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


Dunkin' Donuts
Hall Of Shame Member
Added May 15, 2004

Last updated : February 19, 2014


LAWSUIT ALERT

Dunkin Donuts is in federal court after being sued by someone who had an internet sale taken down. They are seeking to contact other parties who have had problems with Dunkin Donuts.

As of this posting, February 19, 2014, the case is in preliminary stages. If you have had Dunkin Donuts threaten you or have had Dunkin Donuts take down an internet sale, eBay, Etsy, etc., email us and we will forward your contact information to the plaintiff in the Second District.


We do not know what Dunkin' Donuts is dipping their donuts into but it must be something good. And they do not appear to want to share with the rest of us. When it comes to lying about the re-sale of their products, they are right up there with the bestest and the mostest. They lie, and they lie, and then they lie some more. And their coffee is not THAT good. It is coffee.

Upon hearing that Dunkin' Donuts coffee was a desirable product on eBay, Tabberone decided to try it and see. On January 25, 2004, Tabberone, using the eBay seller ID of no_good_names_left!, listed a one-pound bag of Dunkin' Donuts coffee. An auction for genuine Dunkin' Donuts coffee that had not been opened and had an expiration date six months in the future should be safe, should it not?

Late on January 26, 2004, Tabberone received the Why Ended email from VeRO in which one TUursino@adrus.com was identified as the point of contact. When asked why Dunkin' Donuts had ordered terminated an auction for genuine Dunkin' Donuts coffee that had not been opened and had an expiration date six months in the future, Tabberone one received a short, pompous and snide response:

We do not allow "re" sale of our coffee. The only authorized places for coffee sales are at Dunkin' Donuts shops, special points of distribution (some supermarkets) and online at dunkindonuts.com. You must be "authorized" to sell our coffee.
This arrogant attitude is in direct conflict with the first sale doctrine and numerous federal court decisions concerning "authorized" distributors. Tabberone again emailed the VeRO member with a request to clarify their status with Dunkin' Donuts considering the fact that the email suffix of ADRUS.COM did not seem to be consistent with Dunkin' Donuts .
Allied Domecq (adrus = allied domecq retailing u.s.) owns DUnkin' Donuts Incorporated (see www.allieddomecqplc.com under Our Brands, Quick Service Restaurants). List it again and it will be removed immediately. And you will probably be suspended from ebay (sic).
OK. We get it. Terry Ursino is a corporate asshole who works for ANDRUS, who in turn owns Dunkin' Donuts . What is in that coffee? We want some.

So, you ask, who is Terry Ursino? According to eBay and according to Terry's email, an employee of ADRUS ("Allied Domecq North America Corp "). Click here to view Terry's business card. It says "Allied Domecq" on it. That is three sources that say ADRUS. As of May 2004, Network Solutions, a registrar of internet domain names, listed Terry Ursino as the administrative contact for adrus.com at the same email address that eBay gives out. The registrant for adrus.com is Allied Domecq QSR. That is four sources that say ADRUS. Terry Ursino is listed as the administrative contact for dunkindonuts.com at the same address and email as for adrus.com. That is five sources that say ADRUS. So, in your opinion, for whom does Terry Ursino work? Dunkin' Donuts or ADRUS?

Not according to ADRUS who attempted to label Terry Ursino as an employee of Dunkin' Donuts when there were no references to that claim except their word and we all know they would not lie to a federal court, now would they? ADRUS identified Terry Ursino as the Manager of Trademark Services for Dunkin' Donuts But when you look at Terry's business card, there is no mention of Dunkin' Donuts but it certainly does mention ADRUS. (ADRUS = Allied Domecq Retailing US).

The Dunkin' Donuts web site dunkindonuts.com plainly listed (as of May 17, 2004) its headquarters as being “Allied Domecq Quick Service Restaurants”. This page also identified Will Russell and George Condos under “Leadership”, both of whom are corporate officers for ADRUS.

The Dunkin' Donuts “About Us” Company Information web page titled “Allied Domecq Quick Service Restaurants Corporate Backgrounder” from the Dunkin' Donuts web site dunkindonuts.com referenced Allied Domecq as being “responsible for the worldwide development and marketing” of Dunkin' Donuts and also listed the Leadership Team. The six listed Dunkin' Donuts officers were all employees of ADRUS. The Dunkin' Donuts “About Us” Company Information web page titled “Donation Request Policy” from the Dunkin' Donuts web site dunkindonuts.com referred people to Allied Domecq as a corporate contact for donation requests. If Dunkin' Donuts were an independent company, would they not take these requests through the headquarters of Dunkin' Donuts?

On the “Franchising With A Leader” web page of the dunkin-baskin-togos.com web site, it was plainly stated that these are ADQSR franchises, not franchises of Dunkin' Donuts, Togo's, or Baskin-Robbins On the web site foodinfonet.com, a recruiting letter from Ed Nathan, identified as a recruiter for Allied Domecq, sought employees who will be working for Allied Domecq while participating in running Dunkin' Donuts, Baskin Robbins, and Togo's. And so forth and on and on.

When we sued ADRUS , they were the parent company and had issued the orders, they did not simply say, OK, you have a point, let us talk about it. Not did they come into federal court to defend their position. They did what all losers do, they fought peripheral issues because they couldn't win the main issue. They claimed we had sued the wrong company. Really, why not just fight the case? They must have spent $25,000 plus to get Magistrate Judge Patricia Coan, and her pro se bias, to dismiss the case. We did not refile the lawsuit because the counter notice had expired and the listing had been restored.

Like MGA Entertainment and E! Entertainment, we lost this case on unrelated issues. They did not defend their actions but rather sought procedural loopholes, with the incompetent assistance of Magistrate Judge Patricia Coan and her pro se bias, with which to escape a trial.


Update - January 11, 2012 - After our encounter with Dunkin' Donuts they stopped their illegal terminations of listings. But, as is usually the case with internet idiots, they have resumed their wicked ways. Now they are using some twit named Liz Harrington to do their dirty deeds. Elizabeth Harrington sports the fancy title of "Trademark Paralegal", which is one step above "Do you want fries with that?"

It appears Dunkin' Donuts does not want to pay an attorney to lie for them so they get a paralegal. Which we find questionable because Massachusetts doesn't have formal paralegal education requirements for the job like, say, California. So any idiot can call themselves a "Trademark Paralegal" and go around improperly terminating internet listings.

And it appears she does not put much effort into answering inquiries about why a listing was terminated.

From: Elizabeth.Harrington@dunkinbrands.com
Subject: Re: Ebay Auction

Hi,

Thank you for reaching out. Please cut and paste the below link to your browser it is Dunkin Donuts eBay "About Me" page that will help answer some of your questions. I am also preparing a letter I should send along soon.

http://members.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewUserPage&userid=dunkin130

Regards,

Liz Harrington
Trademark Paralegal
Dunkin' Brands, Inc
Mail Stop 3 East A
130 Royall Street
Canton, MA 02021
781-737-3518-Tel
781-737-4518-Fax

The letter gets sent out after Liz finishes her nails and gets coffee for the boss. And what will the letter say? It will repeat the lies on the Dunkin Donuts eBay "About Me" page which we have captured to save you the trouble of following the above link. We also have the Dunkin Donuts eBay "About Me" page annotated where we point out their many deliberate lies about your lack of rights because they say so.

Dunkin' Donuts claims their main issue is quality control. And that is a lie. We did a cursory check of their ground coffee and coffee beans at a Safeway in Evergreen, Colorado. Their coffee had expiration dates (use by dates) six to eight months away. As did Folgers and Yuban. Six to eight months was consistent with the other brands, including K-cups, for expiration dates. That is "highly perishable"? Eggs, bread and milk are highly perishable. Coffee, regardless of brand, is not. Plus, the coffee is shipped at least one month, if not two months, before it gets to the stores. Shipped in trailers that are exposed to very high temperatures in some areas and extremely cold temperatures in other areas. "Highly perishable"? What a lie.

If it were illegal to resell Dunkin' Donuts coffee then eBay would have software to block the coffee from being listed. But it does not. No other coffee manufacturer is stopping the legitimate reselling of their products on eBay. What does that tell you about Dunkin' Donuts?

Dunkin' Donuts - your coffee is not that good!

from eBay's policy about listing food items:

Food and healthcare policy [in part]

Before listing food and healthcare items, be sure to familiarize yourself with federal and state laws and regulations. These items must:

* Have a clearly marked expiration date
* Be delivered to the buyer before they expire
* Not be altered or changed in any way
* Be stored safely before you ship them

When you list these types of items, you’re certifying that all safety conditions have been met.

[Source: http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/food.html on February 10, 2012]

Dunkin' Donuts - you are pathetic. You are lying. Your coffee is not that good!

 

 

Rebuttals

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.

General
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

Definitions

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

 

 

iweb counter