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

Hall Of Shame Member
Added January 13, 2009

Last Updated - March 6, 2011

We have toyed with adding Chanel to theses pages for some time. Mostly we haven't because of doubt that the eBay auctions being terminated were listings for legitimate Chanel merchandise. Finally, as we knew the bottom-feeder attorneys at Keats McFarland & Wilson would eventually provide opportunity, we have added Chanel. But, laughingly, they are not added because someone was selling questionable Chanel merchandise but rather for terminal stupidity.

Boyd's Bears makes a variety of plush bears every year. Like Beanie babies, there are collectors, and like Beanie Babies, Boyd's Bears are retired periodically. A quick look shows there are bears named Allison Babbitt, Aubergine, Bailey, Baxter B. Bean, Calvin, Churchill, to name a few, and the offensive bear, Chanel de la Plumtete. It appears that Chanel and their ignorant lawyers at Keats McFarland & Wilson believe that only they have the right to use the word "Chanel" in any and all forms. Trademark infringement is when someone uses another's trademark to cause confusion as to the origin of an item. When Boyd's Bears call a teddy bear Chanel de la Plumtete, only a moronic bottom-feeder lawyer at Keats McFarland & Wilson would believe anyone would be confused as to the origin of the teddy bear.

An just who is this idiot at at Keats McFarland & Wilson who thinks this teddy bear is infringing? David Caplan, Larry McFarland's own Stepin Fetchit. David Caplan has authored a pretentious, over-bearing, lengthy, and we think unethical canned response letter to the poor souls who were shut down by him and his fascist eBay trollers (fascist is appropriate here given the well established ties Chanel had with the Nazis in WWII as a collaborator.)

Here are what we consider to be the lies and misrepresentations made in this response email signed by David Caplan:

1. "a trained representative of Chanel reviewed your auction".
What a crock. The complaint to eBay came from the offices of Keats McFarland & Wilson. Just who on their staff is "trained" by Chanel? No one! But the response email gives one the impression Chanel trained the office minion doing the trolling. KMW did the training and it's very likely the training existed only of "If it says 'Chanel' close it down" and "Go get me another cup of coffee while you're at it".

2. The "trained representative of Chanel ... believes the item being sold was a counterfeit"
Another crock. We've received numerous complaints from sellers who knew their item was authentic but were shut down by this mythical "trained representative of Chanel" who somehow perceived the item to be counterfeit. In reality, it's easier to close them all down and make the seller jump through the hoops outlined in the response email.

3. Provide proof so "we may conduct a secondary review of the item"
The burden of proof is upon the seller to prove the item is authentic and then, maybe, they will relent. Maybe but don't bet on it. What ever happened to a reasonable belief that the item is infringing? That's long gone. The legal hacks at Keats McFarland & Wilson know that few, if any, sellers will actually fight back by taking Chanel into federal court. Why? The time, expertise, and cost. A drawn out case can take years to resolution. Keats McFarland & Wilson isn't interested in a quick settlement because they get their money in litigation. The expertise to make a case is difficult for the novice. Courts love to rule against pro se litigants so representation is often a must. And, should the seller win, the seller is unlikely to recoup attorney fees and other costs. In our estimation that makes Keats McFarland & Wilson a scum-bag law firm.

4. "Chanel will NOT request that eBay reinstate your account to good standing".
What a low-life response. If the account was suspended or restricted because Keats McFarland & Wilson (it's KMW ordering the auction terminated, not Chanel) ordered an auction terminated for authentic Chanel merchandise why wouldn't they email eBay and have the account reinstated? They don't care and they know they don't have to email eBay. In our estimation that makes another reason Keats McFarland & Wilson is a scum-bag law firm.

Here are the emails that we have for attorneys at Keats McFarland & Wilson as of this posting:

  • David Caplan -
  • Dennis Wilson -
  • Anthony Keats -
  • Larry Mcfarland -

We are guessing the other email addresses for attorneys at are similar in structure. And we are guessing that their ethics are as low as those of David Caplan. In our opinion, the garbage email makes David Caplan a liar and a fraud who should be disbarred.




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


  [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]