| ||||||
| ||||||
|
Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won |
| ||||||||||
|
Last Updated February 12, 2010 |
|
In an effort to show that Continental Enterprises and their General Counsel Darlene Seymour
are incredibly stupid, we have taken Civil Case 07-CV-1054 and converted it from PDF format to HTML format so we can point out the glaring errors, outrageous claims,
and stupid demands made in this law suit filed in Indiana State Court.
Bear in mind, as we have stated many times, we are not lawyers nor have we ever played lawyers on television nor did we stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. What we are presenting here is our humble opinions as to what was done wrong in this filing. And there are many errors. We are more than willing to listen to anyone, including Continental Enterprises and their General Counsel Darlene Seymour, who can authoritatively point out where we are wrong in our assertions. If you tell us we are wrong, back it up with citations and case law. If we are wrong, we'll change what we've posted. |
|
Civil Case 07-CV-1054 is available here in PDF format for those interested.
Civil Case 07-CV-1054is available in HTML format here. Note towards the end the "Demand For Trial Jury".
Why Darlene Seymour wants a jury-in-training we have no idea.
Amended Complaint in Civil Case 07-CV-1054 is available here in PDF format for those interested. Amended Complaint in Civil Case 07-CV-1054is available in HTML format here. This case involves Continental Enterprises and their General Counsel Darlene Seymour filing suit on behalf of Heineken Brewery against GI Apparel, Inc, Panama Jack, Inc, and Kohl's Corporation. Since the lawsuit does not make the issue clear, we are assuming that GI Apparel was making t-shirts for Panama Jack who was selling these t-shirts through Kohl's. The image on the t-shirt is this: |
|
|
The benchmark of trademark infringement is consumer confusion. The alleged infringer must do something to make the consumer confused
as to the source of the product. No reasonable person would for a minute believe this t-shirt was manufactured or sponsored by Heineken.
Since this is the basis of the lawsuit, Stupid Error #1 - this is not trademark infringement. The reason for this lawsuit was because
the three victims would not pay the extortion demand by Continental Enterprises and their General Counsel Darlene Seymour.
In its response GI Apparel makes this very counterclaim against Continental Enterprises
(see ¶¶ 5-6 on page 7).
¶2 of Complaint - "Heineken asserts claims for federal trademark infringement..." etc. This action was filed in Indiana State Court which does not have jurisdiction to hear federal trademark claims. Stupid Error #2 ¶2 of Complaint - "Heineken asserts claims for ... conversion, forgery, counterfeiting and deception." The problem here is that "conversion, forgery, counterfeiting and deception" are criminal acts and are not subject to civil remedies. Stupid Error #3 ¶3 of Complaint - "Heineken is a foreign corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Netherlands." This automatically makes this a federal issue. Filing this action in state court when one of the parties is a foreign company is more than just stupid. First year law students know better than this. Stupid Error #4 compounding Stupid Error #2. This stupid error was corrected in the Amended Complaint. ¶7 of Complaint - cites Ind. Code §33-28-1-2 and Ind. Code §33-33-29-7 to establish jurisdiction but since there are federal issues involved this action is improperly filed in state court and there is no authority for jurisdiction. Stupid Error #5 ¶8 of Complaint - alleges Defendants have submitted to jurisdiction by doing business in Indiana. To establish jurisdiction, they have to establish the infringing t-shirts were actually sold in Indiana stores, something they never alleged. Stupid Error #6 ¶10 of Complaint - is a standard statement and is unsupported by any further allegations and therefore false on its face. Stupid Error #7 ¶26 of Complaint - "Count I - Federal Trademark Infingement Under 15 U.S.C. §1114". Again, Indiana State Court does not have jurisdiction to hear federal trademark claims. Stupid Error #2 repeated ¶36 of Complaint - "Count II - Federal Trademark Dilution Under 15 U.S.C. §1125(c)". Again, Indiana State Court does not have jurisdiction to hear federal trademark claims. Stupid Error #2 repeated, again ¶46 of Complaint - "Count III - Federal claims Under 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)". Again, Indiana State Court does not have jurisdiction to hear federal trademark claims. Stupid Error #2 repeated, again ¶53 of Complaint - "Count IV - Common law trademark infringement". There is no federal common law trademark infringement. All common law is geographically based and should be plead specifically to the geographic location. No reference is made to Indiana law that allows this claim which on its face makes the claim invalid. In addition, Indiana Law requires a trademark be registered in Indiana to bring a state claim. As of December 30, 2008, Heineken has no registed trademarks in Indiana. In late 2006, Continental Enterprises filed with the State of Indiana four applications for trademarks for Heineken but ALL FOUR were rejected, on or about October 10, 2006, for improper paperwork. To date, according to the State of Indiana web site, the paperwork was never corrected so the applications remain rejected. Stupid Error #8 ¶62 of Complaint - "Count V - Unfair Competition". No statute, federal or Indiana, is referenced which makes this claim unsupported and invalid on its face. Stupid Error #9 ¶69 of Complaint - "Count VI - Conversion Under IND. Code §35-43-4-3". Conversion is basically another word for "theft". Code §35-43 covers criminal acts. What Darlene Seymour is attempting to do here is claim a criminal act against the Defendants so she can claim restitution under the Indiana Crime Victim's Act, Ind. Code §34-24-3-1. Except, "conversion" by definition requires the "theft" of property by obtaining control of that property which has not happened here. And, the Crime Victim's Act appears to require the Defendants be "subject to criminal prosecution" which would require them being charged with a felony by the State of Indiana. Stupid Error #10 ¶74 of Complaint - "Count VII - Forgery Under IND. Code §35-43-5-2(b)". This one is a bigger crock of shit than the previous one. Forgery requires a "written instrument" which is a paper or document, not a blinking t-shirt. Again, what Darlene Seymour is attempting to do here is claim a criminal act against the Defendants so she can claim restitution under the Indiana Crime Victim's Act. Stupid Error #11 ¶78 of Complaint - "Count VIII - Counterfeiting Under IND. Code §35-43-5-2(a)". The same thing applies for this statute. Forgery and counterfeiting both require a "written instrument" under Indiana law. Stupid Error #12 ¶82 of Complaint - "Count IX - Deception Under IND. Code §35-43-5-3". Deception under this statute ONLY applies to "an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution". What was Darlene Seymour smoking when she put together this pile of crap? Stupid Error #13 Prayer For Relief - all of the demands overlook one very possible and valid scenario: that G.I. Apparel and Kohl's could be legitimately involved in the manufacture and/or distribution of licensed Heineken products. Stupid Error #14 Based upon all of these examples, one can only conclude that Darlene Seymour is just plain stupid, stupid, stupid. |
|
General Articles | Cease and Desist Letters | Federal Court Cases | FAQs & Whines | Glossary | Hall Of Shame | Contributions
Corporate Lawyers |
|
Definitions |
|
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 |
