Trademark Dispute: Rib City Grill v. Rib City Alehouse

Rib City Group, Inc. d/b/a Rib City Grill of Fort Meyers, FL filed suit against RCC Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Rib City Ale House of Port Jefferson Station, NY, seeking damages for alleged trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution, cyber-piracy, misappropriation of trade secrets, and breach of contract.

Rib City Grill is a franchised concept, with 12 locations in Florida and operations in an additional seven states.  Rib City Group, Inc.  is the owner of USPTO  trademark registrations for “Rib City,” “Rib City Grill,” “Rib City Barbeque,” and “Rib City Real BBQ & Great Ribs.”

At the heart of the suit are the alleged actions of Frank Ryan, the former general manager of the East Naples Rib City Grill location.  Ryan resigned as general manager in April 2007, and entered into a separation agreement in June 2007, stating he received confidential information during the course of his employment, and would not disclose or utilize this information for a period of 10 years.

In January 2009, Ryan opened Rib City Ale House of Port Jefferson, NY, allegedly using features of the Rib City Grill trademark, trade dress, and identical or similar menu items.  While Ryan believes his restaurant is a different concept than Rib City Grill, he has closed his restaurant due to the economy.

Ryan stated, “I would certainly know Rib City Grill is a protected name, but I wouldn’t know Rib City Ale House was.”

To view a copy of the complaint, click here.

Click here for more information about the suit.

Music Makers Mixer at NX35 March 11; Denton Texas

Hosted by The Recording Academy®
Texas Chapter Board Members
March 11, 4pm-6pm
Dan’s Silverleaf
103 Industrial Street,
Denton, TX 76201
No Cover / No Wristband

More information and RSVP here:

Kick off NX35 2010 networking with the people who make music happen in Denton and the DFW area. Music Makers Mixers are held several times a year around the Denton/Dallas/Fort Worth area as networking opportunities for music biz professionals including artists, producers, engineers, songwriters, attorneys, accountants, managers, booking agents and members of The Recording Academy® Texas Chapter (the “Grammy®” folks).

Hosted by The Recording Academy® Texas Chapter Board of Governors: Chris Bell, GRAMMY® Nominated Engineer; Tamera Bennett, Bennett Law Office/Farm to Market Music; Monique Headley, Launch Media & Entertainment; Paul Levatino, PL Presents/Erykah Badu; Paul Middleton, Palmyra Studios; Chuck Rainey, GRAMMY® Award-Winning Artist.

More than 20,000 fans are expected to attend the four-day NX35 music conference, which will include performances by the Flaming Lips (FREE outdoor performance), Midlake, The Black Angels and Neon Indian. Other big attractions include a discussion with producer / musician / journalist Steve Albini and the grand opening of a museum honoring the history of the 8-track tape.

More information on the Mixer and to RSVP click: http://nx35-grammys.eventbrite.com

Really, All The Good Band Names Are Taken?

The Wall Street Journal blog today has a fun and informative blog post about how hard it is for bands to come up with names and the trademark issues that often arise with confusingly similar band names.

Two of my favorite band names that never made it outside of the Nashville music publishing office I worked in:

Two Gentiles and a Jew.  Actually pretty descriptive of the trio.

A Lover and a Fool. This duet had a birthday on Valentine’s day and a birthday on April Fool’s Day.

Stormtrooper Replicas: Final Strike By British Court of Appeal

A British Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Andrew Ainsworth, the defendant in a 2008 copyright infringement lawsuit brought by George Lucas’ production company, LucasFilm.

As previously discussed in my blog post here, Lucas Film was seeking to enforce a $20 million judgment awarded in 2006 against Ainsworth for replicating without permission certain “Stormtrooper” helmets.  In the British Court of Appeal’s decision, the court rejected all claims brought by LucasFilm including the breach of copyright claim finding the helmets did not qualify as sculptures under British Copyright law.

The case also goes into an interesting discussion on whether or not attempting to enforce a U.S. Judgment in Britain is forum shopping.  Read more here.

Monopoly The Game Meets Music Publishing

Hasbro is promoting the 75th anniversary edition of the Monopoly board game.  Not only does it have a new circular game board, it contains clips of popular songs from artists such as Beyonce and Rihanna.

So, how did they do that?  Hasbro had to secure permission to use the underlying songs from the music publishers that own the song copyrights.  To be able to use the actual recording by Beyonce and other artists, a master use license had to be secured from each record label that owned the master recording.

Use of the underlying song may have been treated as a mechanical license as this usage does constitute a mechanical reproduction.  Because less than the whole song will be reproduced, the rate will most likely be less than the full statutory rate which is currently 9.1 cents per song.  Hasbro is most likely paying an upfront advance of royalties along with a penny rate for each game sold.

The master rights owner, typically the record label, is probably being paid on a most favored nations basis with the song copyright owner. That means, both the publisher and record label are getting paid the same amount.

Could this use constitute a public performance under the U.S. Copyright Act?  Most likely a public performance issue would only come up if there is a public game or tournament involving the game where the music clips will be heard in “public.”  Playing the game at home with your friends, does not constitute a public performance.

Licensing third-party rights is nothing new to Hasbro.  There are many different “branded editions” of Monopoly and other games in the marketplace.

Sly Stone Sues Manager For Fraud, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Cancel Trademark

Sylvester Stewart p/k/a Sly Stone of Sly and the Family Stone  filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court against his longtime manager, Jerry Goldstein, alleging Goldstein stole $80 million in licensing and royalty income, and filed a trademark for Sly and the Family Stone without Stone’s permission.  He also alleges Goldstein never provided him any royalty accounting for albums between 1989 and 2009 and the manager breached his fiduciary duty.  Read more from The Hollywood Reporter Esq. blog which also includes a link to the complaint.

The complaint hits straight out the issue of the running of the statute of limitations on the causes of action.  Stone claims active concealment on the part of the defendants which kept him from discovering the wrongdoing as well as the continuing fiduciary duty that Goldstein owed Stone.

In addition to the 29 stated causes of action in the 111 page complaint, Stone  also filed with the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeals Board a petition to cancel U.S. trademark Registration No. 2920734 for the mark SLY AND THE FAMILY STONE registered in the name of Even St. Productions, Ltd.  The  petition cites the grounds of cancellation as: Deceptiveness, False Suggestion of a Connection, Misrepresentation of the Source of the Goods or Services, and Likelihood of Confusion.

As a side note and a little Texas trivia, Sly Stone was born in Denton, Texas … just a few miles up the road from my office.

Roger Miller Estate Continues Battle Over Copyright Renewals

For years, the estate of Roger Miller has battled with Sony Music over the ownership of the copyright in songs written by Miller in 1964.  In 1964 Miller was under contract with Tree Publishing, which eventually became part of Sony Music.  Pursuant to his exclusive songwriter agreement, Tree owned the copyright for the initial 28 year term and for the 28 year renewal term in the songs Miller wrote.

The renewal provisions under the 1909 U.S. Copyright Act were created to give songwriters, authors (other creators) the ability to recapture rights for their family that  they may have transferred away.  That all sounds clear. But interpretation of this code section (17 U.S.C. 304) in relationship to what happens if the songwriter dies during the 28th year, prior to the renewal term starting in the 29th year, has been difficult and the Roger Miller estate is in the thick of the issue.

Miller died in 1992, the 28th year after writing songs such as “King of the Road” and “Dang Me.”  The question pending, does Sony own the renewal copyright because they filed a renewal application in the 28th year prior to Mr. Miller’s death or do Miller’s heirs own the renewal copyright because he died prior to the commencement of the 29th year.

For recent discussions review this article in The Tennessean.

William Patry has a legal discussion here and more information from the Harvard Info/Law blog here.

“60 Years Later” Lawsuit May Continue

I made a series of posts at the Ask Before You Act blog here, here and here on the lawsuit filed by author of “Catcher In The Rye,” J.D. Salinger seeking damages for copyright infringement and an injunction against the writer, publisher and distributor of a sequel to “Catcher In The Rye” …. “60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye.”

Mr. Salinger passed away on January 27, 2010.

A preliminary injunction was issued in July 2009, but the case is still moving forward.   The plaintiff is listed as J.D. Salinger, individual and Trustee of the J.D. Salinger Literary Trust.  The work “Catcher In The Rye” was assigned by Mr. Salinger to the J.D. Salinger Literary Trust on October 24, 2008.

In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 25:

If a party dies and the claim is not extinguished, the court may order substitution of the proper party. A motion for substitution may be made by any party or by the decedent’s successor or representative. If the motion is not made within 90 days after service of a statement noting the death, the action by or against the decedent must be dismissed.

I anticipate a successor trustee was named in the Trust.  It will depend on whether or not there are successor beneficiaries or if the corpus of the Trust is distributed as to who will be the proper party to move forward as the Plaintiff.

Trademark Basics Part 4: After Trademark Registration

In Part 4 of Trademark Basis we explore what happens after you secure a trademark registration.  Feel free to review Part 1 “Selecting a Trademark,” Part 2 From Selection to Application,” and Part 3,  “Intent to Use.”

Q:   When should I use the ™ symbol or the ® symbol?

A:         After federal registration the mark should be identified with the _® symbol.  Do not use the _® prior to issuance of the Federal Registration.

While the federal application is pending ( from one to two years), the trademark should be identified with the ^TM symbol. Use the mark with the ^TM on the actual product to which the mark applies, if possible, and on product labeling and packaging, and also in brochures, catalogs, advertisements, letterhead, business cards, and signage, as appropriate.

When using a word mark, or the word portion of a combination mark (word plus design), in a sentence, distinguish it from surrounding text by using all capitals and quotes.

Q:        Does my trademark registration expire once a registration issues from the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office?

A:         A trademark registration is valid for 10 years after the date of registration, provided that a section 8 (and possibly section 15) affidavit is filed with the USPTO in between the 5^th and 6^th years after registration, further validating that the mark is in use at this time.  Failure to file the section 8 affidavit between the 5^th and 6^th years of registration will result in cancellation of the trademark application before the 10 year expiration period.  Between the 9th and 10th year after registration, a renewal application is required to maintain the mark.  Thereafter, the renewal must be filed every 10 years.

Q:        I forgot to file my section 8 & 15 affidavit or section 8 & 9 renewal within the 1 year window before expiration.  Can I still reinstate my trademark?

A:         There is a six month grace period after the 6^th year of registration or after the 10^th year of registration to file these documents with the USPTO, for an additional fee.  Once outside the grace period, a new trademark application is required.

Q:        My trademark is still in use, but I have sold it to another company or changed my company name.  Do I need to do anything with the trademark office?

A:         Yes, you may need to file an assignment or change of ownership name document with the USPTO. Visit the assignments section of the USPTO website for additional information.

Trademark Basics Part 3: Intent to Use

In part three of Trademark Basics we explore “intent to use” trademark applications, interstate commerce, and common law rights in trademarks.  You may be interested in Part 1 on “Selecting A Trademark”  and Part 2 “From Selection to Application.”

Q:        What is “intent to use”?

A:         If you have not yet used the trademark, but plan to do so in the future, you may file an application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) based on a good faith or bona fide intention to use the trademark in interstate commerce.  You do not have to use the trademark before you file your federal trademark application.   Later on in the application process, you will need to file proof of using your trademark in interstate commerce.  A total of five extensions, each lasting six months in duration, may be granted by the USPTO before proof of use in interstate commerce is required. Each extension incurs additional filing fees.

Q:        What is “use in interstate commerce” for services?

A:         In general, the trademark must be used or displayed in the sale or advertising of the services and the services must be rendered in interstate commerce.

Q:        What is “use in interstate commerce” for goods?

A:         In general, the trademark must appear on the goods, the container for the goods, or displays associated with the goods, and the goods must be sold or transported in interstate commerce.

Q:        I understand there are five possible extensions, each lasting six months, before I must submit a Statement of Use to the USPTO, demonstrating use of my trademark in interstate commerce.   I have used all five extensions, and my business will not be open before the final extension expires.  What can I do?

A:         You may wish to consider filing a new trademark application as soon as your last extension expires.  This starts the process over, including a new filing fee to the USPTO.  We encourage clients to think over their business plan carefully before filing a trademark application.

Q:        Does filing a federal or state application guarantee a registration?

A:         No. Filing a trademark application does not guarantee that either the USPTO or the applicable state will grant you a registration.

Q:        Do I have to secure a state or federal trademark registration to own a trademark?

A:         No.  A person/entity acquires rights in a trademark by being the first to use the trademark in the marketplace for specific goods or services. Rights in a trademark are obtained only through commercial use of the trademark.  Coining a phrase or designing a logo is not enough to secure trademark rights. You must use the phrase or logo on or in connection with your product or service.

Yo Quiero Domain Name – Yum! Brands (Taco Bell) v. Nelson Wellness & Therapy Center

You may have seen Taco Bell’s New Year weight loss campaign, “Drive Thru Diet.”  I have to admit, I have sampled the menu.

Taco Bell acquired www.drivethrudiet.com prior to the campaign launch in 2010, but did not secure www.drivethroughdiet.com, a domain owned by a Georgia weight loss center.

Yum! Brands, the parent company of Taco Bell, filed a UDRP Bad Faith action to acquire the Georgia weight loss center’s domain name.

The arbitration panel denied Yum! Brand’s request to transfer drivethroughdiet.com based on 4 factors:

• 1) Drivethrudiet.com was under construction until December 21, 2009;
• 2) Yum! Brands did not provide evidence of using their trademark first;
• 3) The trademark registration for, DRIVE-THRU DIET was assigned to Yum! Brands in October 2008, and
• 4) There was no evidence the Georgia weight loss center had registered and used their domain in bad faith.

To be successful on an UDRP bad faith/cybersquatting claiming the following factors must be meet:

• Domain name in question is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights
• Respondent has no legitimate rights/interests in domain name
• Domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.

Read the arbitration decision here.

Listen to attorney Tamera Bennett and attorney Gordon Firemark discuss this decision on the Entertainment Law Update Podcast Episode 8.

IPAD Trademark Applications Pending for Apple and Fujitsu?

With the launch of the iPad today, is a trademark dispute brewing between Apple, Inc. and Fujitsu?

The mark IPAD (U.S. Trademark Serial No. 77913563) was filed with the USPTO January 16, 2010 via the entity IP Application Development LLC, claiming a priority date of July 16, 2009 from an application filed in Trinidad and Tobago on July 16, 2009.   There is a long list of goods related to computers and computer peripherals in the application.

Apple, to try and keep new products on the down low,  used third-party companies to file IPAD trademark applications in Canada, Europe, and Hong Kong.

Interestingly enough, a quick search of the USPTO website shows several filings for the mark IPAD for a variety of goods.  Of particular interest is the application recently approved  for IPAD, Serial No. 76497338, owned by Fujitsu Transaction Solutions Inc.  for hand-held computing device for wireless networking in a retail environment.  After the Fujitsu application was approved and published for opposition, Apple, Inc. filed an extension of time to oppose the application. The extension will expire February 28, 2010.

While Apple, Inc. may file an opposition citing likelihood of consumer confusion with its marks iPod and the recently registered iPhone, Apple, Inc.   is not the applicant for the IPAD trademark and cannot at this time base an opposition on the IPAD mark.   Because extensions of time to oppose are not assignable and inure to the precise party that filed for the extension of time, IP Application Development LLC (the current owner of the IPAD application) has no grounds upon which to oppose the pending Fujitsu IPAD trademark application.

More information about the possible trademark dispute is available here.

UPDATE: Tech Crunch reports that Apple, Inc. has not secured any top level domain names for IPAD.  Interesting.

How Much Did NBC Pay for “Lovely Rita” On Conan?

The news abounds that Conan O’Brien ran up the bill at NBC on his last week with extravagant skits and song choices.  On his closing night the house band played about 22 seconds of  “Lovely Rita,” a song written by John Lennon and Paul McCartney and owned by Sony/ATV Music Publishing.

The question everyone has been flirting with is just how much did NBC pay to clear the song.  For the “public performance” of the song, NBC’s blanket license with BMI would cover the payment.  Because Conan is taped “live,” no synchronization fee is due for the first performance of the song in connection with the specific usage.  If NBC never planned any distribution or broadcast beyond the first performance, there would not be any sync fee.  Clearly NBC does plan to show re-runs or have the right to put the show up on their website.  These uses require a license from Sony/ATV Music Publishing.

One rumor was that the 22 seconds cost NBC $500,000.  A representative from Sony denied the fee was that large and stated Sony/ATV has pre-negotiated fee arrangement with NBC for last minute song usage.  Being a Lennon/McCartney song does increase the price tag. If I was a betting girl, I would say this use was under $10,000 for rights in perpetuity, for the world, all media, excluding theatrical rights.

Michael Jordan Sues Chicago Grocers False Endorsement

In two separate complaints filed December 21, 2009 in Illinois’ Cook County Circuit Court, Michael Jordan, via his licensing company, alleges two Chicago area grocers violated his right of publicity, engaged in false endorsement, false designation of origin, deceptive business practices, and unfair competition.  The complaint against Dominick’s Finer Foods is here and the complaint against Jewel Food Stores is here.

The ads were independently created by grocers Jewel Foods and Dominick’s Finer Foods and both were in “celebration” of Jordan’s accomplishments in a 2009 Sports Illustrated issue commemorating Jordan.   The problem really arises from the fact that coupons to be used at the stores are located on a portion of the ad.  Jordan says he never granted permission for either advertisement, and Dominick’s steaks is a conflict of interest to the steak he endorses.

Jordan has a registered trademark for MICHAEL JORDAN in connection with product endorsements and a registered trademark for 23 (his basketball jersey number)  in connection with restaurant, bar, and catering services.

Jordan is seeking $5 million in damages from each defendant.

Trademark Basics Part 2: From Selection to Application

by Tamera H. Bennett

This post is Part 2 of Trademark Basics. Take a look at Part 1 here on selecting a trademark.  You may also be interested in Part 3 on “Intent To Use” and Part 4 on “Post Registration.”

Q:  How does the trademark application process work?

A:

Develop a list of possible names and discuss this list with your trademark lawyer.

Your trademark attorney will conduct a trademark search or “knockout” to exclude any existing marks that are identical or confusingly similar and to assist in determination if the proposed mark may be generic or descriptive.

Determine the scope of your goods and services.

Prepare and submit an application. It may take seven to nine months before the USPTO will respond to your application.

If there are any procedural or substantive changes requested/a refusal issued by the trademark examiner (an Office Action), you will then have six months to respond.

If the refusal is overcome, or if no refusal issued, the mark will move to publication.

If the mark is published and no oppositions are filed, the mark will be registered if it was filed as a “Use” application.  If it is an “Intent To Use” application, a Notice of Allowance will issue and the mark must be used in interstate commerce within a certain allotted window of time.

Q:  What is required to file a federal trademark application?

A:  You must be using your trademark or service mark in interstate commerce (that is outside the borders of a single state) or have an intention to use the mark in interstate commerce before you can apply for a federal trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Q:  How do I file a state trademark application?A:  You must be using your trademark or service mark within the state in order to file an application.  The Secretary of State or Corporations Section of most state governments handle their state’s trademark registry.Q:  Does filing a federal or state application guarantee a registration?

A:  No.  Filing an application does not guarantee that either the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or the applicable state will grant you a registration.

Q:  Do I have to secure a state or federal trademark registration to own a trademark?

A:  No.  Rights in a trademark are obtained only through commercial use of the mark. Coining a phrase or designing a logo is not enough to secure trademark rights. You must use the phrase or logo on or in connection with your product or service.

Q:  Do I need a lawyer to file a trademark application?

A:  There is no requirement that you use an attorney to file your trademark application.

Q:  Why should I use a lawyer to file a trademark application?

A:  A trademark lawyer can advise you on legal issues regarding existing trademark applications, registrations and/or common law trademark rights that may help you save money in the long run.

Post number 3 will give more insight on the Intent to Use trademark application process.

Trademark Basics Part 1: Selecting A Trademark

by:  Tamera H. Bennett

Today is the first edition in a multi-part post on the basics of the trademark selection and application process.  You may also be interested in Part 2 “Selection to Application,” Part 3 “Intent to Use,” and Part 4 “Post Registration.”

Q:  What is a trademark or service mark?

A:  A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others.  A service mark is the same as a trademark, except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product. Throughout this post, the terms “trademark” and “mark” refer to both trademarks and service marks.

Q:  What is the difference between a trademark and a copyright?

A:  A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others. Examples of well-known trademarks include NIKE, CHANEL and ZYRTEC.

A copyright is an original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression; such as a song, book, or sound recording.

Q:   What should I consider in selecting a trademark?

A:  Trademarks are subject to varying degrees of protection. The stronger the mark, the greater protection it will receive.

Resist the temptation to select a mark that describes the goods or services. It is difficult, if not impossible, to protect a mark that is descriptive.  The trademark examiner, when reviewing your trademark application, will categorize a mark in one of four general categories:

• generic
• descriptive
• suggestive
• arbitrary and fanciful

On a scale of 1 to 5, a generic mark is a 1 and an arbitrary mark is a 5. A mark that is a 4 or 5 on the scale has the greatest level of protection and is either suggestive of the goods or service offered or has no connection to the goods, i.e., arbitrary.  A mark that is a 1 on the scale has no trademark protection. A mark that is a 2 on the scale, has limited protection. A mark that is a 3 on the scale is usually a suggestive mark and is protected.

Here is an example to consider in selecting a mark:

If you decided to create a magazine about mountain climbing you might select names such as the “Mt. Climbing Magazine,” the “Climber’s Journal,” “Reaching Peaks,” or even something arbitrary such as “Orion.”  “Mt. Climbing Magazine” is descriptive of the magazine, where as “Climber’s Journal,” “Reaching Peaks,” and “Orion,” will fall somewhere between descriptive and arbitrary.

Take the time to analyze your market and the goods/services you plan to offer.  Remember the strongest marks have little or no connection to the underlying product that is being sold.

The U.S. Trademark Office website is very helpful as to the procedure for filing an application and can be found here.

Counterfeit Items For Charity

by Tamera H. Bennett

I just posted over at the Ask Before You Act blog some insight on how/when/why counterfeit items can be donated to charities such as homeless shelters.

In light of the tragedy in Haiti this week, this may become an even hotter topic as the need for clothing and shoes becomes so apparent for our neighbors in Haiti.

Top 5 Entertainment, Trademark, Copyright Posts of 2009

I feel a little like David Letterman. The Top 5 Viewed posts from this blog for 2009 are….

Number 5:  Music Publishing A Good Investment

Number 4:  Michael Jackson’s Estate: What Happens Next

Number 3:  Blawg Review #212

Number 2: Michael Jackson Estate: Value of Right of Publicity

and the Number 1 post, courtesy of all the students at Full Sail:

SUGARLAND PARTNERSHIP DISPUTE.

It was a great 2009 in the blogging world.  I enjoyed every post and look forward to a lot more interaction with my readers in 2010.  Keep those comments coming.

HAPPY NEW YEAR from Tamera Bennett and the Bennett Law Office, PC.

Blawg Review Year in Review

by Tamera H. Bennett
Posted December 30, 2009

Once again, the Blawg Review has generated a fantastic selection of dynamic, informative and often funny law related blog posts for 2009.

You can read the summary here and be sure to scroll to the bottom for directions on voting for the Blawg Review post of the year.  If anybody is interested, my contribution for this year it is #212 and can be found on my blog here (a tribute to the greatest country western song ever).

A special shout out to Ed and the Sherpas at Blawg Review.  It is a lot of work to pull this together every week.  Thanks gang for making it happen.

Happy New Year folks.

Is The Post Office In The Music Business?

by Tamera H. Bennett

The U.S. Postal Service teamed up with Concord Music Group and released a 13 track CD of holiday tunes that are distributed exclusively at Post Offices and via the USPS website.

The album charted at Number 3 on the Billboard album chart on its first week in the stores.  USPS purchased 170,000 units from Concord and 12,000 sold at retail the first week available.

Concord released a “Charlie Brown Christmas” compilation with the USPS three years ago.  Many of Concord’s releases are currently sold via their relationship with Starbucks.

Great article here about the project.

Kudos to my paralegal Katherine Stimson for “spying” the CD’s at the Post Office and researching the history.