1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PANAMA CITY DIVISION 

SLEP-TONE ENTERTAINMENT 

CORPORATION, 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 v. 

 

FAYE JOHNSON; PARADISE MOON 

ENTERTAINMENT INC; HI-NOTE 

ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; CHARLES A. 

MCCONNIEL; ROBERT GERHART; 

TOUCAN ENTERTAINMENT; ANDREW 

COUCHE; PATRICE COUCHE; OUTLAW 

KARAOKE; DAVID NOTHSTINE; 

ELIZABETH NOTHSTINE; MOBILE 

MUSIC EXPRESS LLC; STEVE JARVIS; D 

& D’S PUB, INC.; DANIEL BRANCH; 

MAROG ENTERTAINMENT; ROGER 

DREWIS; MARGARET DREWIS; CHRIS 

CONRAD; BRENDA BREININGER; 

MICHAEL ANGELO MINCIELI; MARK 

FLEMING; SEAN COREY 

ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; ISLAND 

ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; DEANA 

JENNINGS; MICHELE BROWNING; 

JAMES ALLEN; REUBEN JENKINS; 

NICHOLAS SILEO; SPOTLIGHT 

ENTERTAINMENT; DENISE USSERY; 

FRANK USSERY; SUSAN BADGLEY; 

MONA LISA ITALIAN RESTAURANT, 

PIZZA AND LOUNGE; GIUSEPPE 

PIRRONE; ROSALIA PIRRONE; JIM & 

SUSIE’S KARAOKE; JAMES ST. ONGE; 

and SUSAN ST. ONGE,

 Defendants. 

Civil Action No. 5:11cv32 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 1 of 43
2 

COMPLAINT

 The Plaintiff, Slep-Tone Entertainment Corporation (“Slep-Tone”), by its 

undersigned counsel, complains of the Defendants and for its complaint alleges as 

follows: 

INTRODUCTION

 Slep-Tone is the manufacturer and distributor of karaoke accompaniment 

tracks sold under the name “Sound Choice.” Slep-Tone was founded 25 years ago 

by Kurt and Derek Slep, two brothers with a vision to nurture the development of 

karaoke in America as a participatory entertainment phenomenon. During that 

time, Sound Choice came to be recognized as one of the leading producers of highquality karaoke accompaniment tracks. The company invested over $18 million to 

re-record and replicate the authentic sound of popular music across different eras 

and genres of music. 

 The Sleps’ dedication to producing music of the highest quality and the most 

authentic character led its music to become the staple of almost every karaoke 

show in the country. As karaoke grew in popularity, Sound Choice became the 

brand that nearly every karaoke fan wanted to sing and that nearly every karaoke 

jockey (“KJ”) wanted in his or her library. 

KJs play karaoke songs using compact discs containing files written in one 

of two special encoded formats, either “CD+G” (“compact disc plus graphics”) or 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 2 of 43
3 

“MP3G” (“MP31 plus graphics”), in which the disc contains the music and the 

lyrics, which will display on a screen. In recent years, computer technology, cheap 

file memory devices, and the internet have made it possible for karaoke discs to be 

decoded and “ripped” (copied) to a user’s hard drive and easily copied and 

distributed between KJs. This technology has proven irresistible to KJs, many of 

whom have used this opportunity to copy one purchased disc to several different 

computer based systems, copy a singer’s personal discs if they use them during a 

show, “swap” song files among each other, download them from illegal filesharing sites and build libraries of tens of thousands of karaoke songs without 

paying for them. Whereas in the past a KJ would buy multiple copies of an 

original disc if he or she desired to operate multiple systems, now they simply 

“clone” their songs for multiple commercial systems or even their entire karaoke 

song libraries to start a new operation. Additionally, many KJs or operators 

starting in the business simply buy computer drives pre-loaded with thousands of 

illegally copied songs. 

These practices have become so widespread that Slep-Tone and its sister 

company, Sound Choice Studios, Inc., have been driven nearly out of business. At 

its peak, the Sound Choice family of companies employed 75 individuals and 

 

1

 MP3 is an acronym standing for “Moving Picture Experts Group Audio Layer 3.” MP3G is a far newer format than 

CD+G and is significantly more portable than CD+G. The Plaintiff has only recently begun distributing its karaoke 

tracks in this format, and only under tight contractual controls that require user registration and audits, confine 

possession to professional karaoke operators, include serialization of licensed discs, and prohibit file sharing under 

pain of forfeiture of license rights. 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 3 of 43
4 

produced as many as 5 new karaoke discs per month. Today, the enterprise 

employs fewer than 10 individuals. Sound Choice Studios, which is responsible 

for production of new material, has virtually ceased making new discs, because the 

companies have lost money on every recent new karaoke disc. The most recent 

new disc did not produce enough revenue even to cover the production and 

licensing costs associated with it—yet the songs from that disc can be found on as 

many as 30,000 karaoke systems around the United States. 

For KJs, karaoke is a commercial enterprise. KJs who legitimately acquired 

all of their music at great cost are being forced by illicit competition to produce 

shows for lower and lower fees. Illegitimate competitors offer libraries of tens of 

thousands of songs, which would have cost $50,000 to $100,000 or more to 

acquire legitimately, but produce shows for one-third the rates a legitimate KJ can 

offer. The result is significant financial pressure on once-legitimate KJs to skirt or 

ignore the law and become pirates, simply to stay in business. 

Slep-Tone has been forced to undertake this litigation in order to ensure that 

it survives and continues to produce the high-quality karaoke music its fans 

demand and to level the playing field for the legitimate KJs. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is an action for trademark infringement and unfair competition arising 

under §§ 32 and 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 4 of 43
5 

1125. This Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of this 

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, in that this is a civil action arising 

under the laws of the United States. 

2. This Court further has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1338(a), in that 

this civil action arises under an Act of Congress relating to trademarks, and, 

as to the Plaintiff’s Lanham Act unfair competition claim, pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1338(b), in that the claim is joined with a substantial and related 

claim under the trademark laws of the United States. 

3. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the subject matter of the 

Plaintiff’s state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), in that those 

claims are so related to the Plaintiff’s federal claims that they form part of 

the same case or controversy. 

4. Alternatively, this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the 

Plaintiff’s state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), in that this is an 

action between citizens of different States, and the matter in controversy 

exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 

5. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), 

because all of the defendants reside in this State, and at least one of the 

defendants resides in this judicial district. 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 5 of 43
6 

THE PLAINTIFF

6. Plaintiff SLEP-TONE is a North Carolina corporation having its principal 

place of business at 14100 South Lakes Drive, Charlotte, North Carolina. 

THE DEFENDANTS

7. Defendant FAYE JOHNSON is an individual who does business as “Music 

By Faye” and who has her principal business address in Bradenton, Florida. 

Defendant FAYE JOHNSON is engaged in the business of providing 

karaoke entertainment, and she conducts her business activities at multiple 

venues in this State. 

8. Defendant PARADISE MOON ENTERTAINMENT INC is a Florida 

corporation with its principal business address in Bradenton, Florida. 

Defendant PARADISE MOON ENTERTAINMENT INC is in the business 

of providing karaoke entertainment and conducts its business activities at 

multiple venues in this State. 

9. Defendant HI-NOTE ENTERTAINMENT, INC. is a Florida corporation 

who does business as “Hi-Note Karaoke, Inc.” with its principal business 

address in Port Saint Lucie, Florida. Defendant HI-NOTE 

ENTERTAINMENT, INC. is in the business of providing karaoke 

entertainment and conducts its business activities at multiple venues in this 

State. 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 6 of 43
7 

10. Upon information and belief, HI-NOTE ENTERTAINMENT, INC. was 

administratively dissolved on September 25, 2009, but continues to operate 

under that name. 

11. Upon information and belief, Oliver Merwin, Heather Merwin, and Will 

Leffew are the co-owners of HI-NOTE ENTERTAINMENT, INC. 

12. Defendant CHARLES A. MCCONNIEL is an individual who does business 

as “Night Al Productions” and who has his principal business address in 

Panama City Beach, Florida. Defendant CHARLES A. MCCONNIEL is 

engaged in the business of providing karaoke entertainment, and he conducts 

his business activities at multiple venues in this State. 

13. Defendant ROBERT GERHART is an individual who does business as 

“Available Sound” and who has his principal business address in Sarasota, 

Florida. Defendant ROBERT GERHART is engaged in the business of 

providing karaoke entertainment, and he conducts his business activities at 

multiple venues in this State. 

14. Defendant TOUCAN ENTERTAINMENT is an unincorporated association 

and, upon information and belief, a general partnership whose general 

partners include at least Defendant ANDREW COUCHE and Defendant 

PATRICE COUCHE. 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 7 of 43
8 

15. Defendants ANDREW COUCHE and PATRICE COUCHE are individuals 

who together operate Defendant TOUCAN ENTERTAINMENT, and who 

have their principal business address in Bradenton, Florida. Defendant 

TOUCAN ENTERTAINMENT and its general partners are engaged in the 

business of providing karaoke entertainment, and they conduct their business 

activities at multiple venues in this State. 

16. Defendant OUTLAW KARAOKE is an unincorporated association and, 

upon information and belief, a general partnership whose general partners 

include at least Defendant DAVID NOTHSTINE and Defendant 

ELIZABETH NOTHSTINE. 

17. Defendants DAVID NOTHSTINE and ELIZABETH NOTHSTINE are 

individuals who together operate Defendant OUTLAW KARAOKE, and 

who have their principal business address in or around Vero Beach, Florida. 

Defendant OUTLAW KARAOKE and its general partners are engaged in 

the business of providing karaoke entertainment, and they conduct their 

business activities at multiple venues in this State. 

18. Defendant MOBILE MUSIC EXPRESS LLC is a Florida limited liability 

company having its principal place of business in Sarasota, Florida. 

Defendant MOBILE MUSIC EXPRESS LLC is in the business of providing 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 8 of 43
9 

karaoke entertainment and it conducts its business activities at multiple 

venues in this State. 

19. Defendant STEVE JARVIS is an individual who does business as “Digital 

Productions” and as “The Karaoke Experts” and who has his principal 

business address in or near Pensacola, Florida. Defendant STEVE JARVIS 

is engaged in the business of providing karaoke entertainment, and he 

conducts his business activities at multiple venues in this State. 

20. Defendant D & D’S PUB, INC. is a Florida corporation with its principal 

business address in Palmetto, Florida. Defendant D & D’S PUB, INC. 

operates an eating and drinking establishment known as D & D’s Pub, at 

which karaoke entertainment is provided. 

21. Upon information and belief, Defendant D & D’S PUB, INC. was 

administratively dissolved on September 26, 2008 but the eating and 

drinking establishment known as “D & D’s Pub” continues in operation. 

22. Upon information and belief, Diane Brinker is the sole owner of D & D’S 

PUB, INC. 

23. Defendant DANIEL BRANCH is an individual who does business as “Be A 

Star Entertainment” and who has his principal business address in or near 

Palmetto, Florida. Defendant DANIEL BRANCH is engaged in the 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 9 of 43
10 

business of providing karaoke entertainment, and he conducts his business 

activities at multiple venues in this State. 

24. Defendant MAROG ENTERTAINMENT is an unincorporated association 

and, upon information and belief, a general partnership whose general 

partners include at least Defendant ROGER DREWIS and Defendant 

MARGARET DREWIS. 

25. Defendants ROGER DREWIS and MARGARET DREWIS are individuals 

who together operate Defendant MAROG ENTERTAINMENT, and who 

have their principal business address in or near Sarasota, Florida. Defendant 

MAROG ENTERTAINMENT and its general partners are engaged in the 

business of providing karaoke entertainment, and they conduct their business 

activities at multiple venues in this State. 

26. Defendant CHRIS CONRAD is an individual who does business as 

“Conrad’s Karaoke” and who has his principal business address in or near 

Cape Coral, Florida. Defendant CHRIS CONRAD is engaged in the 

business of providing karaoke entertainment. 

27. Defendant BRENDA BREININGER is an individual who does business as 

“Brenda’s Karaoke” and who has her principal business address in or near 

Fort Myers, Florida. Defendant BRENDA BREININGER is engaged in the 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 10 of 43
11 

business of providing karaoke entertainment, and she conducts her business 

activities at multiple venues in this State. 

28. Defendant MICHAEL ANGELO MINCIELI is an individual who does 

business as “Happy Time Entertainment” and who has his principal business 

address in or near Naples, Florida. Defendant MICHAEL ANGELO 

MINCIELI is engaged in the business of providing karaoke entertainment, 

and he conducts his business activities at multiple venues in this State. 

29. Defendant MARK FLEMING is an individual who does business as “Three 

M Karaoke” and who has his principal business address in or near Cape 

Coral, Florida. Defendant MARK FLEMING is engaged in the business of 

providing karaoke entertainment, and he conducts his business activities at 

multiple venues in this State. 

30. Defendant SEAN COREY ENTERTAINMENT, LLC is a Florida limited 

liability company having its principal place of business in Fort Myers, 

Florida. Defendant SEAN COREY ENTERTAINMENT, LLC is in the 

business of providing karaoke entertainment and conducts its business 

activities at multiple venues in this State. 

31. Defendant ISLAND ENTERTAINMENT, LLC is a Florida limited liability 

company having its principal place of business in Bonita Springs, Florida. 

Defendant ISLAND ENTERTAINMENT, LLC is in the business of 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 11 of 43
12 

providing karaoke entertainment and conducts its business activities at 

multiple venues in this State. 

32. Defendant DEANA JENNINGS is an individual who does business as 

“Karaoke Chicks” and who has her principal business address in or near 

Naples, Florida. Defendant DEANA JENNINGS is engaged in the business 

of providing karaoke entertainment, and she conducts her business activities 

at multiple venues in this State. 

33. Defendant MICHELE BROWNING is an individual who does business as 

“Amazing Noise Productions” and who has her principal business address in 

or near Fort Myers, Florida. Defendant MICHELE BROWNING is engaged 

in the business of providing karaoke entertainment, and she conducts her 

business activities at multiple venues in this State. 

34. Defendant JAMES ALLEN is an individual who does business as “DJ Indy 

Mike” and as “James M Allen Entertainment” and who has his principal 

business address in or near Fort Myers, Florida. Defendant JAMES ALLEN 

is engaged in the business of providing karaoke entertainment, and he 

conducts his business activities at multiple venues in this State. 

35. Defendant REUBEN JENKINS is an individual who does business as 

“Rockin Reuben” and who has his principal business address in or near Fort 

Myers, Florida. Defendant REUBEN JENKINS is engaged in the business 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 12 of 43
13 

of providing karaoke entertainment, and he conducts his business activities 

at multiple venues in this State. 

36. Defendant NICHOLAS SILEO is an individual who does business as 

“Musicman Disc Jockey” and as “DJ Nick” and who has his principal 

business address in or near Cape Coral or Lehigh Acres, Florida. Defendant 

NICHOLAS SILEO is engaged in the business of providing karaoke 

entertainment, and he conducts his business activities at multiple venues in 

this State. 

37. Defendant SPOTLIGHT ENTERTAINMENT is an unincorporated 

association and, upon information and belief, a general partnership whose 

general partners include at least Defendant DENISE USSERY and 

Defendant FRANK USSERY. 

38. Defendants DENISE USSERY and FRANK USSERY are individuals who 

together operate Defendant SPOTLIGHT ENTERTAINMENT, and who 

have their principal business address in or around Bonita Springs, Florida. 

Defendant SPOTLIGHT ENTERTAINMENT and its general partners are 

engaged in the business of providing karaoke entertainment, and they 

conduct their business activities at multiple venues in this State. 

39. Defendant SUSAN BADGLEY is an individual who does business as 

“Badge Music & Productions” and who has her principal business address in 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 13 of 43
14 

or near Fort Myers or Cape Coral, Florida. Defendant SUSAN BADGLEY 

is engaged in the business of providing karaoke entertainment, and she 

conducts her business activities at multiple venues in this State. 

40. Defendant MONA LISA ITALIAN RESTAURANT, PIZZA AND 

LOUNGE (“MONA LISA”) is an unincorporated association and, upon 

information and belief, a general partnership whose general partners include 

at least Defendant GIUSEPPE PIRRONE and Defendant ROSALIA 

PIRRONE. 

41. Defendants GIUSEPPE PIRRONE and ROSALIA PIRRONE are 

individuals who together operate Defendant MONA LISA, and who have 

their principal business address in or near Fort Myers, Florida. Defendant 

MONA LISA and its general partners operate an eating and drinking 

establishment at which karaoke entertainment is provided. 

42. Defendant JIM & SUSIE’S KARAOKE is an unincorporated association 

and, upon information and belief, a general partnership whose general 

partners include at least Defendant JAMES ST. ONGE and Defendant 

SUSAN ST. ONGE. 

43. Defendants JAMES ST. ONGE and SUSAN ST. ONGE are individuals who 

together operate Defendant JIM & SUSIE’S KARAOKE, and who have 

their principal business address in or near Cape Coral, Florida. Defendant 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 14 of 43
15 

JIM & SUSIE’S KARAOKE and its general partners are engaged in the 

business of providing karaoke entertainment, and they conduct their business 

activities at multiple venues in this State. 

BACKGROUND FACTS

44. The term “karaoke” means “empty orchestra” in Japanese. Karaoke 

entertainment has grown into a multi-million dollar business in the United 

States. 

45. Karaoke compact disc plus graphics or MP3 plus graphics recordings 

contain re-created arrangements of popular songs for use as “accompaniment 

tracks.” 

46. Typically, the lead vocal tracks in an accompaniment track are omitted so 

that a karaoke participant can sing along, as though he or she were the lead 

singer. In other situations, the lead vocal track by a sound-alike artist might 

be included, and some formats allow the lead vocal to be selectively muted 

upon playback so that the accompaniment track may be listened to either 

with or without the lead vocals. 

47. The “graphics” portion of a karaoke recording refers to the encoding of the 

recording with data to provide a contemporaneous video display of the lyrics 

to the song, in order to aid the performer. 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 15 of 43
16 

48. This graphics data is also utilized to mark the accompaniment tracks with 

the Sound Choice trademarks and to cause the Sound Choice trademarks to 

be displayed upon playback. 

49. Entertainers who provide karaoke services in bars, restaurants, and other 

venues are known as karaoke jockeys (“KJs”), karaoke hosts, or karaoke 

operators. The services provided by KJs typically include providing the 

karaoke music and equipment for playback, entertaining the assembled 

crowd for warm-up purposes, and organizing the karaoke show by 

controlling access to the stage, setting the order of performance, and 

operating the karaoke equipment. 

50. Typically, a KJ will maintain a catalog of songs available for performance in 

order to aid participants in selecting a song to sing. 

51. Legitimate KJs purchase equipment and purchase or license compact discs 

containing accompaniment tracks and charge for the above-mentioned 

karaoke services. 

52. Many KJs, such as some of the present Defendants, obtain, copy, share, 

distribute and/or sell media-shifted copies of the accompaniment tracks via 

pre-loaded hard drives, USB drives, CD-R’s, or the Internet. 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 16 of 43
17 

53. Neither SLEP-TONE nor any of its associated companies has ever 

authorized the digitization of its songs for commercial use in producing 

karaoke shows. 

54. SLEP-TONE tolerates, but does not authorize, the shifting of its 

accompaniment tracks from the original medium to another medium, such as 

a computer hard drive, provided that the KJ strictly follows SLEP-TONE’s 

media-shifting policy by maintaining “one-to-one correspondence.” 

55. “One-to-one correspondence” requires (1) that each track stored on an 

alternative medium have originated from an original Sound Choice compact 

disc; (2) that the tracks from the original Sound Choice compact disc be 

shifted to one, and only one, alternative medium at a time; (3) that the KJ 

maintain ownership and possession of the original Sound Choice compact 

disc while its content is shifted to the alternative medium; and (4) that the 

original Sound Choice compact disc not be used for any commercial purpose 

while its content is shifted to the alternative medium. 

56. The copying, sharing, distribution, and selling of media-shifted tracks is not 

accompanied by the payment of any royalty to SLEP-TONE, nor authorized 

by any license agreement. 

57. SLEP-TONE and its affiliated companies pay statutory and negotiated 

royalties to the owners of copyright in the underlying musical works for 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 17 of 43
18 

their activities in legitimately creating, copying, distributing, and selling 

compact discs containing karaoke accompaniment tracks. 

58. Those persons, including the Defendants, who illegitimately obtain, copy, 

share, distribute, and/or sell media-shifted copies of the Plaintiff’s 

accompaniment tracks do not pay royalties to the owners of copyright in the 

underlying musical works. 

59. SLEP-TONE and its affiliated companies have spent millions of dollars 

building and maintaining studios, hiring artists, building a distribution 

facility, paying royalties to copyright owners, building a company that is 

capable of reliably producing high-quality karaoke versions of current and 

historical musical hits, and building a brand that is one of the pre-eminent 

brands in the industry. 

60. The widespread creation of counterfeit copies of SLEP-TONE’s karaoke 

discs has denied SLEP-TONE the benefit of its investments. 

61. These counterfeits include SLEP-TONE’s registered trademarks, such that to 

the consumers of the illegitimate KJs’ services, the counterfeits are virtually 

indistinguishable from genuine Sound Choice materials. 

62. For each of the several recent releases of new karaoke music by SLEPTONE, dozens of illegitimate copies of the contents of the disc have been 

created, on average, for each legitimate copy sold. SLEP-TONE, its 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 18 of 43
19 

affiliated companies, and its licensors have lost a considerable amount of 

money due to this widespread piracy. 

63. Such widespread illegal copying of music has been made possible by 

improving and ever cheaper computer technology and memory devices and 

the easy distribution of digital content over the internet. 

64. Widespread pirating of songs has contributed to the loss of more than sixty 

jobs at the Plaintiff’s location in Charlotte, North Carolina, as well as several 

consecutive years of operating losses, as revenues do not cover fixed costs. 

65. Legitimate KJs spend thousands of dollars acquiring SLEP-TONE’s 

accompaniment tracks, an irreducible overhead cost that must be recovered 

over a significant number of engagements. 

66. Illegitimate KJs, who acquire the songs in their libraries illegally, have an 

unfair advantage over legitimate KJs, because the illegitimate KJs are able to 

provide karaoke services with a considerably lower overhead cost and 

significantly more songs through the pirating of SLEP-TONE’s tracks. 

67. Piracy therefore unfairly increases the profits of illegitimate KJs and unfairly 

decreases the profits of legitimate KJs, a condition that pressures legitimate 

KJs to either commit piracy instead of doing business with SLEP-TONE and 

other karaoke music producers or lose their shows to KJs offering more 

songs at cheaper prices to the same venues. 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 19 of 43
20 

68. Because of piracy, it is nearly impossible for legitimate KJs to compete 

against illegal KJs, who are able to provide less expensive karaoke services 

and a greater number of tracks due to their lower overhead costs. 

THE RIGHTS OF THE PLAINTIFF

69. Plaintiff SLEP-TONE is the owner of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 

1,923,448 for the trademark SOUND CHOICE. 

70. Plaintiff SLEP-TONE is also the owner of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 

2,000,725, for a display trademark as follows: 

71. Plaintiff SLEP-TONE has, for the entire time its marks (“the Sound Choice 

Marks”) have been federally registered, provided the public, including the 

Defendants, with notice of its federal registrations through the consistent 

display of the symbol ® with its marks as used. 

ACTIVITIES OF DEFENDANTS

72. SLEP-TONE’s investigators observed each of the Defendants possessing, 

using, or authorizing or benefiting from the use and display of unauthorized 

counterfeit goods bearing the Sound Choice Marks, or providing, 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 20 of 43
21 

advertising, or authorizing or benefiting from the provision of services in 

connection with the Sound Choice Marks. 

73. Defendant FAYE JOHNSON was observed operating a karaoke system to 

produce a karaoke show at a venue in this State in which counterfeit goods 

bearing the Sound Choice Marks were being used. 

74. In connection with that show, Defendant FAYE JOHNSON repeatedly 

displayed the Sound Choice Marks without right or license. 

75. Upon information and belief, Defendant FAYE JOHNSON performs regular 

karaoke shows in at least two venues in this State using her karaoke system. 

76. Defendant FAYE JOHNSON has advertised or otherwise indicated that she 

is in possession of a library containing more than 50,000 tracks stored on her 

karaoke system. 

77. Defendant PARADISE MOON ENTERTAINMENT INC was observed 

operating a karaoke system to produce a karaoke show at a venue in this 

State in which counterfeit goods bearing the Sound Choice Marks were 

being used. 

78. In connection with that show, Defendant PARADISE MOON 

ENTERTAINMENT INC repeatedly displayed the Sound Choice Marks 

without right or license. 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 21 of 43
22 

79. Upon information and belief, Defendant PARADISE MOON 

ENTERTAINMENT INC performs regular karaoke shows in at least six 

venues in this State using its karaoke system. 

80. Defendant PARADISE MOON ENTERTAINMENT INC has advertised or 

otherwise indicated that it is in possession of a library containing more than 

40,000 karaoke accompaniment tracks. 

81. Upon information and belief, Defendant PARADISE MOON 

ENTERTAINMENT INC operates at least three separate karaoke systems to 

produce karaoke shows at venues in this State. 

82. Upon information and belief, each of Defendant PARADISE MOON 

ENTERTAINMENT INC’s karaoke systems includes a library containing 

more than 40,000 accompaniment tracks. 

83. Defendant HI-NOTE ENTERTAINMENT, INC. was observed operating a 

karaoke system to produce a karaoke show at a venue in this State in which 

counterfeit goods bearing the Sound Choice Marks were being used. 

84. In connection with that show, Defendant HI-NOTE ENTERTAINMENT, 

INC. repeatedly displayed the Sound Choice Marks without right or license. 

85. Upon information and belief, Defendant HI-NOTE ENTERTAINMENT, 

INC. performs regular karaoke shows in at least three venues in this State 

using its karaoke system. 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 22 of 43
23 

86. Defendant HI-NOTE ENTERTAINMENT, INC. has advertised or otherwise 

indicated that it is in possession of a library containing more than 33,000 

tracks stored on its karaoke system. 

87. Defendant CHARLES A. MCCONNIEL was observed operating a karaoke 

system to produce a karaoke show at a venue in this State in which 

counterfeit goods bearing the Sound Choice Marks were being used. 

88. In connection with that show, Defendant CHARLES A. MCCONNIEL 

repeatedly displayed the Sound Choice Marks without right or license. 

89. Defendant CHARLES A. MCCONNIEL has advertised or otherwise 

indicated that he is in possession of a library containing more than 75,000 

karaoke accompaniment tracks. 

90. Upon information and belief, Defendant CHARLES A. MCCONNIEL 

operates at least two separate karaoke systems to produce karaoke shows at 

venues in this State. 

91. Upon information and belief, each of Defendant CHARLES A. 

MCCONNIEL’s karaoke systems includes a library containing more than 

40,000 accompaniment tracks. 

92. Defendant ROBERT GERHART was observed operating a karaoke system 

to produce a karaoke show at a venue in this State in which counterfeit 

goods bearing the Sound Choice Marks were being used. 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 23 of 43
24 

93. In connection with that show, Defendant ROBERT GERHART repeatedly 

displayed the Sound Choice Marks without right or license. 

94. Defendant ROBERT GERHART has advertised or otherwise indicated that 

he is in possession of a library containing more than 55,000 karaoke 

accompaniment tracks. 

95. Defendant ROBERT GERHART told a Slep-Tone investigator that he had 

four separate karaoke systems. 

96. Upon information and belief, each of Defendant ROBERT GERHART’s 

karaoke systems includes a library containing more than 55,000 

accompaniment tracks. 

97. Defendant TOUCAN ENTERTAINMENT was observed operating a 

karaoke system to produce a karaoke show at a venue in this State in which 

counterfeit goods bearing the Sound Choice Marks were being used. 

98. In connection with that show, Defendant TOUCAN ENTERTAINMENT 

repeatedly displayed the Sound Choice Marks without right or license. 

99. Defendant TOUCAN ENTERTAINMENT has advertised or otherwise 

indicated that it is in possession of a library containing more than 90,000 

karaoke accompaniment tracks. 

100. Upon information and belief, Defendant TOUCAN ENTERTAINMENT, 

acting through two general partners, Defendants ANDREW COUCHE and 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 24 of 43
25 

PATRICE COUCHE, operates at least four separate karaoke systems to 

produce karaoke shows at venues in this State. 

101. Upon information and belief, each of Defendant TOUCAN 

ENTERTAINMENT’s karaoke systems includes a library containing more 

than 90,000 accompaniment tracks. 

102. Defendant OUTLAW KARAOKE was observed operating a karaoke system 

to produce a karaoke show at a venue in this State in which counterfeit 

goods bearing the Sound Choice Marks were being used. 

103. In connection with that show, Defendant OUTLAW KARAOKE repeatedly 

displayed the Sound Choice Marks without right or license. 

104. Defendant OUTLAW KARAOKE has advertised or otherwise indicated that 

it is in possession of a library containing more than 10,000 karaoke 

accompaniment tracks. 

105. Upon information and belief, Defendant OUTLAW KARAOKE, acting 

through at least two general partners, Defendants DAVID NOTHSTINE and 

ELIZABETH NOTHSTINE, operates at least three separate karaoke systems 

to produce karaoke shows at venues in this State. 

106. Upon information and belief, each of Defendant OUTLAW KARAOKE’s 

karaoke systems includes a library containing more than 10,000 

accompaniment tracks. 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 25 of 43
26 

107. Defendant MOBILE MUSIC EXPRESS LLC was observed operating a 

karaoke system to produce a karaoke show at a venue in this State in which 

counterfeit goods bearing the Sound Choice Marks were being used. 

108. In connection with that show, Defendant MOBILE MUSIC EXPRESS LLC 

repeatedly displayed the Sound Choice Marks without right or license. 

109. Defendant MOBILE MUSIC EXPRESS LLC has advertised or otherwise 

indicated that it is in possession of a library containing more than 37,000 

karaoke accompaniment tracks. 

110. Defendant MOBILE MUSIC EXPRESS LLC regularly performs karaoke 

shows in three separate venues simultaneously. 

111. Defendant MOBILE MUSIC EXPRESS LLC operates at least three separate 

karaoke systems to produce karaoke shows at venues in this State. 

112. Upon information and belief, each of Defendant MOBILE MUSIC 

EXPRESS LLC’s karaoke systems includes a library containing more than 

37,000 accompaniment tracks. 

113. Defendant STEVE JARVIS was observed operating a karaoke system to 

produce a karaoke show at a venue in this State in which counterfeit goods 

bearing the Sound Choice Marks were being used. 

114. In connection with that show, Defendant STEVE JARVIS repeatedly 

displayed the Sound Choice Marks without right or license. 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 26 of 43
27 

115. Defendant STEVE JARVIS regularly performs karaoke shows in at least 

four separate venues simultaneously. 

116. Defendant STEVE JARVIS operates at least four separate karaoke systems 

to produce karaoke shows at venues in this State. 

117. Defendant D & D’S PUB, INC. and/or Defendant DANIEL BRANCH was 

observed operating, through an employee or contractor known as DJ Chuck, 

a karaoke system to produce a karaoke show at the D & D’s Pub 

establishment in which counterfeit goods bearing the Sound Choice Marks 

were being used. 

118. Upon information and belief, the karaoke system described in the preceding 

paragraph is directly owned by Defendant D & D’S PUB, INC. and/or by 

Defendant DANIEL BRANCH. 

119. In connection with that show, DJ Chuck repeatedly displayed the Sound 

Choice Marks without right or license. 

120. Defendant DANIEL BRANCH performs regular weekly karaoke shows at D 

& D’s Pub in addition to regular karaoke shows he performs at other venues 

in this state. 

121. Defendant DANIEL BRANCH has advertised or otherwise indicated that he 

is in possession of a library containing more than 12,000 tracks stored on his 

karaoke system. 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 27 of 43
28 

122. Upon information and belief, Defendant DANIEL BRANCH and Defendant 

D & D’S PUB, INC. have duplicate copies of the same burned discs on each 

of their systems. 

123. Upon information and belief, Defendant D & D’S PUB, INC. is in 

possession of a library containing more than 12,000 tracks stored on its 

karaoke system. 

124. Defendant MAROG ENTERTAINMENT was observed operating a karaoke 

system to produce a karaoke show at a venue in this State in which 

counterfeit goods bearing the Sound Choice Marks were being used. 

125. In connection with that show, Defendant MAROG ENTERTAINMENT 

repeatedly displayed the Sound Choice Marks without right or license. 

126. Defendant MAROG ENTERTAINMENT has advertised or otherwise 

indicated that it is in possession of a library containing more than 48,000 

tracks stored on its karaoke system. 

127. Defendant CHRIS CONRAD was observed operating a karaoke system to 

produce a karaoke show at a venue in this State in which counterfeit goods 

bearing the Sound Choice Marks were being used. 

128. In connection with that show, Defendant CHRIS CONRAD repeatedly 

displayed the Sound Choice Marks without right or license. 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 28 of 43
29 

129. Defendant CHRIS CONRAD has advertised or otherwise indicated that he is 

in possession of a library containing more than 45,000 tracks stored on his 

karaoke system. 

130. Defendant BRENDA BREININGER was observed operating a karaoke 

system to produce a karaoke show at a venue in this State in which 

counterfeit goods bearing the Sound Choice Marks were being used. 

131. In connection with that show, Defendant BRENDA BREININGER 

repeatedly displayed the Sound Choice Marks without right or license. 

132. Defendant BRENDA BREININGER has advertised or otherwise indicated 

that she is in possession of a library containing more than 90,000 tracks 

stored on her karaoke system. 

133. Defendant MICHAEL ANGELO MINCIELI was observed operating a 

karaoke system to produce a karaoke show at a venue in this State in which 

counterfeit goods bearing the Sound Choice Marks were being used. 

134. In connection with that show, Defendant MICHAEL ANGELO MINCIELI 

repeatedly displayed the Sound Choice Marks without right or license. 

135. Defendant MICHAEL ANGELO MINCIELI has advertised or otherwise 

indicated that he is in possession of a library containing more than 150,000 

karaoke accompaniment tracks. 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 29 of 43
30 

136. Defendant MICHAEL ANGELO MINCIELI regularly performs karaoke 

shows in at least three separate venues simultaneously. 

137. Defendant MICHAEL ANGELO MINCIELI operates at least three separate 

karaoke systems to produce karaoke shows at venues in this State. 

138. Upon information and belief, each of Defendant MICHAEL ANGELO 

MINCIELI’s karaoke systems includes a library containing more than 

150,000 accompaniment tracks. 

139. Defendant MARK FLEMING was observed operating a karaoke system to 

produce a karaoke show at a venue in this State in which counterfeit goods 

bearing the Sound Choice Marks were being used. 

140. In connection with that show, Defendant MARK FLEMING repeatedly 

displayed the Sound Choice Marks without right or license. 

141. Defendant MARK FLEMING has advertised or otherwise indicated that he 

is in possession of a library containing more than 29,000 tracks stored on his 

karaoke system. 

142. Defendant SEAN COREY ENTERTAINMENT, LLC was observed 

operating a karaoke system to produce a karaoke show at a venue in this 

State in which counterfeit goods bearing the Sound Choice Marks were 

being used. 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 30 of 43
31 

143. In connection with that show, Defendant SEAN COREY 

ENTERTAINMENT, LLC repeatedly displayed the Sound Choice Marks 

without right or license. 

144. Upon information and belief, Defendant SEAN COREY 

ENTERTAINMENT, LLC maintains a library containing more than 100,000 

tracks stored on its karaoke system. 

145. Defendant ISLAND ENTERTAINMENT, LLC was observed operating a 

karaoke system to produce a karaoke show at a venue in this State in which 

counterfeit goods bearing the Sound Choice Marks were being used. 

146. In connection with that show, Defendant ISLAND ENTERTAINMENT, 

LLC repeatedly displayed the Sound Choice Marks without right or license. 

147. Defendant ISLAND ENTERTAINMENT, LLC has advertised or otherwise 

indicated that it is in possession of a library containing more than 19,000 

karaoke accompaniment tracks. 

148. Defendant ISLAND ENTERTAINMENT, LLC regularly performs karaoke 

shows in at least three separate venues simultaneously. 

149. Defendant ISLAND ENTERTAINMENT, LLC operates at least three 

separate karaoke systems to produce karaoke shows at venues in this State. 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 31 of 43
32 

150. Upon information and belief, each of Defendant ISLAND 

ENTERTAINMENT, LLC’s karaoke systems includes a library containing 

more than 19,000 accompaniment tracks. 

151. Defendant DEANA JENNINGS was observed operating a karaoke system to 

produce a karaoke show at a venue in this State in which counterfeit goods 

bearing the Sound Choice Marks were being used. 

152. In connection with that show, Defendant DEANA JENNINGS repeatedly 

displayed the Sound Choice Marks without right or license. 

153. Defendant DEANA JENNINGS has advertised or otherwise indicated that 

she is in possession of a library containing more than 69,000 karaoke 

accompaniment tracks. 

154. Defendant DEANA JENNINGS regularly performs karaoke shows in at 

least two separate venues simultaneously. 

155. Defendant DEANA JENNINGS operates at least two separate karaoke 

systems to produce karaoke shows at venues in this State. 

156. Upon information and belief, each of DEANA JENNINGS’s karaoke 

systems includes a library containing more than 69,000 accompaniment 

tracks. 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 32 of 43
33 

157. Defendant MICHELE BROWNING was observed operating a karaoke 

system to produce a karaoke show at a venue in this State in which 

counterfeit goods bearing the Sound Choice Marks were being used. 

158. In connection with that show, Defendant MICHELE BROWNING 

repeatedly displayed the Sound Choice Marks without right or license. 

159. Defendant MICHELE BROWNING has advertised or otherwise indicated 

that she is in possession of a library containing more than 60,000 tracks 

stored on her karaoke system. 

160. Defendant JAMES ALLEN was observed operating a karaoke system to 

produce a karaoke show at a venue in this State in which counterfeit goods 

bearing the Sound Choice Marks were being used. 

161. In connection with that show, Defendant JAMES ALLEN repeatedly 

displayed the Sound Choice Marks without right or license. 

162. Defendant JAMES ALLEN has advertised or otherwise indicated that he is 

in possession of a library containing more than 80,000 tracks stored on his 

karaoke system. 

163. Defendant REUBEN JENKINS was observed operating a karaoke system to 

produce a karaoke show at a venue in this State in which counterfeit goods 

bearing the Sound Choice Marks were being used. 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 33 of 43
34 

164. In connection with that show, Defendant REUBEN JENKINS repeatedly 

displayed the Sound Choice Marks without right or license. 

165. Defendant REUBEN JENKINS has advertised or otherwise indicated that he 

is in possession of a library containing more than 20,000 tracks stored on his 

karaoke system. 

166. Defendant NICHOLAS SILEO was observed operating a karaoke system to 

produce a karaoke show at a venue in this State in which counterfeit goods 

bearing the Sound Choice Marks were being used. 

167. In connection with that show, Defendant NICHOLAS SILEO repeatedly 

displayed the Sound Choice Marks without right or license. 

168. Defendant NICHOLAS SILEO has advertised or otherwise indicated that he 

is in possession of a library containing more than 500,000 songs stored on 

his system, of which a substantial portion are karaoke tracks. 

169. Defendant NICHOLAS SILEO is not possession of a lawful original disc for 

each karaoke track stored on his system. 

170. Defendant SPOTLIGHT ENTERTAINMENT was observed operating a 

karaoke system to produce a karaoke show at a venue in this State in which 

counterfeit goods bearing the Sound Choice Marks were being used. 

171. In connection with that show, Defendant SPOTLIGHT ENTERTAINMENT 

repeatedly displayed the Sound Choice Marks without right or license. 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 34 of 43
35 

172. Defendant SPOTLIGHT ENTERTAINMENT has advertised or otherwise 

indicated that it is in possession of a library containing more than 44,000 

tracks stored on its karaoke system. 

173. Defendant SUSAN BADGLEY was observed operating a karaoke system to 

produce a karaoke show at a venue in this State in which counterfeit goods 

bearing the Sound Choice Marks were being used. 

174. In connection with that show, Defendant SUSAN BADGLEY repeatedly 

displayed the Sound Choice Marks without right or license. 

175. Defendant SUSAN BADGLEY has advertised or otherwise indicated that 

she is in possession of a library containing more than 100,000 tracks stored 

on her karaoke system. 

176. Defendant MONA LISA was observed operating, through an employee or 

contractor known as “DJ Rose” a karaoke system to produce a karaoke show 

at its establishment in which counterfeit goods bearing the Sound Choice 

Marks were being used. 

177. Upon information and belief, the karaoke system described in the preceding 

paragraph is directly owned by Defendant MONA LISA. 

178. In connection with that show, Defendant MONA LISA repeatedly displayed 

the Sound Choice Marks without right or license. 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 35 of 43
36 

179. Defendant MONA LISA has advertised or otherwise indicated that it is in 

possession of a library containing more than 70,000 tracks stored on its 

karaoke system. 

180. Defendant JIM & SUSIE’S KARAOKE was observed operating a karaoke 

system to produce a karaoke show at a venue in this State in which 

counterfeit goods bearing the Sound Choice Marks were being used. 

181. In connection with that show, Defendant JIM & SUSIE’S KARAOKE 

repeatedly displayed the Sound Choice Marks without right or license. 

182. Defendant JIM & SUSIE’S KARAOKE has advertised or otherwise 

indicated that it is in possession of a library containing more than 120,000 

tracks stored on its karaoke system. 

183. Based upon the popularity of SLEP-TONE’s music and the size of the 

Defendants’ respective libraries, which vary between 10,000 and 150,000 

karaoke accompaniment tracks, operating in many cases with multiple 

karaoke systems, the Plaintiff has a good-faith belief that discovery will 

show that each of the Defendants who operates a karaoke system for his, her, 

or its own account is in possession of unauthorized counterfeit goods bearing 

the Sound Choice Marks. 

184. Each of the Defendants is accused of committing acts of infringement, unfair 

competition, and deceptive and unfair trade practices in substantially the 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 36 of 43
37 

same way, namely, through the use of counterfeit karaoke tracks to perform 

karaoke-related services. 

185. Though created through unauthorized duplication, the counterfeit karaoke 

tracks obtained or made by the Defendants all originated, directly or 

indirectly in an unbroken sequence, from the same ultimate source, namely, 

from compact discs sold by the Plaintiff and made from master recordings 

belonging to the Plaintiff. 

186. As such, the Plaintiff’s right to relief, as stated in the paragraphs below, 

ultimately arises out of the same series of transactions and occurrences. 

187. This action raises substantial questions of law and fact common to all of the 

defendants hereto. 

 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

188. Plaintiff SLEP-TONE realleges each and every allegation set forth in the 

foregoing paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein, and incorporates them 

herein by reference. 

189. Each of the Defendants used, or authorized or directly benefited from the use 

of, a reproduction, counterfeit, or copy of the Sound Choice Marks in 

connection with the provision of services including karaoke services, by 

manufacturing or acquiring the reproduction, counterfeit, or copy of the 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 37 of 43
38 

Sound Choice Marks and by displaying the reproduction, counterfeit, or 

copy of the Sound Choice Marks during the provision of those services. 

190. The Defendants’ use of the Sound Choice Marks was “in commerce” within 

the meaning of the Trademark Act of 1946 as amended. 

191. Plaintiff SLEP-TONE did not license any of the Defendants to manufacture 

or acquire reproductions, counterfeits, or copies, or to use the Sound Choice 

Marks in connection with the provision of their services. 

192. The Defendants’ use of the Sound Choice Marks is likely to cause 

confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive the Defendants’ customers and 

patrons into believing that the Defendants’ services are being provided with 

the authorization of the Plaintiff and that the Defendants music libraries 

contain bona fide Sound Choice accompaniment tracks. 

193. The acts of each of the Defendants were willful. 

194. Unless enjoined by the Court, the Defendants’ infringing activities as 

described above will continue unabated and will continue to cause harm to 

the Plaintiff. 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)

195. Plaintiff SLEP-TONE realleges each and every allegation set forth in the 

foregoing paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein, and incorporates them 

herein by reference. 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 38 of 43
39 

196. On each occasion when they caused a SLEP-TONE accompaniment track to 

be played during a karaoke show, the Defendants displayed the Sound 

Choice Marks in connection with the Defendants’ karaoke services. 

197. The display of the Sound Choice Marks is likely to cause confusion, or to 

cause mistake, or to deceive those present during the display, in that those 

present are likely to be deceived into believing, falsely, that SLEP-TONE 

sponsored or approved the Defendants’ services and commercial activities. 

198. The display of the Sound Choice Marks is also likely to cause confusion, or 

to cause mistake, or to deceive those present during the display, in that those 

present are likely to be deceived into believing, falsely, that the works being 

performed were sold by SLEP-TONE and purchased by the Defendants. 

199. The Defendants’ use of the Sound Choice Marks in this fashion would have 

inured to the benefit of the Plaintiff if the Defendants had legitimately 

acquired genuine Sound Choice discs instead of counterfeiting them or 

acquiring counterfeit copies, in that the Plaintiff would have received 

revenue from such sales. 

200. Because SLEP-TONE has been denied this revenue, it has been damaged by 

the Defendants’ uses. 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 39 of 43
40 

201. Unless enjoined by the Court, the Defendants’ unfair competition activities 

as described above will continue unabated and will continue to cause harm 

to the Plaintiff. 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES 

UNDER FLA. STAT. § 501.211

202. Plaintiff SLEP-TONE realleges each and every allegation set forth in the 

foregoing paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein, and incorporates them 

herein by reference. 

203. Each Defendant has engaged in acts of infringement of the Sound Choice 

Marks, in derogation of SLEP-TONE’s common-law and statutory rights in 

those marks. 

204. Each Defendant’s acts of infringement occurred during the conduct of trade 

or commerce. 

205. Each Defendant’s acts of infringement constitute deceptive or unfair trade 

practices within the meaning of Fla. Stat. § 501.204(1) (2009). 

206. As a direct and proximate result of each Defendant’s acts of infringement, 

SLEP-TONE has suffered a pecuniary loss, to wit: the loss of revenue 

associated with sales or distribution of compact discs to karaoke jockeys, 

commensurate with the demand for the contents of those discs, which 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 40 of 43
41 

revenue would have been received but for the Defendants’ acts in creating or 

acquiring counterfeits of SLEP-TONE’s accompaniment tracks. 

207. As such, SLEP-TONE is an aggrieved person within the meaning of Fla. 

Stat. § 501.211(1) (2009). 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff SLEP-TONE prays for judgment against each of the 

Defendants severally and that the Court: 

A. Find that each of the Defendants has committed acts of infringement, 

including but not limited to counterfeiting, of the federally registered Sound 

Choice Marks; 

B. Find that each of the Defendants has engaged in unfair competition against 

Plaintiff SLEP-TONE in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); 

C. Find that each of the Defendants has committed deceptive and unfair trade 

practices under Florida law; 

D. Enter judgment against each of the Defendants and in favor of SLEP-TONE; 

E. Find the that Defendants’ activities were in all respects conducted willfully 

and for profit; 

F. Award to SLEP-TONE the Defendants’ profits and the damages sustained 

by SLEP-TONE because of the Defendants’ conduct in infringing the Sound 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 41 of 43
42 

Choice Marks, or, in the alternative, statutory damages per trademark 

infringed by counterfeiting; 

G. Award to SLEP-TONE the Defendants’ profits and the damages sustained 

by SLEP-TONE because of the Defendants’ acts of unfair competition under 

15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); 

H. Award to SLEP-TONE treble, punitive, or otherwise enhanced damages, as 

available, for the Defendants’ acts of willful infringement; 

I. Award to SLEP-TONE its actual damages caused by the Defendants’ 

deceptive and unfair trade practices, plus its attorney’s fees and court costs 

as provided in Fla. Stat. § 501.2105 (2009). 

J. Order the seizure of all computer disks, drives, or other media belonging to 

any of the Defendants, which media contain illegal counterfeits of registered 

trademarks; 

K. Grant SLEP-TONE preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against 

further infringement of the Sound Choice Marks by the Defendants; 

L. Award SLEP-TONE its costs of suit and attorney’s fees, to the extent not 

awarded above; and 

M. Grant SLEP-TONE such other and further relief as justice may require. 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 42 of 43
43 

Respectfully submitted this the 2nd day of February, 2011. 

 HARRINGTON LAW, P.C. 

 By: s/James M. Harrington 

 James M. Harrington, N.C. State Bar No. 30005 

 jharrington@harringtonlawpc.com 

 Maria D. Floren, N.C. State Bar No. 41236 

 mfloren@harringtonlawpc.com 

Attorneys for the Plaintiff 

 HARRINGTON LAW, P.C. 

 PO Box 403 

 Concord, North Carolina 28026-0403 

 Telephone: 704-315-5800 

 Facsimile: 704-625-9259 

 

Case 5:11-cv-00032-RS-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 43 of 43