Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won
The Tabberone™ Archives|
These articles concern what we consider major trademark and copyright issues. They are usually reproduced with the original source referenced. Bear in mind, these articles are copyrighted and commercial use without permission of the authors may be considered infringement. The intended use here is educational, commentary and non-commercial. The reason they are reproduced in the Tabberone™ Archives, as opposed to just providing a link, is because links disappear and pages are removed. That presents a messy confirmation process that is annoying to the browser (you) but also presents a credibility issue. We do not claim any rights in these pieces. Do not regard the absence of a copyright statement or © to mean the article is not copyrighted. Some sites do not have a copyright statement.
When an article or a comment is posted on the internet by the copyright owner, the owner is seeking a world-wide, 24/7 audience; sometimes for a limited amount of time, sometimes indefinitely. In essence, an internet posting intentionally relinquishes one's copyright for exclusivity because the owner has posted it on the internet to been seen by everyone, everywhere. The Tabberone™ Archives non-commercial duplication of the posting is simply a continuance of the original wishes of the copyright owner. We post these articles for reference, for commentary and for confirmarion of our position.
May 2, 2008 - Our rebuttal is in blue type. Mr Dozier gives what is obvioulsy his "professional opinion" on this case while we give what is our "pro se" opinion on the case and on his misplaced "opinion". The relevant parts at issue are below. The rest edited out for readibility.
REBUTTAL ~ REBUTTAL ~ REBUTTAL ~ REBUTTALFederal Court Recognizes Copyright Rights In Cease And Desist
Our Rebuttal To This Misinformation
Posted by Dozier Internet Law on PRWeb on January 24, 2008/ Rebuttal Posted by Tabberone May 2, 2008
US District Court decision threatens common practice reports Dozier Internet Law.
Glen Allen, VA (PRWEB) January 24, 2008 -- The US District Court for the District of Idaho has found that copyright law protects a lawyer
demand letter posted online by the recipient (Case No. MS-07-6236-EJL-MHW).
The Final Judgment calls into serious question the practice of posting lawyer cease and desist letters online, a common tactic used and touted by First Amendment
groups to attack legal efforts at resolving everything from defamation to intellectual property disputes.
The Court, in its decision, found that a copyright had been adequately established in a lawyer's cease and desist letter. The unauthorized publication of the
letter, therefore, can expose the publisher to liability. Statutory damages under the US Copyright Act can be as much as $150,000 per occurrence plus
attorneys' fees that can average $750,000 through trial. The publisher of the letter raised First Amendment and "fair use" arguments without success.
John W. Dozier, Jr., Esq., President of Dozier Internet Law, PC, was not surprised by the decision. "In today's world, anticipating how the Courts will view
'new age' arguments is not easy. Dozier Internet Law has been using copyright protected cease and desist letters for years with great success in protecting our
business clients and preventing an escalation of a situation. The publication of cease and desist letters is an easy way for scofflaws to generate online
'mobosphere' support for illegal activity and, until today, many businesses have been hesitant to take action to address some of the lawlessness online
because of possible retaliation and attacks."
Dozier Internet Law specializes in protecting the intellectual property and reputations of online business. Mr. Dozier believes that the decision will return
pre-litigation notices and negotiations to a state of normalcy and allow businesses to more effectively police their interests online. He noted that prior to the
Internet, private legal disputes were handled between attorneys with a focus on avoiding costly legal battles and not burdening the judicial system with legal
cases that should have been resolved without a lawsuit. Since the posting of cease and desist letters became a popular practice, fueled predominantly by
guidance and legal advice from "free speech" organizations located in the US, businesses have either allowed theft and lawlessness to continue or immediately
filed a lawsuit that can take many years to resolve. "It's a great day for businesses and a bad day for those conducting illegal activity online," Dozier said.
Articles | Cease and Desist Letters | Federal Court Cases | FAQs & Whines | Glossary | Hall Of Shame | Contributions
Initial Interest Confusion |
Likelihood Of Confusion |
Material Difference Standard
Parallel Imports | Post-sale Confusion | Puffery | Secondary Meaning | Subsequent Confusion | Trademark Abuse
Unauthorized Use | Unfair Competition | What is a Trademark?
Angel Policies |
Contributory Infringement |
Copyright Extortion |
Copyright Misuse Doctrine
; Derivative | The Digital Millennium Copyright Act | EULA | Fair Use | First Sale Doctrine | Product Description | Registration
Registration Denied | What is a Copyright? | What is not Copyrightable?
Embroidery Designs |
FAQs & Whines |
Image and Text Theft |
Licensed Fabric |
Licensing & Licenses |
Patterns Index | Profit | Quilting | Selvage | Stanford School of Law Case Outline
Tabberone Disclaimer | Trademark Extortion | Urban Myths | What To Do If You Are Veroed
Federal Court Cases |
Alphabetically | by Federal Circuit | by Subject | by Court Quotations
Federal Statutes |
Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 5 | Digital Millenium Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 12 | Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. 22
VeRO (Verified Right's Owner Program)|
VeRO Commandments | VeRO-Verified Rights Owners Program | Counter Notice Letter
Counter Notice (pre-2003) | Counter Notice present | On-Line Survey from 2004 | Articles about VeRO | What To Do If You Are Veroed
|Original material by Karen Dudnikov & Michael Meadors is © 1999-2017|