Not wanting to wait and spar to no end with the lawyers for Disney, Tabberone decided to take the action to Federal Court for Declaratory Judgment. On February 4, 2003, the case was settled and Disney has agreed to leave us alone! And, we did it without any help from lawyers by representing ourselves. On September 4, 2002, Disney Enterprises instructed eBay to terminate three auctions by Tabberone that featured fabric items made from licensed Disney fabric. On the same day, an email was sent by us to Disney requesting they clarify why the auctions were shut down. On the same day, eBay disavowed any responsibility for the auctions being terminated, stating "it was all their fault". Later that same day, Disney replied, with a load of garbage about home-use only and that the items were derivatives. On November 18, we emailed Disney citing legal opinions as to why their actions were improper. We indicated we were planning to relist Disney items and wanted them to leave us alone. On November 19, having not received a response from Deborah Perry, we emailed Joe Woddall with the same message. We still have not received a response from either of them concerning their actions and/or our arguments. We're not holding our breath. After waiting a full week to give the Disney representatives more than enough time to respond, we decided to take more direct action: we wrote Disney's Senior Counsel with pretty much the same agrument and the same request: leave us alone. We sent this letter certified mail and they received it on December 2. Three weeks later no response. We then filed our lawsuit, now referred to as Civil Action 02-WM-2402 (PAC), in the Federal District Court for Colorado. Feel free to use any part of this lawsuit for yourself or threatened friend. The lawyers for Disney move slow. They mailed a response to us December 23, 2002, in which they say they "believe" our products infringe under California law. They believe? Jiminy Cricket! Belief must make it so! The Disney lawyers are (weakly) claiming the user agreement with eBay stipulates California law is binding. In a response letter dated december 20, 2002, they seem to claim they are stupid (see citing Article 19 of the eBay User Agreement). The only paragraph that speaks of California Law refers to the User Agreement being bound by California law, not the buying and selling on eBay! The Disney lawyers don't have a defense and are scrambling for one. On December 30, 2002, a counter notice was faxed to eBay contesting the auction suspensions. Usually eBay responds immediately concerning counter notices. After almost two weeks, we decided to inquire as to what was the problem. After some delay, mostly around email addresses that had been changed "for better service", we received an answer. But, the answer wasn't consistent with eBay rules! They were "conferring" with Disney to see if the rules were being followed! Huh? What say does Disney have? Either they file in Federal court in two weeks ot not! Those are the rules! We immediately responded with the following on January 18, 2003, challenging the delay. After some delay, eBay got back to us telling us that Disney wanted to talk to us in an attempt to resolve the matter. January 24, 2003. On February 3, 2002, Disney faxed us a signed agreement which we also signed and faxed back to them the next day along with a copy of the Notice of Dismissal. As per the agreement, Disney emailed eBay to withdraw the suspended auctions on February 4, 2003, ending the conflict. Stay tuned for more details as they happen.

Disney touts it's quality control. What it doesn't mention is Disney clothing and toys are made in sweat shops in Haiti, South America, Bengladesh, Southeast Asia, and China. Click Here for some gruesome reading of articles about Disney's "quality control" of what really is slave labor.

Forced labor, a.k.a. slavery, is an issue that confronts many American manufacturers. Did you know it violates federal law and could invalidate many existing trademarks and copyrights? Click here for more details about our opinion on this.

 

 

Rebuttals In an effort to provide a balanced view, we make the following offer to anyone who feels they have been wrongly accused on this web site. If you, or your company, have been referenced on these pages, and you would like the chance to post a rebuttal, we will post your rebuttal (provided it is in good taste) so others can read it. The rebuttal must be submitted in a format that can easily be converted into HTML. We reserve the right to alter the rebuttal to make it more readable. However, we will not alter the content (unless there is offensive material to be removed). We also reserve the right to comment on any rebuttal received. Emails protesting the content of this web site may be treated as rebuttals by us at our discretion.

General Articles | Cease and Desist Letters | Federal Court Cases | FAQs & Whines | Glossary | Hall Of Shame | Contributions Corporate Lawyers Cartoons | Code Of Ethics | Courtroom Remarks | Definition Of A Lie | Jokes | Lawyers | Lying | Who Have Lied eBay - Land The Game™

Definitions

Trademark Definitions

Blurring   |   Confusion   |   Damages   |   Dilution   |   History   |   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?

Copyright Definitions

Angel Policies   |   Contributory Infringement   |   Copyrightability   |   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?

Other Issues

Embroidery Designs   |   FAQs & Whines   |   Image and Text Theft   |   Licensed Fabric   |   Licensing & Licenses   |   Patterns 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 © 1999-2019