[an error occurred while processing this directive]

This is the letter as received. Content has not been altered. Click on the links to see our responses.

Tucson Arizona Letter, July 2, 2010


I read with interest your website “Rebath Sucks.” I then Googled “Karen Dudnikov” and came across the video of your interview. The vehemence, anger, and willingness to smear people and defame them by calling them “liars and thiefs” (sic) as you do on your hate web site is totally out of character with the reasonable and articulate non-attorney researcher into trademark and copyright law that I saw on the video.

It's a puzzle to me.

To begin with, I am not a Rebath customer. I have never had a Rebath product installed. I've seen their products and think their products are crappy and of poor quality but that's not why I am writing to you. I don't know whether you will believe me or not and I really don't care. If you want to think that anyone who can't say that they've had a bad experience with Rebath is a liar, so be it. The reason for my writing to you is to question the way you run your hate website.

I think you and Michael Meaddors (sic) are childish. So an attorney writes to you with the customary identification “I represent so and so.” Well, obviously you've had enough experience with attorneys to know that that's standard. So why do you respond with a childish "We resent Rebath etc.”?

As to the legal issues, well I'm now not so sure how much you actually know about the law. Do you seriously believe that a website that attacks a company that is engaged in interstate commerce as Rebath clearly is, that includes complaints from all over the country, and which is obviously intended to influence and adversely affect the interstate sales of that company, is not a website engaged in interstate commerce as that term had been defined in innumerable court decisions that and the use of the logos of that company on the website is not a use “in commerce” under the Lanham Act? Do you seriously believe that?

Let me also explain something to you. Just because an attorney doesn't further respond after you write him a letter doesn't make the lawyer an unqualified hack as you seem to believe. All it means is that the lawyer did what the client wanted. The client wanted a letter written. The client wasn't interested in paying any further legal bills to pursue the matter with you. Don't assume that the sheer force of your intellectual arguments was responsible for the lack of further response.

You won't disclose the results of the litigation in which you have been engaged. You briefly refer to “settlements” but that's it. If you've won all these huge legal victories, wouldn't you be bragging about that?

I've looked at your Tabberone website. Every single one of the items listed misleading claims that the products are licensed. The originals are licensed but what you are selling is not licensed, so even if it's not a derivative work or sufficiently differentiated derivative work, as you state in your video, your claim is misleading. You also use the tradenames of these various companies, such as NASCAR, which is a registered trade name, as a come-on in the initial listing of your products for sale. If it were not for other people's work product and intellectual effort you would have nothing to sell. Your rant about copyright law to which you have a link has nothing to do with the issue raised by your website. In fact, it's unclear what originality you've actually contributed to the product you are selling. Who do you think you are kidding?

Why does the United States Postal Service show no zip code for 3463 Maskoke Trail in Hartsel? Presumably the Rebath workers were able to find your alleged physical place of residence, or maybe you don't actually live in the trailer at the location, with an assessed valuation of the magnificent sum of $152,087, and the whole thing is a hoax.

Yes, I think you two are not to be believed.

[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]