` Tabberone's Hall of Shame - Cyber Cops Net Enforcers

Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won
not tay ber own

Tabbers Temptations     www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/ 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

Net Enforcers
Cyber Cops
Hall Of Shame Members
Added October 21, 2008

Last Updated February 18, 2009

We have heard rumblings about Net Enforcers over the years but until October 2008 we had not been able to obtain credible information to backup their activities. We were contacted by a lawyer who wanted to know if we knew anything about them so we posted on some chat boards seeking information. We were quite surprised to ge a letter on June 12, 2006 from the president of Net Enforcers at the time, Joseph Loomis. Net Enforcers appear to be headquartered at P.O. Box 9006, Coral Springs, FL 33075. When a company does not put its physical address on its stationery it makes us wonder just what are they hiding. We have found one source that says they are located at 10211 West Sample Road, Suite 115, Coral Springs. Hiding ones address is much like the fact that Net Enforcers has its web site registered with Domains by Proxy, Inc. Just what are they hiding? We doubt if any reputable company registers their web site in this manner.

Net Enforcers claims to have 105 clients including JVC, Pioneer and Kenwood. They have also represented Mitek, Russound, KEF, Universal Remote Control and Audio Products International, all in very silly threats of action over the use of their images to sell their items. Monster Cable, a monster asshole of a company, is a long-time client of Net Enforcers and has been on these pages for quite some time. There's no lack of suckers, is there, Joe baby?

His letter used several buzz-words when describing his company. The "normal" operations of his company included the "good faith protection of our client’s intellectual property rights" which is a very low standard and is violated daily on eBay by bottom-feeder corporate lawyers because they can, not because they are stupid.

"Our intentions are not to interfere with any rightful business operations or to restrict trade or place undue burden on legitimate small business owners."

It was a really good chest-beating letter that said very little. Since we were unable to gather any information, pro or con, we stopped looking and never responded. Now we respond and announce that Net Enforcers, along with their client, Directed Electronics, and Intersections Inc (Net Enforcers is a wholly owned subsidiary of Intersections Inc), have earned their lowly spot on Tabberone's Trademark and Copyright Abusers' Hall of Shame. Based upon the information below, we think Joseph Loomis is a liar. But this doesn't surprise us.

On behalf of their client, Directed Electronics, Net Enforcers ordered some auctions terminated in October 2008 for "Viper 5701" and "Viper 160 XV". The official reason given by eBay was "patent infringement - unauthorized item" with the contact information as being Net Enforcers, Inc, email Ebay.Violations@NetEnforcers.com.

Patent infringement is a serious issue. But how can one be guilty of "patent infringement" when one is selling the genuine product purchased from a licensed distributor? The seller wanted to know. After 15 emails (Yes Virginia, fifteen emails) on October 13 some nimrod at Net Enforcers, Inc named Andrew Matchet finally responded.

The auction number 110296133149 was submitted to eBay’s VeRO Program as a violation for Patent abuse by NetEnforcers, Inc. on behalf of Directed Electronics. For more information about the VeRO Program, please see http://pages.ebay.com/help/tp/programs-vero-ov.html.

Our problem here is several fold. First, the nimrod at Net Enforcers, Inc named Andrew Matchet, finally responded after 15 emails, why not after the first? He responded only after the seller started using a different email, Info@NetEnforcers.com, which we provided to the seller. Then, all he did was to spout crap about "read the VeRO page". Who is Andrew Matchet and what does he really do beyond act stupid? If a company like Net Enforcers, Inc can take the time to seriously (if they are serious) inspect a sale to see if it is infringing can certainly take the time to seriously address any inquiries into why that sale was terminated. Many. many sellers are unaware or understand of the nuances of trademark law or copyright law. If companies like Net Enforcers, Inc cannot take the time to reasonably answer questions, particularly if the seller is really infringing, how do they expect to stop these people from doing the same thing again? But companies like Net Enforcers, Inc don't want to be bothered with questions. They just want that paycheck from the client.

Second, NetEnforcers.com is registered through Domains by Proxy, Inc., a company that anonymously registers web sites. In our mind, what reputable company registers their web site through an untraceable proxy? None that we would ever trust or use. What are they hiding? If they are that cheap that they can't afford a standard registration, we seriously doubt they should be trusted to assume the responsibility of policing the intellectual rights of companies.

Third, the stated policies of Directed Electronics on their VeRO About Me page, among other places we're sure, appear to be a declaration of their intent to terminate eBay auctions they don't like, not necessarily those that are violating intellectual property rights.

"If product is sold by anyone other than an authorized licensed dealer, the product may be counterfeit, the installation may be substandard, or the product is being sold in violation of Directed's intellectual property rights."

This statement is not true. There is absolutely no law that states that a company can restrict sales of their products to "an authorized licensed dealer" only. In fact, the First Sale Doctrine plainly states that the owner of a lawfully acquired product has the right to resell that item without interference from the manufacturer. And in this case, the product was new and unused. Directed Electronics also claims, "Many auctions are removed because they may be counterfeit." (emphasis added) They admit they will order auctions terminated using the excuse the product is counterfeit, or may be counterfeit? We've seen this one used many times to control the secondary market.

Back to Net Enforcers, Inc and the nimrod named Andrew Matchet. On October 14, after emails demanding more information, nimrod responded,

"I’ve forwarded your question to our contact with Directed Electronics so they can speak with you directly regarding it."

What? This idiot is trolling the internet and ordering auctions terminated and he can't answer a specific question about the alleged "patent infringement"? All he was asked was, "Please be specific as to what the patent number is and how you have determined my auction infringed upon it." How difficult can that be? Apparently, very difficult for Andrew Matchet. On October 20, nimrod finally responded:

"I apologize for the length of time it’s taken me to reply to you. We were awaiting instructions from Directed Electronics to determine exactly what information we could provide to you.

I have been asked by Directed Electronics to provide you with the link to their eBay “About Me” page that describes each of the possible reasons your auction could have been ended. There is also a section within that page that explains what they consider a Patent Infringement (and also explains why your auction was removed due to “Patent Abuse”). Their About Me page is located at the following URL:


As Directed Electronics has not provided me with the specific patent information you are requesting, I am unable to answer that question for you. However, as stated in their About Me page, all of their patented products are sold solely through licensed authorized dealers."

The two-part question was what was the patent number (which is and should be public information) and just how did they, Net Enforcers, Inc, determine the item was infringing upon the patent? If NetEnforcers, Inc is trolling the internet looking for intellectual property abuses, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect them to be able to quickly answer a simple question of this nature. But they can't. Why? We think it's because Net Enforcers, Inc is a scummy Cyber Cop who is collecting their fees by doing whatever their master wants. By the answer above, Net Enforcers, Inc unethically and illegally ordered the termination of perfectly valid eBay auctions because the client, Directed Electronics, said to, not because the auction was actually infringing.

Articles About NetEnforcers

Most of the information printed about Net Enforcers appears to be self-serving press releases by them of their clients. All fluff and no substance. We have collected a few not so fluffy pieces here.
  • Apparently Amazon.com agrees with our take on Net Enforcers, Inc as reported in this article titled Amazon Affiliates Under Attack, Threaten Class Action, from ThoughtShapers.com, June 15, 2006

  • Ed Foster of the InfoWorld Gripe Line posted an article called Selling Auction Takedown Services, that agrees with us.

  • Discounters, Monitors Face Battle on Minimum Pricing from the Wall Street Journal, December 5, 2008, written by Joseph Pereira. Very in-depth article. However we do not trust the numbers thrown about by Loomis and the others. Pereira quotes Net Enforcers as admitting they "allege that the discounter's use of the product's name or image constitutes trademark or copyright infringement" to intrfere with the seller, but as we have pointed out many times, this is a false accusation, perjury in fact, because the law allows that use.

  • Net tightens gray-market retail vise appers to be an industry generated fluff piece about all of the bad sellers out their and how businesses are fighting back. ZDNet News: March 21, 2005

UPDATE - November 14, 2008 - seems in 2008, one Seth John Jacobs was employed by Net Enforcers as "director of research". Seems the address given for his employer was Gainesville, FL, which is nowhere near Coral Springs, FL on their letterhead. Could that be P.O. Box 2132. Gainesville, FL, 32601, Seth? Seth, does your new bride, Megan, know what a low-life company you work for? We wonder, couldn't you get a real job or does working for a skuzzy cyber cop suit you?

Seems some one named "B~Randy", who also works for Net Enforcers as an "enforcer" likes to post pictures as well. She's 21 and lives in Gainsville, which it appears is where her company is located. We wonder, is B~Randy her name or her disposition? From the picture we can't tell. Oh well, we're sure Net Enforcers doesn't care as long as those fees keep on a comin'.

UPDATE - February 18, 2009.
Can anyone out there tell us who Denise Machett is? Does she work for the Florida Department of Agriculture in Gainesville? Is she Andrew's sister, mother, or wife? What's the matter, Andy? Need a woman to do your fighting for you? Who holds the purse during an altercation, her or you?

We received a rather terse email from one Denise Machett complaining about our abuse of the employees at NetEnforcers. Our prompt reply was returned with the notation that the email address stargazer79x@gmail.com did not exist. How cowardly of this Denise Machett person. We don't know if this is her real name but we suspect it is. When she created the phony email account she probably didn't realize that GMail created a profile with her name.

As we point out in our prompt reply, we don't hide behind anonymous names and phony emaill addresses, We post our names, address and pictures. Anonymous cowards like Denise Machett lack credibility. They spout self-righteous tripe and then flee to their dark lairs. We don't, Denise. Your entire email is here as is our response (which you could have read if you had given us a legitmate email address).

Are the empoyees at NetEnforcers unhappy with this page? Frankly Denise, we don't give a damn. We are not the ones harming innocent sellers under the false cover of authority. We do not believe that any employee who has been at NetEnforcers for more than a few days doesn't have some idea of what they really are doing. It's interesting your email didn't claim that the employees at NetEnforcers are clueless. Perhaps you know better? What is the real basis for your indignation? Tell us where you sit before you tell where you stand.

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 © 1999-2016