneys' fees to calculate what was due, especially for fees that large. Even a really minor litigation case, between just a few people, will rack up tens of thousands of attorney's fees.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2018, 01:39:22 PM by Iris »
Author of the Hotel Exchange Deposit and Transfer Walkthrough. If you need help with figuring out the logistics of an OP deposit, transfer, etc., please feel free to DM me here or Discord and I'll do my best to help. If you DM me on Discord, please identify yourself and that you're from the forum.

Offline riotgirl77

  • Gaming Lounge
  • ****
  • Join Date: Oct 2014
  • Posts: 314
  • Karma: 0
  • Liked: 66
Re: CCI vs. SLCC II
« Reply #186 on: October 13, 2018, 09:08:13 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote

Popular Salt Lake comic convention fears it will be ‘destroyed' and Utah’s economy affected over court-ordered payment of $4 million in trademark battle


 By Taylor Stevens


The producers of a wildly popular comic convention in Salt Lake City say a $4 million court judgment in a trademark infringement battle will equate to a “death sentence” for the company — and they warn that Utah’s economy could be negatively affected by a bankruptcy.

Dan Farr Productions, the company behind the FanX Salt Lake Comic Convention, filed an emergency motion with the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday, asking for a temporary postponement on the payment pending appeal in court.

If the $4 million judgment is enforced, the company will be “destroyed,” the motion states, costing Utah’s economy “millions of dollars.” But the court “likely wouldn’t harm” the other party — San Diego Comic-Con, by granting a stay.

The California-based convention sued the event formerly known as Salt Lake Comic Con in 2014 about the use of “comic con” in the Utah company’s name. San Diego Comic-Con’s legal team argued that even without the hyphen, those words infringed on its own trademark and confused people into thinking the events were associated.

A federal jury sided with San Diego Comic-Con at the end of last year but found there had been no willful infringement and awarded FanX a slight break on attorney fees. The jury awarded $20,000 in damages to San Diego Comic-Con, which had originally sought $12 million, and $3.9 million in attorney fees and costs rather than the $5 million its lawyers had initially asked for.

Still, the Utah-based company said in its motion Wednesday that the “nearly $4 million award is wildly excessive.”

The producers of FanX are also protesting a judgment that FanX stop using the phrase “formerly known as Salt Lake Comic Con” in advertising and social media and delete any posts before the court ruling that refer to their event as “comic con.”

Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes filed a declaration in support of the company’s emergency motion on Wednesday, writing that the conventions have a “positive impact” on Utah’s economy.

“The Conventions continue to be an important part of the cultural and economic fabric of Utah and ending them would have a negative impact on the public of the state,” he wrote.

Salt Lake County Mayor Ben McAdams also weighed in, noting the large turnout at the most recent FanX event — approximately 110,000 attendees, with nearly 25 percent from out of state.

“This activity and the influx of visitors benefits our economy and raises tax revenue, including through the purchase of hotel rooms, restaurant meals, alcohol, gasoline, taxies and other types of transportation, and goods purchased from vendors at the Conventions,” he wrote.

The court has yet to issue a decision on the motion.

Offline perc2100

  • Volunteer HQ
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2012
  • Posts: 4318
  • Karma: 0
  • Liked: 1770
Re: CCI vs. SLCC II
« Reply #187 on: October 14, 2018, 02:01:25 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sucks to willfully break copyright and trademark laws as brazenly as SLCC did. 🤷‍♂️


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Offline Iris

  • Supporter
  • Hall H
  • *****
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Posts: 1330
  • Karma: 1
    • Website links to my discord for alternate contacting
  • Liked: 708
Re: CCI vs. SLCC II
« Reply #188 on: October 14, 2018, 03:26:42 PM »
For anyone interested, the Emergency Motion to hold the payment of Attorneys' fees and injunction on the name Comic Con until appeal has been posted somewhere on FanX's website:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I'm too tired to read through the whole thing, but I'll go ahead and go from the ToC, basically they're saying that:
- The court barred SLCC from using certain powerful defenses;
- The verdict of $20,000 awarded by the jury to CCI is likely to be reversed;
- The injunction is overbroad and likely to be reversed;
- Staying/delaying the payment of the $3.9 million won't negatively impact SDCC;
- Payment of the $3.9 mill will destroy SLCC, which won't benefit SDCC;
- Stay of payment serves public interest; and
- Dillon factors favor a stay of payment.*

*I had to look this up because I hadn't heard of this and was curious. The Dillon Factors ripped directly from their motion:
"(1) the complexity of the collection process; (2) … time
required to obtain a judgment after [affirmance];
(3) … availability of funds to pay the judgment; (4) whether
“… ability to pay … is so plain that the … bond would be a
waste of money”; and (5) whether the defendant is in such a
precarious financial situation that … bond[ing] would place
other creditors … in an insecure position."

Honestly, not sure about the fact they claim not paying $4 million to CCI based on the judgment won't hurt SDCC. I know that SDCC has a trust of quite a bit of money (worth about 2x cons worth of funds), but I find it hard to believe that $4 million wouldn't hurt them in a meaningful way.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2018, 03:29:36 PM by Iris »
Author of the Hotel Exchange Deposit and Transfer Walkthrough. If you need help with figuring out the logistics of an OP deposit, transfer, etc., please feel free to DM me here or Discord and I'll do my best to help. If you DM me on Discord, please identify yourself and that you're from the forum.

Online marcia29

  • Supporter
  • Pre-Registration
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2012
  • Posts: 2476
  • Karma: 0
  • Liked: 1292
Re: CCI vs. SLCC II
« Reply #189 on: October 15, 2018, 03:34:37 AM »
IMO, the entity formerly known as SLCC has got some nerve.  Just because that $4 million will 'hurt' them is no reason to not to have cough it up....that is the point.  It has to hurt.  That $4 million could be used for the Comic Con museum, scholarships or some other worthy related things.  Yes, I know this whole dance is part of the legal system, yet... I can 'hear' the judge saying this- to paraphrase something Capt Kirk once said -  "I grow annoyed at your foolishness".   >:(
« Last Edit: October 15, 2018, 07:50:33 AM by marcia29 »
It is 2024, and I am still asking...where's my flyin' car??!! @fannishmarcia

Offline Mel

  • Volunteer HQ
  • ******
  • Join Date: Feb 2014
  • Posts: 4599
  • Karma: 0
    • Flickr
  • Liked: 1923
Re: CCI vs. SLCC II
« Reply #190 on: October 15, 2018, 10:26:55 AM »
To quote my Great Aunt Ruby, Salt Lake  "let their mouths write a check that their ass can't catch"

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Formerly cracksback

My Flickr
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
-----------------------------
My Twitter
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Offline perc2100

  • Volunteer HQ
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2012
  • Posts: 4318
  • Karma: 0
  • Liked: 1770
Re: CCI vs. SLCC II
« Reply #191 on: October 15, 2018, 11:24:43 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
IMO, the entity formerly known as SLCC has got some nerve.  Just because that $4 million will 'hurt' them is no reason to not to have cough it up....that is the point.  It has to hurt.  That $4 million could be used for the Comic Con museum, scholarships or some other worthy related things.  Yes, I know this whole dance is part of the legal system, yet... I can 'hear' the judge saying this- to paraphrase something Capt Kirk once said -  "I grow annoyed at your foolishness".   >:(
Remember, this is all very typical legal action.  When an entity loses a $4 million lawsuit, of course they're going to appeal as much as possible, blame judges, blame anyone else other than their own culpability.

Offline riotgirl77

  • Gaming Lounge
  • ****
  • Join Date: Oct 2014
  • Posts: 314
  • Karma: 0
  • Liked: 66
Re: CCI vs. SLCC II
« Reply #192 on: October 17, 2018, 01:38:14 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Quote
FanX organizers get relief from 9th Circuit Court
 Posted 4:32 pm, October 16, 2018, by Ben Winslow, Updated at 07:35PM, October 16, 2018


A federal appeals court has halted a judge’s order that organizers of FanX must pay a $4 million judgment and cease using the words “comic con.”

In a decision handed down on Tuesday afternoon, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to block enforcement against Dan Farr Productions while an appeal went forward. A spokeswoman for the event said it was an 18-month extension, allowing them to hold several more events in the meantime.

Dan Farr Productions, which staged the event formerly known as Salt Lake Comic Con, was sued by organizers of San Diego Comic-Con in a trademark dispute over who can use the words “comic con.” A jury sided with San Diego and Salt Lake Comic Con has since renamed itself as “FanX.”

In court papers seeking relief, Dan Farr Productions argued that if it were forced to pay the multi-million dollar judgment, it feared bankruptcy and a negative impact to Utah’s economy. FanX is one of the state’s largest conventions, drawing in more than 100,000 people for the event.

San Diego Comic-Con also said in a separate court filing it did not object to a brief halt while the case proceeded.

Online marcia29

  • Supporter
  • Pre-Registration
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2012
  • Posts: 2476
  • Karma: 0
  • Liked: 1292
Re: CCI vs. SLCC II
« Reply #193 on: October 17, 2018, 04:49:19 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

...and the beat goes on.... ::)
It is 2024, and I am still asking...where's my flyin' car??!! @fannishmarcia

Offline perc2100

  • Volunteer HQ
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2012
  • Posts: 4318
  • Karma: 0
  • Liked: 1770
Re: CCI vs. SLCC II
« Reply #194 on: October 17, 2018, 08:53:15 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
...and the beat goes on.... ::)
Court system: this isn't out of the ordinary, I don't think