Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won
It is our aim to have web pages load quickly and cleanly so the layout is kept simple.
Page added -November 10, 2017
You made more than a few factual errors in your over-bearing threatening email.
As we have posted on our web site:
This web site is owned and operated by Karen Dudnikov and Michael Meadors, P.O. Box 87, Hartsel, CO 80449-0087. We are solely responsible for the content of this web site. Please make sure you include both of us on any intended legal action against the web site and please spell our names correctly. Be aware that we post ALL threatening letters/emails and we post all cease and desist threats. So be careful what you claim and how you threaten us.
Tabber's Temptations is a trade name. We are not incorporated or an LLC. We have represented ourselves over two dozen cases in county, state and federal courts since 2001.
We have a legal right to reference anyone we wish as long as the reference is either factual or our opinion. The pages on your client are both. We note you do not state exactly what you consider to be defamatory references so we can only assume your client is offended by the full content. But being offended does not rise to the legal level of defamation.
Likewise, your vague assertion of wrongful conduct strikes us as legal mumbo-jumbo. A REAL cease and desist threat does not deal with innuendo but rather cites specifics, which yours does not. Harassment (sic) as defined by Miriam-Webster is "persistent and wrongfully annoying, offensive, or troubling behavior" but which must be on-going and our web pages are passive. "Fraud" requires an intent to deprive one of some property which cannot be inferred but plead with particularity. "Interference with prospective economic advantage" is a mouthful and without us being in actual contact with any prospective clients, your client cannot prove it. Slander? Libel? Those have been incorporated into "defamation' and are redundant puffery on your part. Etc., etc., etc.
California Evidence Code does not apply in Colorado and even if it did a cease and desist letter is not a settlement offer. Your letter makes no offer of compromise but rather flatly states demands expected to be met. Under 1152 WE have to make an offer and that will not happen.
It is interesting that a Chicago area lawyer is using a California based firm to represent him in a case that will have to be filed in Colorado. A personal injury and unlawful death law firm at that. Interesting. Let us school you on two aspects of the internet that you may have missed. Using a trademark, registered or not, is allowed under the Lanham Act when used for non-commercial purposes. Such as commentary or dissent. Under US Copyright Law it is permissible to use otherwise protected material for educational purposes, commentary or criticism. Our use of his name, his logos and his on-line discussion are permitted and protected under federal law. Likewise, our opinion of him and his dissertation are protected speech.
In closing, you just might want to look at the following case from the Colorado Court Of Appeals, October 9, 2003, Court of Appeals NO. 02CA1331, Barbara Robbins et al vs Michael Meadors and Karen Dudnikov, where we represented ourselves, in which the Colorado Court of Appeals unanimously ruled [selected parts in case you cannot access it quickly]
"In January 2001, defendants established a website directed at plaintiffs, their business practices, and several of their business associates. The website grew to encompass approximately 500 pages."
"We agree with defendants that the court erred in ordering that the wording in the website concerning alleged criminal activity should be enjoined.
Here, the evidence showed that several pages of defendants' website expressed their opinion that plaintiffs and their business associates were involved in 'lies, deception, fraud, and other criminal activities.' The trial court ordered that those portions of the website be deleted."
FYI, Barbara Robbins sued us for defamation. More from the Court:
"Defendants concede that the material on the website alleging adulterous sexual activity by plaintiff Barbara Robbins is crude and tasteless. However, as defendants argue, the material contains no patently offensive representations or descriptions of sex acts or other matters set forth in the statute. Further, the allegations of one plaintiff's sexual activity are only one portion of a lengthy website spelling out defendants' complaints concerning plaintiffs' business practices."
You also might want to reference United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, January 28, 2008, No. 06-1458, KAREN DUDNIKOV, and MICHAEL MEADORS vs CHALK & VERMILION FINE ARTS, INC, which we won handily. We do not back down from a fight.
Our notes indicate that your client's on-line "Fabric Crash Course" was filled with erroneous statements indicating a real lack of knowledge about the subject matter. For example, your client referenced legal defenses (in this case copyright law) by saying if one needed to use a "legal defense" that person has probably done something wrong. Really? Our use of "legal defense" prevailed against Disney, Major League Baseball, United Media (Peanuts fabric), Sanrio (Hello Kitty fabric), Debbie Mumm, and several others that did not go to court. How stupid can a lawyer be to make a statement like that? Check the tapes. He said that.
We have a lot of court experience concerning licensed fabrics. We go into detail about licensed fabrics on our web site. Your client was surfing for business by pretending to know the subject matter. He's in our "Hall Of Shame" because he belongs there. You and your firm will soon be joining him.
We will not be acceding to any of your preposterous demands.
|Click here for the C&D.|
This web site, Tabberone.com is owned and maintained by Karen Dudnikov and Michael Meadors, P.O. Box 87, Hartsel CO 80449.
We are solely responsible for the content and the opinions expressed here. Please make sure you spell our names correctly, amd include both names
on any threats of litigation and/or court documents.
Stay tuned. Don't touch that dial.
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
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?
Angel Policies |
Contributory Infringement |
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?
Embroidery Designs |
FAQs & Whines |
Image and Text Theft |
Licensed Fabric |
Licensing & Licenses |
Patterns Index | Profit | Quilting | Selvage | Stanford School of Law Case Outline
Tabberone Disclaimer | Trademark Extortion | Urban Myths | What To Do If You Are Veroed