Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won
We have downloaded the various documents from the District Court Western Disctrict of Washington web site. They are all in PDF format.
Case 2:07-cv-01189-RAJ. We do not have all documents filed, only those we considered relevant.
First Amended Complaint, filed November 11, 2007.
Second Amended Complaint, filed November 20, 2007.
Affidavit of Evelyn LaHaie, filed January 15, 2008. She was the Enforcement manager in the License Compliance Department for Autodesk.
Affidavit of Lawrence K. Rockwell, filed January 15, 2008. Partner in the firm of Donahue Gallagher Woods LLP.
Autodesk Motion To Dismiss, filed February 8, 2008.
Vernor Opposition to Motion To Dismiss, filed February 21, 2008.
Replt to Motion To Dismiss, filed February 29, 2008.
Autodesk Reply to Opposition, filed February 29, 2008.
Court Oder Denying Autodesk's Motion To Dismiss, filed May 20, 2008. The court noted that Autodesk terminated an eBay auction by Vernor in 2005. Vernor filed a counter notice to which Autodesk (through their idiot attorney Andrew McKay) never responded. The auction was reinstated by eBay. The court stated:
"In 2007, Mr. Vernor bought four authentic, used AutoCAD packages from an office sale at Cardwell/Thomas Associates (“CTA”), a Seattle architecture firm. Mr. Vernor sold three packages on eBay, but each time he put a package up for auction, an exchange of DMCA notices from Autodesk, suspension of the auction by eBay, counternotices from Mr. Vernor, and reinstatement of the auction followed. When Mr. Vernor attempted to sell the fourth AutoCAD package, Autodesk filed another DMCA notice, and eBay responded by suspending Mr. Vernor’s eBay account for one month for repeat infringement."Autodesk attempted to minimize the effects of its actions. However, the court disagreed:
"The harm is twofold. First, Autodesk delays his eBay auctions by posting DMCA notices, forcing him to issue counter-notices to reinstate the auctions. Second, Autodesk’s repeated notices resulted in a one-month suspension of Mr. Vernor’s eBay account, and a resulting temporary inability to engage in his business. Mr. Vernor fears that Autodesk will repeat this conduct. On the record before the court, that fear is well-founded. Moreover, an Autodesk attorney threatened to “take further action” against Mr. Vernor if continued to sell AutoCAD packages. Under these circumstances, Mr. Vernor’s declaratory judgment claim presents a controversy of sufficient immediacy.
Autodesk Motion For Summary Judgment, filed February 20, 2009.
Declaration of Professor Raymond Nimmer supporting the Autodesk Motion For Summary Judgment, filed February 20, 2009. Based upon the wording of the Court Decision rendered September 30 (see below), it appears that Raymond Nimmer will whore out his services to the highest bidder. The Decision states:
"Autodesk retained professor Raymond Nimmer as an expert witness. Mr. Nimmer provided two declarations in support of Autodesk’s summary judgment motion." [page 3]
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 | 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