Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won
Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert LLP|
Hall Of Shame Member
Added May 24, 2007
Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert LLP, of Santa Monica, California, represents the cosmetics manufacturer, Merle Norman, to whom
we refer as Merle Nitwit. Seems Merle doesn't want his cosmetics sold on eBay. He wants to sell them to the public only through his
strategically located and over-priced stores. But, Merle was having a problem with the First Sale Doctrine under copyright law
which gives a person the right to resell a lawfully acquired item.
So, what to do about this quandary? It appears Merle Nitwit turned to Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert LLP, of Santa Monica, California, and asked them to come up with something creative. And they did, bless their pointy little heads. They pulled Jennifer J. McGrath out of their collective ass and had her tell eBay to terminate perfectly lawful auctions claiming the resale of Merle Norman cosmetics violated FDA regulations!
Little Miss Snotty
|When Jennifer McGrath was contacted and asked what FDA regulation was being violated, after four attempts she sent a rather snotty and vague reply telling the eBay seller to go look at FDA regulations for specifics. Huh? Jennifer, what would it have taken to give her the FDA regulation directly instead of being, can we all say, A BITCH? Bet you couldn't cite the FDA regulation, could you? Guess what? Neither could the FDA! The eBay seller got a definitive answer from the FDA and there is no federal prohibition against reselling cosmetics. Just a suggestion, Jennifer. Let your hair go back to it's original color and we think you might pick up 50 IQ points.|
So what do we have here? Jennifer McGrath, a lawyer with Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert LLP, of Santa Monica, California,
deliberately lied to eBay when she told them the resale of the cosmetics violated FDA regulations. And, as of this posting, she is refusing
to respond to calls from Greg Beck of the Public Citizen's Litigation Group in Washington, D.C. concerning the issue. Why, Jennifer?
Afraid to talk to an attorney who will make you eat your lie? You are a good example of why the public holds corporate lawyers in such
low esteem. The statement by Jennifer McGrath was, according to the DMCA, under penalty of perjury. In addition, we believe that
Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert LLP, of Santa Monica, California, knew and knows of the purjurous statement
and is in full agreement with her lying to eBay and to legitimate reseller of Merle Norman Cosmetics.
Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert LLP, of Santa Monica, California, is added to Tabberone's Trademark & Copyright Abusers' Hall of Shame because of this issue.
We are pleased to announce that Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert LLP, is our Fifth Award Winner of The Putrid Plecostomus Award to those corporate firms, and attorneys, that go above and beyond the call of duty. They can thank their associate, Jennifer McGrath for this honor, with an unhonorable mention going to the partners at KWIKA who either condoned her perjury or blatantly ignored it. Applause please.
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
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 © 1999-2017|