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

Krispy Kreme
Hall Of Shame Member
Added April 6, 2007

Last Updated - January 2, 2010

We think the people at Krispy Kreme have been eating too much of their own product, and thus, clogging their arteries and blocking the flow of blood to their brains. That's the only explanation we can conceive that accounts for their totally irrational and ignorant behavior concerning the use of their products. Their attitude appears to be, "Take a flying leap at a rolling donut".

You might think we are trying defend the use of Krispy Kreme donuts for immoral purposes. Wrong! Perhaps you think we are trying to defend someone smoking a Krispy Kreme donut or maybe supplying Krispy Kreme donuts to dieters who are in rehab? Nope. The heinous crime of which we speak is that of a person using a genuine Krisy Kreme toy truck as a wedding cake topper! GASP! you say? You're shocked? And well you should be! Break out the whips and chains (nothing kinky, now) and let the punishments commence!

Surely, we jest? Nope. Read on and see what the donut-heads at Krispy Kreme hath wrought.

Opryrat (Yes, Virginia, there really is an Opryrat) purchased from the Krispy Kreme web site a toy truck. This truck had the Krispy Kreme logo on the side. Opryrat, being clever, decided to place this genuine Krisy Kreme toy truck on a wedding cake along with a doll of a bride pulling her groom away from the genuine Krisy Kreme toy truck. Hmmm. Cute scene, you say? Then, being an entrepreneur, Opryrat decided this was way too good to keep to her self so she decided to sell it on eBay. Picture of the wedding cake topper set is on the right.

At the same time, to enhance the experience, Opryrat purchased a pair of genuine Krisy Kreme boxer shorts, cut out the genuine Krisy Kreme logo, and the sewed the genuine Krisy Kreme logo to a garter. She figured any bride who liked the wedding topper made with a genuine Krisy Kreme toy truck would also love the garter. A picture of the garter is at the left.

Making sure potential purchasers would not be confused, Opryrat began her eBay listing with a disclaimer that read:

"This item is NOT a licensed Krispy Kreme product. It is, however, individually HANDCRAFTED with care and love from lawfully purchased, licensed Krispy Kreme merchandise and adornments. Photogarterstore is not affiliated with, sponsored by, or licensed by Krispy Kreme in any manner."

This disclaimer was the first thing in her listing! That made it hard to ignore and even harder to avoid reading it. However, Krispy Kreme, through their parent company, HDN Development Corporation, notified eBay that this listing violated their intellectual property rights. Whoa there, Nellie. What was their reasoning? Stick around, that's next.

Krisy Kreme declined to answer Opryrat's emails. Instead, the awesome law firm of Kilpatrick Stockton LLP, out of Winston-Salem, North Carolina (same as the headquarters for Krispy Kreme) their trademark counsel, did their stuttering for them. And stutter they did. Their first answer was, well, not what one would expect from a trademark counsel on March 21, 2007:

"Krispy Kreme has never authorized the sale of "Krispy Kreme" wedding garters or cake toppers, therefore your attempt to sell these items constitutes infringement of the KRISPY KREME trademarks"

Huh? The answer is as confusing as the rest of the story (Sorry to Paul Harvey). The email reply from the awesome law firm of Kilpatrick Stockton LLP was sent by a Joe Burns on behalf of one William M. Bryner, Esq. A search of the web site belonging to the awesome law firm of Kilpatrick Stockton LLP shows no Joe Burns or William M. Bryner, Esq among the lengthy list of employees and lawyers. Huh, again? Hey, Kilpatrick Stockton LLP, was it bring-your-kid-to-work day and the reply is a prank or are you letting the janitor and cleaning crew answer your emails? Based upon the ignorant replies, we believe it could be either.

Opryrat was using genuine, lawfully purchased Krispy Kreme products. The silly fact Krispy Kreme has never sold wedding garters or cake toppers doesn't alter that fact. Something Joe Burns and William M. Bryner, Esq could not grasp (if they really exist). They got stuck on stupid. Actually, its more like they got their head stuck up their ass.

Opryrat emailed them back citing the first sale doctrine as a defense of her right to resell the items. The phantom-tandem, Joe Burns and William M. Bryner, Esq emailed back a response on April 2, 2007, that shows they are stuck on stupid:

"In particular, the "First Sale Doctrine" is inapplicable in this instance because Krispy Kreme has never authorized the manufacture or sale of wedding garters or cake toppers and thus there is no legally applicable "first sale" of authentic items that would permit a lawful re-sale of those goods."

What is in the water in Winston-Salem? Are you people listening? Hello? The eBay listing plainly stated the items being sold were hand-crafted from licensed, genuine, authentic Krisy Kreme products! Does the home know you're missing? Get your head out of your ass and try some fresh air, boy.

You see, there are federal court cases that state what Opryrat did was perfectly legal. In Precious Moments v La Infantil, 971 F. Supp. 66 (D.P.R. 1997), the court stated making and selling items made from licensed precious Moments fabric was lawful. In Scarves By Vera, Inc. v. American Handbags, Inc, 188 F. Supp. 255 - US: Dist. Court, SD New York 1960, the court declared it was lawful to cut copyrighted and trademarked towels to make and sell handbags. So, to Krisy Kreme and the awesome law firm of Kilpatrick Stockton LLP, out of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, here are OUR court cases backing what we say. Show us yours.

Our solution, being Tabberone, is simple. We would have had their sorry asses in federal court in a heartbeat. Some of our clear Colorado air might have brought them back to reality and lightened their profit margin a bit.

Opryrat's comment to us bears repeating:

"Sad, really. Instead of having several hundred people at a wedding reception see the Krispy Kreme name for "free," instead they shut down an auction with all sorts of careful wording and disclaimers."

A hearty welcome to The Tabberone Trademark & Copyright Abusers' Hall Of Shame to Krispy Kreme and their idiot lawyers in the awesome law firm of Kilpatrick Stockton LLP, out of Winston-Salem, North Carolina.




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 © 1999-2017



iweb counter