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

Apple, Inc, a.k.a. Crapple, Inc
Hall Of Shame Member
Added February 1, 2011

Last updated - February 1, 2011

We have discovered what we believe to be a nefarious plot by Apple to take over the world, one trademark at a time. Unable to accomplish what they seek to accomplish through copyright law, Apple is attempting to control the wonderful world of modern electronics by obtaining registered trademarks of commonly used images for cell phones and other hand-held electronics devices. Look at the row of "buttons" below. We kid you not - all of the below are just a few of the registered trademarks owned by Apple, Inc. Every one of theses images are absolutely generic in nature. So why did the US Trademark Office issue certificates of registration? Was the trademark examiner just lazy, just stupid or just bought off by Apple? And, for example, when Apple does use the "envelope" button it has the word "MAIL" under it. Is Apple claiming the rights to the envelope image for emails? It certainly appears that way. Soon, Apple intends to own the world. We are going to start calling them "Crapple, Inc".

And this is not all. Below are pictures of some more trademarks for which Apple has filed. Look at them. The first one is the standard play button symbol that has been used for years. Then a camera lens? And a drawing of a cell phone. Next is the standard stop button that has been used for years. Then a drawing of what - an iPad? Then basic math calculators symbols and a music cleft. Apple wants to claim sole ownership for all of these marks. Then Apple can claim that anything "similar" is infringing.
There is only one reason for Apple to be engaged in attempting to trademark generic electronic symbols like these - to control the marketplace through trademark abuse soon to be followed by what we characterize as trademark extortion. We make these claims based upon recent events concerning Apple, Inc, by and through their corporate counsel, Gibney, Anthony & Flaherty, LLP, who is already engaged in both for Coach Leatherworks.

On January 21, 2011, eBay terminated auctions for Sci Phone i68 4G phone new in the box upon orders from some "research analyst" at Gibney, Anthony & Flaherty, LLP. We can claim this with confidence because the subsequent emails from Gibney all carried no name, just signed "Sincerely". The firm of Gibney, Anthony & Flaherty, LLP hires flunkies to troll the internet looking for perceived infractions. Gibney, Anthony & Flaherty, LLP also represents Tiffany and Coach Leatherworks, and we suspect other clients. These flunkies obviously cannot be properly educated in trademark law nor be visual experts of what constitutes counterfeit merchandise. So they employ the "kill them all" strategy whereby they shut down auctions, make their claims of infringement, and wait to see who fights back really hard.

Apple IP Counsel's email is>. The take down email from eBay claimed: "Item(s) is a counterfeit product which infringes the trademark owner's rights" but there is no mention of Apple in the auction listing, there is no comparison to Apple in the listing and Apple does not own every cell phone in the world (although, as we have stated, we believe that is the goal of Crapple Inc). The first response from the flunkies at Gibney, Anthony & Flaherty, LLP was short:

This firm is counsel to Apple Inc. (“Apple”) with respect to certain intellectual property matters.

We are in receipt of your inquiry. You will be receiving additional correspondence from our firm regarding this matter shortly.

Really? The flunkies cannot be bothered to reply? Did their baby sitter have to go home early that day? Did their diaper need changing? What? They can take the time to potentially ruin a seller but not the time to answer the seller? Continued inquiries to the troll flunkies at Gibney, Anthony & Flaherty, LLP solicited the following reply:

Your eBay listing was removed because it contains infringements on Apple’s trademarks. We cannot specifically share with you what these are, as were that information to be released publicly, it would become much more difficult for Apple to effectively identify infringing items.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in the matter.

Are the troll flunkies at Gibney, Anthony & Flaherty, LLP smoking the wacky tobaccy during their lunch breaks? Or are they as stupid as they sound? Trademarks have to be registered and are public record. If someone is infringing a trademark, tell them how. That is the most stupid statement we have ever heard from a law firm. If trademark infringement was the reason then why did they tell eBay the cell phone was counterfeit? Do they really have any idea what they are doing? And, trademarks are public record! Can we all say, "Gibney, Anthony & Flaherty is lying out their ass"?

In a follow-up email shortly thereafter, the troll flunkies at Gibney, Anthony & Flaherty, LLP claimed:

We have again reviewed your auction and as we have informed you, eBay shut down your listing as it contained infringements of Apple’s federally registered trademarks. Specifically, the item you offered for sale contained an infringement of Apple’s federally registered home screen button trademark.

As a result, you may be held liable for trademark infringement. You are hereby on notice of our client’s protest in this matter as federal law prohibits you from offering such infringing merchandise for sale.

First, Apple has no "home screen button" trademarked. Second, Apple's "button" trademarks are generic and therefore not entitled to any protection under federal law. Third, the seller must do something that gives the impression that the item being offered for sale is manufactured by, sponsored by, or affiliated with Apple in order for there to be infringement. Fourth, even if the cell phone screen was showing some of Apple's so-called trademarked buttons, they are small, insignificant, and what a federal court would call de minimis (Latin adj. - means "of minimum importance" or "trifling"). Fifth, even if the potential purchaser looked closely at the screen, it is common knowledge that screen images, be they television or cell phone, are "simulated", which any fool knows from watching television commercials. Sixth, trademark law revolves around consumer confusion. Look at the auction. Where is the confusion or the infringement? Perhaps only in the beady little minds of the troll flunkies at Gibney, Anthony & Flaherty, LLP




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 © 1999-2016



iweb counter