Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won
The Texas Interstate Highway Bully
Hall Of Shame Member
Added September 22, 2016
Last updated -January 30, 2017
Buc-ee's, The Texas Interstate Bully, lost its trademark case to Buckey's of Nebraska.
Click here for more details.
On May 4, 2010, .the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), after considering the Opposition lawsuit filed by Buc-ee's, approved the Buckey's trademark with no geographical restrictions. Click here to view the trademark registration [in PDF format]. NO geographical restrictions means NO infringement.
If the federal government, via the USPTO, did not find these two logos to be confusingly similar, how are any of the following lawsuits remotely legitimate? Buc-ee's is using federal trademark lawsuits to badger perceived competition into abandoning their expansions and established businesses. To what end? More money for Buc-ee's. Pure and simple. No competition means greater profits.
Buc-ee's is The Texas Interstate Bully who thinks it owns all rights to cartoon characters and to being Lone Star Stupid.
What happens when corporate lawyers lie for their clients? They get to bill them for mo' money, mo' money and even mo' money.
Buc-ee's and its unethical lawyers are using the expense of federal court lawsuits to drive perceived competition into giving into their legally unsupported and frivolous demands. Why do we say that in our opinion the Buc-ee's lawyers are "unethical"? We'll show you, in detail. And then you might agree with our opinion that Buc-ee's is engaged in illegal and unethical activities. Borderline criminal behavior. But that's just us. You read and decide for yourself.
Buc-ee's is Lone Star Stupid but its lawyers know about thses pages and have know about them since at least November 2016.
If what we are saying about their cases was not accurate surely they would have voiced some concern to us in the form of a cease and desist demand. They have not. Our opinions of Buc-ee's and the legion of Buck-ee's Boobs is not subject to a cease and desist unless we are inventing falsehoods. But wait! That's exactly what Buc-ee's did through its lawyers, Buc-ee's Boobs.
So really how can they object to us being a little creative in our stated opinions when they go into federal court and lie? In our opinion they lied and we support what we think with lots of facts. They lied in federal court to browbeat lesser cash-infused competition into submission. That is what we call trademark extortion.
|What Do These Companies Have In Common?|
All six of the above logos use cartoon-like drawings as a logo. And five of them have been sued by Buc-ee's because according to
the simple-minded lawyer for Buc-ee's, H. Tracy Richardson III, among other idiots, there was a confusingly similar logo
to Buc-ee's smiling hat-wearing beaver. Really? Look at the Buc-kee's logo at the top and take a few seconds to guess which logos of
the above six were claimed by Buc-ee's to be confusingly similar to the Bad Bad Beaver.
We call H. Tracy Richardson III, Deputy General Counsel at Buc-ee's, Ltd., simple-minded because in our opinion only a moron would see anything confusingly similar between any of the logos above. Being an attorney, H. Tracy Richardson III is supposed to be smart. In our opinion, his trademark infringement claims show either he is incredibly dumb or he is another over-reaching and unethical corporate lawyer who bludgeons his client's competitors into submission with costly and frivolous litigation. H. Tracy Richardson III confirms the saying, "98% of lawyers give the other 2% a bad name." Amen.
FYI - five of the six above logos were deemed to be confusingly similar by the lawyers for Buc-ee's. Confusing enough for them to collect lots of billing hours from Buc-ee's. Buc-ee's is more responsible for this farce because Buc-ee's is greedy and unethical as demonstrated by the very obviously frivolous trademark claims filed on its behalf.
|The Owners Of Buc-ee's|
These unethical and money motivated corporate lawyers didn't start all of this on their own. Unethical corporate activities begin at the top,
that is, from the "board" or more obviously in this case, the two ego-centric owners of Buc-ee's. They are the ones who pointed their
pit bull lawyers at innocent competition and told them to "kill". One of those co-owners is Arch Aplin.
And so, who is Arch Aplin and why should we care. We don't care. Did anyone care about the motivations of Charles Manson or Jeffery Dalmer? No! In simple terms, the motivating factors behind illegal and/or unethical behavior does not matter. Jeffery Dalmer's mother probably loved him, well, perhaps before dinner. Money, charm and high-paid lawyers are the key to success. That, in our opinion, is our Arch Alpin.
The other owner of Buc-ee's is some reclusive character named Don Wasek. He seems to be more elusive than Bigfoot, Zombies or the
Loch Ness Monster. At least there are some pictures of the Loch Ness Monster, although they are somewhat suspect. So we decided to
provide you with our own picture of the elusive Buc-ee's owner, Don Wasek. We do not claim it is him but we think it could be a very close
He seems to avoid the publicity that Arch Alpin embraces. But that is not the issue. The issue the complicity, the control and the orders coming the owners of Buc-ee's to stomp on the rights of the lawful competitors. There were NO trade dress violations as claimed by the owners of Buc-ee's through their unethical corporate lawyers. Look at our comparisions and we think you will agree.
The Lying Lawyers Of Buc-ee's
The lawyers for Buc-ee's, to whom we refer collectively to as Buckey's Boobs, withdrew their frivolous trade dress claims after Choke Canyon
fought back. The logical conclusion that can be drawn from this action is that Buckey's Boobs, and/or Buc-ee's management, knew,
reasonably, that the trade dress claims were bogus from the beginning. Logically, that means that every previous trademark court suit
by Buc-ee's alleging trade dress violations were deliberately false and filed with malice of forethought.
Unfortunately for Chick's, Irv's and the others, they entered into voluntary settlement agreements, albeit under duress, settlements that
probably bar them from undoing the agreements. So Buc-ee's, lying and laughing all the way to the courtroom, prevails in those cases.
The owners of Buc-ee's are deplorable for their intentionally wrongful attacks on perceived competition. They must be very unsure of
their stature in the marketplace because of instead of limiting the competition by providing a superior product and great service
they stoop to lying and intimidation. Tactics that makes one wonder about the sanity and moral direction of those running the ship.
Iceberg ahead? Perhaps many.
We would suggest everyone Boycott Buc-ee's.
|Buc-ee's Frivolous Trade Dress Claims|
|Buc-ee's is claiming a number of outrageous trade dress claims under trademark law. Over twenty vague and far-reaching statements about what makes Buc-ee's, well, Buc-ee's. Here are but a few. Buc-ee's is claiming the sole right to the following|
Use of a logo [featuring] an animal [as a cartoon] with humanlike characteristics, a red tongue and wearing a hat.
"Animal", not an aquatic mammal and not a beaver. All cartoon animals in connection with truck stops, rest stops and convenience stores in the great State Of Texas should run for cover as they are now an endangered species. And. really, there is very little of the Buc-ee's beaver that is humanlike except perhaps that red camping hat.
Large square footage, Numerous fuel pumps, Oversized bathrooms, A multitude of cashier stations, Abundant and oversized parking spaces;
Large square footage is not defined in federal law, so, how big is big"? "Large as compared to what? Wal-Mart's have "large" square footage as do supermarkets and shopping malls. And how many is Numerous fuel pumps? Numerous as compared to Fred's Gas 'N Go? And Oversized bathrooms means one needs a safety strap to keep from falling in? Our personal favorite is "A multitude of cashier stations". Makes it appear to have religious implications when one goes to check out. And not least of the many claims, "Abundant and oversized parking spaces. They grow the parking spaces big in Texas.
Large, numerous, oversized, multitude and abundant. Intentionally vague and by no means the intellectual property of Buc-ee's. These are marketing decisions and not the exclusive brain-child of B-B-B-B-Buc-ee's.
These are only eight of twenty plus trade dress claims made by Buc-ee's. More to come.
The lame-brain lawyers for Buc-ee's have abandoned their unsupportable trade dress claims as of October 13, 2016, when they filed a
Second Amended Complaint. It appears they have deserted the federal trademark dress claims in favor of Texas law. A quck look at the
Second Amended Complaint shows the lawyers for Buc-ee's dropped any references to trade dress -- which were all frivolous anyway.
Perhaps they needed more billing hours to pay for their holiday celebrations to close out 2016.
Buc-ee's legal bills just keep climbing. On November 17, 2016, the over-bearing lawers for Buc-ee's filed a Third Amended Complaint. This filing is very similar to the Second Amended Complaint. But, Buc-ee's Boobs get to pad their legal bill even more. Click here for the Third Amended Complaint [in PDF format 31 pages].
All of the allegations in the Third Amended Complaint revolve around one basic and fraudulent claim: that the Choke Canyon alligator logo is confusingly similar to to Buc-ee's beaver logo. That simply is not factual. It is a fabrication in an attempt to defend their initial disgraceful and phony trade dress claims while they were actually trying to stifle perceived competition by filing a lawsuit.
|The Boobs Of Buc-ee's|
|Visit the greatest page additionto these pages, Buc-ee's Boobs, also known as The Lying Lawyers Of Buc-ee's, a listing of all of the lawyers used by Buc-ee's in its frivolous trade dress lawsuits. The lawyers sucking at the money teat of Buc-ee's. Ckick here for The Boobs Of Buc-ee's.|
|Buc-ee's v Chick's|
|The above comparison gets a resounding "NO!" as in NO similarity what-so-ever. We have a more detailed list of what exactly Buc-ee's claims are absolute "similarities" between the two logos. Click here for the detail comparison from the original complaint against Chick's.|
|Buc-ee's v Beaver Water|
On to number two. On July 13, 2013, Buc-ee's filed a trademark infringement complaint against the Utah-based Beaver Water,
second logo from the left. The original complaint, 13-CV-02080, alleged Beaver Water "intended the beaver image to be a copy of, or at the
very least suggestive of, the Beaver Logo." [¶26 page 7 of the original complaint.] Sound familiar? The case was settled
(meaning Beaver Water did not have the money or inclination to fight it). Like Chick's, it appears that Beaver Water lacked the money and
will to fight such obviously false claims. Again, read for yourself if you wish.
Click here for 13-CV-02080, the entire original complaint
[in PDF format 16 pages].
Let us compare the two logos side-by-side. Buc-ee's v Beaver Water:
|The above comparison gets another resounding "NO!" as in NO similarity what-so-ever. We have a more detailed list of what exactly Buc-ee's claims are absolute "similarities" between the two logos. Click here for the detail comparison from the original complaint against Beaver Water .|
|Buc-ee's v Irv's|
On to number three. On November 13, 2013, Buc-ee's filed a trademark infringement complaint against the Texas-based Irv's,
fourth logo from the left. The original complaint, 13-CV-03346, alleged Irv's "image to be a copy of, or at the very least suggestive of, the Beaver Logo."
[page 7 of the original complaint.] Sound familiar? Case was settled (meaning Irv's also did not have the money or inclination to fight it) on October 31, 2013 and
dismissed on November 4, 2013. Like Chick's, it appears that Irv's lacked the money and will to fight such obviously false claims.
Again, read for yourself if you wish.
Click here for 13-CV-03346, the entire original complaint
[in PDF format 18 pages].
Let us compare these two logos side-by-side. Buc-ee's v Irv's:
|The above comparison gets another resounding "NO!" We have a more detailed comparison of what exactly Buc-ee's claims are absolute "similarities" between the two logos. Click here for the detail comparison from the original complaint against Irv's.|
|Buc-ee's v Frio Beaver|
|On to number four. On July 3, 2014, Buc-ee's filed a trademark infringement complaint against the Texas-based Frio River Grocery, or the Frio Beaver Logo, far right logo above. The original complaint alleged "use of confusingly similar trademarks." Another settlement. Click here for 14-CV-01844, the entire original complaint [in PDF format]. Let us compare the two logos side-by-side. Buc-ee's v Frio Beaver:|
|The above comparison gets a resounding "NO!" as in NO similarity what-so-ever. Sounds like a stuck record, doen't it?|
|Buc-ee's v Choke Canyon|
On to number five. On December 23, 2015, Buc-ee's filed a trademark infringement complaint against the Texas-based Choke Canyon Travel Center,
the far left logo above. The original complaint, 15-CV-03704, alleged the logo "that is a copy of, or at the very least suggestive of, the Buc-ee's logo ."
[Page 8 of the original complaint] Again, read for yourself if you wish.
Click here for 15-CV-03704, the entire original complaint [in PDF format].
This case is still open and a jury trial is scheduled for January 2017 in Houston.
Let us compare the fourth set of logos side-by-side as well. Buc-ee's v Choke Canyon:
Whoa! The above comparison gets another resounding "NO!" That's five-out-of-five. A sweep. We have a more detailed list of what exactly Buc-ee's
claims are absolute "similarities" between the two logos. Click here for the detail
comparison from the original complaint against Choke Canyon.
So, is Buc-ee's (and its lawyers) terminally stupid or is Buc-ee's (and its lawyers) actively engaged in what we call Trademark Extortion? We think both. And toss in greedy. Trademark extortion is when a company, or a law firm, uses the threat of litigation, or actual litigation, to extort a favorable settlement from a weaker opponent. In the first four cases listed above, the unethical practice worked. We call it unethical because this tactic is used when the extorting party has a weak or non-existent trademark claim and uses the alternative of a lengthy and expensive lawsuit to undermine a competitor. In our opinion, that is exactly what Buc-ee's is doing, aided and abetted by their attorneys. And when Buc-ee's loses this frivolous case at trial, let us hope the federal court has the good sense to award legal fees to Choke Canyon.
|Page 2 of the Buc-ee's v Choke Canyon lawsuit detail is now available. Click here for the Deconstruct Of the Orginal Complaint filed by Buc-ee's.|
|All of the lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Houston. We will concentrate on the latest of these lawsuits as it has not been settled and is scheduled for a jury trial in January 2017. Here is a list of the Buc-ee's v Choke Canyon court filings we presently have for your viewing pleasure. Court filings are not protected under copyright law so feel free to view and download any you might want. The many administrative motions are not listed. All files below are in PDF format and are from Buc-ee's v Choke Canyon, 15-CV-03704.|
Original Complaint, filed December 23, 2015, 18 pages 1mb
|Click on the links below to go to the pages shown.|
|The Big Bad Blowhard Beaver's Main page||Buc-ee's Boobs|
|The Beaver-Chicks Logo Comparison||The Beaver-Beaver Water Logo Comparison||The Beaver-Irv's Logo Comparison|
|The Beaver-Frio Beaver Logo Comparison||The Beaver-Choke Canyon Logo Comparison|
|Just to refresh your memory, a recap of lawsuits filed by Buc-ee's:|
On March 8, 2013, Buc-ee's filed a trademark infringement complaint against the Texas-based Chick's.
On July 16, 2013, Buc-ee's filed a trademark infringement complaint against Utah-based Beaver Water.
On November 13, 2013, Buc-ee's filed a trademark infringement complaint against the Texas-based Irv's.
On July 3, 2014, Buc-ee's filed a trademark infringement complaint against the Texas-based Frio River Grocery, the Frio Beaver Logo.
On December 23, 2015, Buc-ee's filed a trademark infringement complaint against the Texas-based Choke Canyon Travel Center
|Every one of these cases was, and still is, without merit. No reasonable person could find any of these logos confusingly similar with that stupid beaver. No reasonable person could find any of Buc-ee's trade dress claims to be valid.|
|So, when will Buc-ee's file a lawsuit against the above six companies who are violating Buc-ee's claimed rights to a cartoon logo? Inquiring minds want to know.|
We have never posted a request like this one before but Buc-ee's and its lawyers are so over-reaching in these frivolous lawsuits.
Buc-kee's website is located at https://www.buc-ees.com/. It does not list a telephone number. So, if you agree with us that Buc-ee's has become a Trademark Extortionist, use their contact page to let them know. Cut and paste this link: https://www.buc-ees.com/contact.php
|More coming soon to this page. Stay tuned. Don't touch that dial.|
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
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 |
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 |
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
Filing A Federal Lawsuit
Setting Up | Standing. | Joinder of Parties. | The Complaint | Their Answer | Default Judgment
F.R.C.P. 12(b) Motion | F.R.C.P. 12(f) Motion | Your Reply | Summary Judgment Motion | Affidavits | Time Extension
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 © 1999-2016|