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

Tessa Long

Hall Of Shame Members
Added October 11, 2010

Last updated November 3, 2010

FLASH UPDATE - November 3, 2010 -
After review, the US Copyright Office has cancelled the two copyrights that Hattie Rex claims as a basis for her harassment of other legitimate sellers. So, what now, McPherson D. Moore and Scott A. Smith? Without a registered copyright you are up the oft quoted creek without your corporate lawyer paddle. Your villages are still without an idiot since you left. If you return quickly they may take you back. The IQ in Missouri will rise significantly when you leave.

We think there must be something in the mental makeup of designers that makes many of them believe that they are something special and that the laws of reason as well as the laws covering copyrights do not apply to them or to the voices in their heads. Tessa Long ( owns Hattie Rex, which it appears, she runs out of her home at 806 Orchard Drive, Rolla, Missouri 65401 [(573) 263-0832]. What is in the water in Rolla, Missouri?

Tessa Long owns two registered copyrights, VA0001711566, which is titled "Pretty bird pet id tag in aluminum", and VA0001711584, which is titled "The Gold Collection washer disc in brass". Both registered copyrights have almost the same included under the registration category: Description: Sheet(s). Sheet? Or is that how they pronounce shit in Missouri? And she has tried to register a whole bunch more.

Tessa Long makes doggie jewelry which she sells on Etsy and on her web site,, but do not bother trying the web site as it has nothing on it as of October 11, 2010. Doggie jewelry is a cute idea but hardly original. Yet, in 2009 Tessa Long filed for and received copyright registration on two expression of her handy work. Two. Count them: TWO. But now she thinks she owns the idea of doggie jewelry, or her lawyer does, one Scott A. Smith of Polster, Lieder, Woodruff & Lucchesi, L.C., out of St Louis.

In a recent notice of claimed infringement ("NOCI"), Scott A. Smith instructed Etsy to remove listings that used the words "pet tag", "aluminum" and "washer". These words now belong exclusively to Tessa Long and HattieRex because they are part of the titles of the two copyright registrations?

Did Scott A. Smith of Polster, Lieder, Woodruff & Lucchesi, L.C., actually study copyright law or did he attend Billy Bob's School of BBQ and Law? We already know most law students sleep through Constitutional Law.

Scott - FYI - your client does not own the rights to all pet id tags or the use of aluminum and washers to make them. Her copyrights are for the designs she submitted, not for the idea they represent. Get your head out of your Missouri ass, Scott. The pictures below very clearly show that the copyrightable work of Tessa Long was not copied. Tessa Long does not own the idea of pet jewelry.

Examples of pet jewelry ordered terminated by Tessa Long/HattieRex

Examples of pet jewelry by Tessa Long/HattieRex
from her Etsy store :

Tessa - Show Us The Copying!
You do not own the idea!

On October 22, 2010, some jerk named McPherson D. Moore, another attorney at Polster, Lieder, Woodruff & Lucchesi, L.C., along with the town idiot, Scott A. Smith, filed a lawsuit in the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, 10cv1997,(PDF format) alleging copyright infringement and false designation of origin. Fellas, you are really stupid attorneys.

First, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") require that an attorney make an "inquiry reasonable reasonable under the circumstances" (see FRCP 11(b)):

(b) REPRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper — whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it — an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:...

YOU LYING CORPORATE LAWYER MORONS! The above means that the person signing the complaint, in this case one jerk named McPherson D. Moore and another jerk named Scott A. Smith, are to conduct a reasonable inquiry BEFORE signing the complaint. Only a complete moron, like Moore and Smith, would not know that ideas are not copyrightable, only the expression of those ideas. Only a complete moron, like Moore and Smith, would look at the examples shown above and see a substantial similarity (which is required for a finding of copyright infringement). In our opinion, neither McPherson D. Moore nor Scott A. Smith did anything to follow FRCP 11(b) but rather willingly, and with their retainer and fee in mind, committed perjury in the name of the American dollar.

Then, as though they needed to reinforce their stupidity, they make the ridiculous claim, CLAIM II - FALSE ASSOCIATION, and try to tie it to trademark law under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). What a crock of flaming Missouri shit. Even if the defendant used "LLC" in a manner to deceive, it would be a state tort, not a federal violation of trademark law. Even a halfway intelligent first-year law student can tell that 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) refers to using a trademark to confuse the public, NOT the appendage "LLC".

You will lose this law suit.

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