SparkNet Files Injunction Against Bonneville's MAX

R&R reports that SparkNet -- which licenses the "Jack" format and holds the trademark on the phrase "Playing what we want" -- is seeking an injunction against Bonneville and their use of the phrase "Whatever we want" on stations in San Francisco, St. Louis, Chicago and Phoenix.

SparkNet: Bonneville Can't Play What It Wants

I wonder who made the phone call that got this started...

D.J.

Looks like some money is gonna change hands........

> Looks like some money is gonna change hands........

Depends on whether or not the judge buys Bonneville's argument:

One of the Bonneville lawyers expressed to [SparkNet attorney Derek]Newman that there is a lot of trademark infringement in the radio industry and no one seems to do anything about it. There may be a “KISS” in one market and in another market with a different corporate owner, “KISS” will be used. Same with “Mix” and other slogans. (from LARadio.com)

Newman said that when they sued Fisher Communications over using the phrase "whatever we want" on one of their Seattle stations, Fisher stopped using the phrase. Doesn't look like the matter has ever gotten into a courtroom, so it depends on whether or not Bonneville blinks.
<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

I don't know what's crazier. A company that trademarks something so stupid or a company that wants to fight to use it. Perplexing.

> > Looks like some money is gonna change hands........
>
> Depends on whether or not the judge buys Bonneville's
> argument:
>
> One of the Bonneville lawyers expressed to [SparkNet
> attorney Derek]Newman that there is a lot of trademark
> infringement in the radio industry and no one seems to do
> anything about it. There may be a “KISS” in one market and
> in another market with a different corporate owner, “KISS”
> will be used. Same with “Mix” and other slogans. (from
> LARadio.com)
>
> Newman said that when they sued Fisher Communications over
> using the phrase "whatever we want" on one of their Seattle
> stations, Fisher stopped using the phrase. Doesn't look
> like the matter has ever gotten into a courtroom, so it
> depends on whether or not Bonneville blinks.
>

a company's image or likeness can be worth big bucks, and a smart company will defend their servicemark, copyright, trademark to protect it's overall image, and brand loyalty is big also, just look at mcdonalds's "I'm lovin' It!", not a very catchy slogan, but everybody remember's it. I believe YOUNG COUNTRY was also copyrighted back in the day of KYCY, I think there were a few YOUNG COUNTRY's around the market, maybe dallas???

I never knew that. Thanks

> a company's image or likeness can be worth big bucks, and a
> smart company will defend their servicemark, copyright,
> trademark to protect it's overall image, and brand loyalty
> is big also, just look at mcdonalds's "I'm lovin' It!", not
> a very catchy slogan, but everybody remember's it. I believe
> YOUNG COUNTRY was also copyrighted back in the day of KYCY,
> I think there were a few YOUNG COUNTRY's around the market,
> maybe dallas???
>

The whole situation kinda stinks. ...and if you DON'T trademark a slogan you're SOL. You'd be amazed how many station PD's and OM's drop the ball on updating their new positioning with Arbitron. It's a great way to spot a rookie PD...They come in, make all these changes and then when diary holders use the new slogan to ID who they're tuned into...the Station doesn't get the credit with Arbiton. When the rookie forgets to register, crosstown PD can go in and register new competitions positioning with Arbitron and get some credit for the listeners who recall said positioning.

In other words... don't drop the ball

sounds like when 2 deli meat producers sued each other over who could use the phrase "gobble-gobble" in the advertising for their turkey products.

> sounds like when 2 deli meat producers sued each other over
> who could use the phrase "gobble-gobble" in the advertising
> for their turkey products.

A very good comparison. If "whatever" is a trademarkable word, there are a lot of former Valley Girls who still use that phrase who will need to be sued next.
<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

I don't know, but he should get a medal.

>
> I wonder who made the phone call that got this started...
>
> D.J.
>

> I don't know, but he should get a medal.
>
> >
> > I wonder who made the phone call that got this started...

Any particular reason why you feel this way? Got a relative in the legal profession or some such?

Actually, it appears that Bonneville is being sued by SparkNet because of "potentially confusing slogans" that "infringe" on the Jack trademarks.

I recall some of those slogans appearing on All Access, so a phone call may not have been necessary ...
<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

KMR wrote:

> Any particular reason why you feel this way? Got a relative
> in the legal profession or some such?

Were you wearing your famous "moderator hat" when you decided to write that? ; )

> I recall some of those slogans appearing on All Access, so a
> phone call may not have been necessary ...

Right, because business people and attorneys don't usually make phone calls to discuss matters such as these. Would you consider that perhaps a person in management for, say, Infinity, in a market that was planning on implementing the "Jack" format, such as, perhaps, San Francisco, tuned over to MAX FM, listened to them for a while, and decided to make a phone call (or send an e-mail, or whatever) upstream in the company to see if they should pursue injunctive relief?

Or I guess they could have waited to read about it in All Access. That's possible, too.

I guess I should have made my comment less specific and wider ranging:

{revision}
I wonder who made the phone call, sent the e-mail or wrote the letter or other method of inter-personal communication, including but not limited to telepathic mind waves, between the parties involved herein that got this started...
{/revision}

Better?

D.J.

> KMR wrote:
>
> > Any particular reason why you feel this way? Got a
> relative
> > in the legal profession or some such?
>
> Were you wearing your famous "moderator hat" when you
> decided to write that? ; )

Nah, just being sarcastic.

> Right, because business people and attorneys don't usually
> make phone calls to discuss matters such as these. Would you
> consider that perhaps a person in management for, say,
> Infinity, in a market that was planning on implementing the
> "Jack" format, such as, perhaps, San Francisco, tuned over
> to MAX FM, listened to them for a while, and decided to make
> a phone call (or send an e-mail, or whatever) upstream in
> the company to see if they should pursue injunctive relief?

Well, I wouldn't rule out that someone may have told SparkNet where to look, but my point was that they are suing Bonneville for use of the word "whatever" in four markets, so it may not have even been S.F. that tipped them.

> {revision}
> I wonder who made the phone call, sent the e-mail or wrote
> the letter or other method of inter-personal communication,
> including but not limited to telepathic mind waves, between
> the parties involved herein that got this started...
> {/revision}
>
> Better?

Love it. (I suppose now I'm going to hear about "telepathic mind waves" as an explanation for any rumors or speculation, though ...)
<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

> KMR wrote:
>
> Love it. (I suppose now I'm going to hear about "telepathic
> mind waves" as an explanation for any rumors or speculation,
> though ...)


I knew you were going to say that!!!


D.J.

> I think the case against Bonneville is a weak one. As far as I know, nobody can copyright a format or a playlist. 95.7 is "Max," not "Jack" - and though the slogan is close,it's not exact - it's "Whatever We Feel Like," NOT "Whatever We Want." Can you copyright "whatever?" So just drop whatever, and switch to "ANYTHING we feel like." It sounds to me like SparkNet is just trying to see if Bonneville will blink first.