Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won
not tay ber own

Tabbers Temptations Home | Site Index | Disclaimer | Email Me!

Tabberone Logo
The latest Hartsel weather.

  "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
Edmund Burke

Aanraku Stained Glass
Hall Of Shame Member
Added July 9, 2010

Last updated - March 2, 2012

What does an asshole look like? We are guessing just like Jeffrey Castaline: puckered, smelly and single-minded. And with diarrhea of the mouth. We think he is an over-blown bully who like beating up those whom he considers to be his inferiors. That would be the entire human race.

Why would a corporate lawyer lie to someone who was not his/her client? For one thing, corporate lawyers are professional liars. It is what they do. Also, they want that big, fat check from the client. Imagine how long you, as a corporate lawyer (stifle your gag reflex), would last if you actually told your client the truth? "Jeff baby, listen to me. You do not have a case. Your intellectual property lacks intellect, fool!" Your client would be heading down the hallway to a corporate lawyer who would lie to them. "Of course, Jeff, baby. We'll sue their socks off if they even sneeze in English".

Lying to other corporate lawyers is par for the course. It is the way the game is played. Lying to the court is permissible as long as it is done with decorum. Lying to the court is rarely penalized because the corporate lawyer does in a zealous defense of the client. The facts be damned.

Aanraku Stained Glass comes to these pages by way of an eBay blog called "Just Chat". It appears, according to the poster and in our opinion, that not only is the owner, one Jeffrey Castaline, rude and overbearing but a liar as well. So are his lawyers, John D. Minton and Barry J. Parker, of Carr McClellan Ingersoll Thompson & Horn in Burlingame, California. We are not sure which is the bigger asshole, Jeffrey Castaline, Barry J. Parker or John D. Minton. We will let you decide. We think it is Jeffrey Castaline and we are going to show you why. He is a crude and arrogant S.O.B. Here is a quote from one of his recent emails:

Are you a complete fucking asshole asshole that you have to be led to water before you drink? Show your goddamn attorney the trademarks below.


P.S. Personally I hate having to do this shit because dumb uninformed assholes think they can steal anything they want. But there is no nice way to stop a thief. I will spend whatever is necessary to protect my legal rights. If you want your lawyer to fight with my lawyer, just keep doing what you're doing.


Don't try to be any stupider than you all ready are.

Jeffrey is a real potty-mouth. And he has a low opinion of others while he has an inflated opinion of himself. He is a nut job. Jeffrey should avoid all contact with squirrels.

It is our opinion that companies and sellers who have long-winded statements about their intellectual property rights are generally misinformed and self-righteous morons to boot. Often they have inflated opinions about their talents and their general place in the universe. These feel-good but flawed declarations of rights usually misstate rights in general and often are full of lies.

Judging from the Aanraku Infringement Notice [in pdf format], our opinion has not changed. And, we assume that the erstwhile and lying attorneys for Aanraku Stained Glass, John D. Minton and Barry J. Parker, have full knowledge of this document. And since the lawyers have allowed their names to be attached to this document we can only assume that they are in full agreement with the lies told.

AANRAKU begins the Infringement Notice by asserting that any and all of the three given reasons are infringing at all times. That is not true.

Statement "(1) Using our registered trademark, AANRAKU, to refer to your product" is not infringing provided it is done properly. If you are reselling genuine AANRAKU items, or using genuine AANRAKU products in the manufacturing of your product, it is permissible under "fair use" to say so. Also, it is permissible to refer to AANRAKU in comparison advertising.

Statement "(2) Showing images of products incorporating our registered trademark cross-lines design" is not infringing if it is done for the reasons stated above.

Statement "(3) Selling a bail resembling our trademarked leaf-shaped bail designs" in not infringing because AANRAKU's registered trademark for the "cross-lines design" is invalid because it is a trademark for a functional feature and as such the trademark was obtained under false pretenses and that makes the trademark invalid.

The Infringement Notice goes on to make the claim, "Aanraku is the owner of the following exclusive trademark rights in these [two] proprietary bails..."

1) Leaf-shaped trade dress ??? What? Trade dress? To begin with, the Supreme Court stated in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc., 529 US 205 (2000),

We hold that, in an action for infringement of unregistered trade dress under 43(a) of the Lanham Act, a product's design is distinctive, and therefore protectible, only upon a showing of secondary meaning.

Proving secondary meaning on a widely used design such as a leaf design will be impossible for AANRAKU. Better companies have tried and failed. The courts do not favor secondary meaning rulings.

ANNRAKU does have a registered trademarks in the leaf-shaped design. (see pictures left and right). But trademarks in lieu of design patents are not valid. AANRAKU cannot get a design patent because the leaf design on bails is so widely used. And a trademark on a product that is widely used must be either denied or declared invalid by a federal court because trademarks are designed to designate the source of a product, not the product itself. Barry J. Parker must be an idiot because he filed these applications.

On April 27, 2010, the USPTO filed a FINAL office action refusing to register application 77755139 (to the right) and on April 14, 2010, the USPTO filed a FINAL action refusing to register application 77755032 (to the left). It seems that the Trademark Office was talked into changing its mind and in 2011 it approved the filings.

Jeffrey Castaline and Annraku have five registered trademarks. The images provided to the Trademark Office are shown below.






Notice #33594504. That design is not being used by Jeffrey Castaline and Annraku as a trademark. It is a functional design used by them on their bails. The function of a trademark is to denote the origin of the product and not be the product itself. And, of what use is this "mark" if it cannot be seen once it is used? It gets covered up! Does that make sense? And, trademark regulations require that a federally registered mark carry the registered symbol, ®, so the others will know it is a federally registered trademark. Failure to include the ® symbol causes the trademark owner to not be eleigible for any profits from the infringement nor can they collect damages. #33594504 does not carry the ® symbol and neither do the two bails shown above.

2) Cross-lines design mark (U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,594,504). Because the cross line design is functional, this is a trademark that should be declared invalid. But that would require a federal lawsuit by a seller who was stomped on by Jeffrey Castaline and his idiot lawyers.

Now, onto other lies told by Jeffrey Castaline and his idiot lawyers. First some background.

On July 6, 2010, AANRAKU ordered eBay to terminate some listings claiming, "- Item(s) is a counterfeit product which infringes the trademark owner's rights." The seller tried to contact AANRAKU by telephone only to find the person at the other end, she assumed it was Jeffrey Castaline, yelling at her, "Do you have a quarter of a million dollars? Because that's what its going to take to fight this." Typical tactic - you cannot afford to fight this. That is why assholes like Jeffrey Castaline get away with these tactics.

Then, punctuating his screaming with numerous profanities, Jeffrey Castaline began a rant about counterfeiters stealing his designs and inventions. The seller hung up. Jeffrey Castaline called her back.

First Lie: he claimed he had won a lawsuit against another manufacturer saying that they had copied his designs. Except, that implies that the court decided in his favor. But the court did not. In Creative Castings v Jefrey Castaline, 09-cv-0319 (Dist Ct RI), the case was dismissed three weeks after it was filed. So the case was settled, not won as claimed. And what was in the settlement? Jeffrey Castaline is not saying but he is claiming he won a case filed by another party. And as for the other law suit, it was settled as well. Case 09-cv-02543 Castaline v. Aaron Mueller Arts et al, filed June 8, 2009, in the Northern District of California, was dismissed April 1, 2010, by joint stipulation - in other words, it was settled. But since the settlements of these two cases are not public record, we only have the word of Jeffrey Castaline. And he wouldn't lie to us, would he? Hmmmm? Come on, Jeff. Do like we do. Post your settlements.

It gets better. On July 8, 2010, the seller emails the attorney for AANRAKU, the afore mentioned John D. Minton, and asked for "a copy of the case number along with the district it was filed in" so she and her legal counsel could get a copy of the case wherein Jeff-Poo claimed he had won. John D. Minton refused to provide her with that information. Why be so petty, John-boy? It isn't like it would cost you anything. You bill your clients when you have to go to the bathroom. Just tack on the cost of answering the question. Oh, but wait. You do not want them to see the law suit because it holds damning allegations about your client and his claims. And, your client did not "win" the case(s), did he? By supporting Castaline's position, in our opinion, John you are a lying scumbag corporate attorney. Some officer of the court you are, Big John. Bad Big John.

From Creative Castings v Jefrey Castaline:

¶ 24. CCI [Creative Castings Inc] and CBC [Contemporary Beads and Castings] contend that Castaline's trademark is invalid because their bail is not an exact replica, and because Catiline's claims to intellectual property are attempts to protect generic and functional features and properties that lack distinctiveness. Furthermore, Castaline's conduct is a blanant attempt to unreasonably restrain competition.

Creative Castings v Jefrey Castaline [in PDF format] is a mere six pages long and to the point. It refutes the trademark claim and the trade dress claim very efficiently. Jeffrey Castaline chose to settle rather than fight the claim. This lawsuit was dismissed 22 days after it was filed. It has been our experience that when a defendant wants to settle that quickly it is because they do not want a court fight on the issues because they will lose. And, as of March 2012, some 2½ years after the settlement, Creative Castings and co-plaintiff Contempory Beads, are still selling leaf-shaped bails. That tells you who won the lawsuit.

From Castaline v. Aaron Mueller Arts et al, Counterclaim filed December 13, 2009:

¶ 17. On or about March 24, 2009, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued to Counterdefendant [Castaline] a trademark registration (hereinafter referred to as the "Trademark in Question") for the design of his Glue On Tab. The Glue on Tab that is the subject of the Trademark in Question contains only two horizontal lines intersecting only two vertical lines that are laid upon a flat surface (hereinafter referred to as the "Crossed Lines"), i.e., such Crossed Lines are elevated above the flat surface of the Glue On Tab that is within an oval, and that oval and the Crossed Lines are collectively, but not individually, the sole subject matter of Trademark in Question. A copy of the Trademark in Question is attached to the Complaint in this action as Exhibit B thereto.

¶ 18. The purpose of the Crossed Lines is not a matter of protectable design, but of functionality for the superior bonding of a mastic or adhesive, which is applied to the surface that has been cross-hatch texturized by the Crossed Lines, and thereby strengthens the adherence of the material which is attached to the Glue On Tab as an appendage to the Bail, and such functionality is historically generic in that it has existed on adhesive surfaces for centuries, including jewelry findings and compnents and many other mediums.

In our opinion, Jeffery Castaline and his jerkwad attorneys, John D. Minton and Barry J. Parker, of Carr McClellan Ingersoll Thompson & Horn in Burlingame, California, are guilty of Trademark Abuse and should be punished for it.




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.

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


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 © 1999-2017