Tabberone's Hall of Shame

Home | Site Index | Disclaimer | Email Me!

Jack Daniels
Hall Of Shame Member
Added May 21, 2008

Jack Daniels makes a mighty fine whiskey. And, Jack Daniels has a really good reputation. So, why would a company like Jack Daniels partake in an obviously flawed and unethical campaign to ruin a Work-At-Home-Mom (WAHM)? Could it be that the coprporate executives are more stupid than they look? Or, perhaps they were fed a bill of goods from their Continental Enterprises and their bottom-feeder corporate lawyer, Darlene Seymour. In any event, Jack Daniels is still responsible for the reprehensible, unethical, and what we consider to be criminal activities or their Cyber Cop Continental Enterprises and their lowly General Counsel, Darlene Seymour whom we call an extortionist.

So, you ask, what is this all about? Darlene Seymour, we've mentioned her a time or two, sent an extortionist demand letter to a WAHM wo was selling the image on the left on a baby's onesie, accusing her of advertising and selling "merchandise that bears images or designs that are confusingly similar to JDPI's (Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc) trademarks without authorization". Look at the design on the left and compare it to the design on the right. Are you confused? The design on the left is a parody of the label used by Jack Daniel's. No reasonable person with associate the parody on the left to a real Jack Daniel's product. It's absurd to claim otherwise.
A paody is permissible under federal law. The words "without authorization" refer to knockoffs or counterfeits neither of which apply here. This is a parody. Hence, no trademark infringement. But Darlene Seymour appears to never had let a small detail like "there's no infringement here" get in the way of a money demand. After all, she, and Continental Enterprises, have expenses. Obviously one of those expenses wasn't their recent world headquarters.
Darlene Seymour demanded some $4,700.00 from the WAHM for her non-ingringing activities. An outrageous amount even if the charge were true.
Jack Daniels, we thought you had class. Your use of Continental Enterprises proves you do not. It's really a shame. And your response to the WAHM really sucks and has no legal validity. You claimed to her that she was promoting the use of alchol to people under age! What a crock of shit. The onesies can't be read by babies and are aimed at being funny to the adults that read them. Besides, the legal age for drinking isn't a trademark issue. You people are pathetic.
By lying about trademark infringement your acts are unethical. By demanding money or you will seek legal remedies (saying you will sue her which is a threat of harm) you are committing extortion which is a criminal act. You can argue that the letter doesn't actually say you will sue, but what other purpose is there for the wording? To invoke fear in the recipient, a person with no legal training or expertise, a person who was not doing anything wrong. You are scum.

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.
We made this offer a very long time ago and as of July 2007, only AnimieHot.com, in our Hall Of Shame, has chosen to submit a formal rebuttal.