Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won not tay ber own

Tabbers Temptations     www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/ Home | Site Index | Disclaimer | Email Me! "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

The Tabberone™ Archives These articles concern what we consider major trademark and copyright issues. They are usually reproduced with the original source referenced. Bear in mind, these articles are copyrighted and commercial use without permission of the authors may be considered infringement. The intended use here is educational, commentary and non-commercial. The reason they are reproduced in the Tabberone™ Archives, as opposed to just providing a link, is because links disappear and pages are removed. That presents a messy confirmation process that is annoying to the browser (you) but also presents a credibility issue. We do not claim any rights in these pieces. Do not regard the absence of a copyright statement or © to mean the article is not copyrighted. Some sites do not have a copyright statement. When an article or a comment is posted on the internet by the copyright owner, the owner is seeking a world-wide, 24/7 audience; sometimes for a limited amount of time, sometimes indefinitely. In essence, an internet posting intentionally relinquishes one's copyright for exclusivity because the owner has posted it on the internet to been seen by everyone, everywhere. The Tabberone™ Archives non-commercial duplication of the posting is simply a continuance of the original wishes of the copyright owner. We post these articles for reference, for commentary and for confirmarion of our position.

Source: http://lovepotionperfume.com/article.html February 27, 2008

Jessica Simpson and "Clean" Perfume creator accused of Dirty Dealings. Jan 30 2006 "Clean" Perfume creator and Dessert Beauty founder Randi Shinder, and business partners celebrity Jessica Simpson and Sephora Cosmetics, are accused of trademark infringement. Mara Fox of Love Potion® Perfume filed her suit last week in a New York Federal Court alleging trademark infringement regarding Dessert Beauty's use of the name "Love Potion" for at least two of Dessert's products, fully named "Jessica Simpson's Deliciously Kissable Love Potion Fragrance", and "Jessica Simpson's Belly Button Love Potion", but more often referred to in their press releases, promotional material, and advertising as simply "Love Potion Fragrance", "Dessert Love Potion" and "Belly Button Love Potion". Love Potion® Perfume founder Mara Fox has owned and maintained the registered trademark since 1995, and the trademark attained incontestable status in the year 2000. Fox has engaged in uninterrupted sales of her product since 1989 via a retail location she operated in Venice Beach, CA, retail locations around the country, and via her website, www.LovePotionPerfume.com. Simpson, Shinder and company, were first apprised of the alleged infringement on April 16, 2004, two days following Dessert's official product launch. In a letter dated June 4, 2004, Dessert agreed to "cease and desist from the use of the term 'love potion'…" and further agreed to remove the LOVE POTION mark from their website "as soon as possible, but in any case within the next 30 days…" and to "delete the term 'love potion' from all bottles, packaging and advertising produced for that fragrance in the future." Defendants breached their promise to refrain from infringing Fox's LOVE POTION mark. Instead, they dramatically increased the scope and breadth of their infringements by exponentially increasing the number of retailers allowed to sell the Infringing Products by engaging in a secondary launch of their products upon the close of their 'exclusivity arrangement' with Sephora and QVC, with accompanying media blitz, on or about June 15, 2004, and by offering new products that likewise incorporated Ms. Fox's trademark. On or about late September 2004, Defendants introduced three separate new products under the product line name, "Dessert Duos." Defendants packaged their "Love Potion Fragrance" product together with a second product in three separate "Dessert Duos" combinations. Defendants used the LOVE POTION trademark on the packaging, bottles, and advertising of each of these new products. The lawsuit states, "Rather than cease and desist from further infringements of Fox's trademark as they promised to do in June of 2004, Defendants expanded the scope and breadth of their infringements. With actual notice of Ms. Fox's trademark rights, Defendants' infringements have been and continue to be willful, wanton and malicious." "Following written notice of Ms. Fox's intent to file an infringement lawsuit if  Defendants did not cease and desist in their infringement, Defendant did willfully and maliciously initiate a campaign to flood the major internet search engines with key word spamming to direct any inquiries of LOVE POTION to their retailers." The lawsuit continues that Dessert, following written notice of Ms. Fox's intent to file an infringement lawsuit in the state of California, then maliciously filed a Declaratory Judgment action in New York, seeking damages against Ms. Fox and the revocation of Fox's trademark, which, if successful, would allow Dessert to continue to use the phrase without compensation to Fox. The lawsuit was filed with full knowledge that neither Plaintiff nor Defendant have principle place of business in New York. But the dirty dealings don't stop there...On or about December, 2004, Defendants  approached Fox's legal counsel (a very large and renowned California law group) to seek representation from said legal counsel on an unrelated collections matter. (Simpson and Dessert are also being sued by the California-based cosmetics company Cosmojet, which alleges that Simpson and Dessert Beauty failed to pay the full $1 million promised for products it made for the line.) Dessert was to be represented by an altogether different set of attorneys within the large firm, with a guarantee from the firm that it would utilize an "internal firewall" and the lawyers engaged in the separate matters would have no contact. Subsequent to the signing of a Conflict of Interest Disclosure and Waiver by all parties, legal counsel commenced work on the unrelated matter. Shortly thereafter, Dessert and company revoked the Waiver, forcing the firm to cease their representation of Fox. Fox's suit claims that the action was "done with the malicious intent to deprive Ms. Fox of legal counsel", and has led to Fox's "pro se" or self-representation in this suit. Fox's suit claims that she "does not have sufficient funds to repair the damage caused by Defendant's infringement and advertising campaign", and asks for  a monetary award for a corrective advertising campaign, along with damages and legal fees. Fox states that in the first month following Dessert's launch, her sales were reduced by 96%. The following month, they were down 97%. "Since then I've recovered by about 1/3rd", says Fox, "but as long as they continue to spend the kind of money they've been spending to bury me, it's not likely to get much better than that. Imagine what your life would be like if your income suddenly dropped by 97%. Add that to the frustration of knowing that what they're doing is both illegal and unethical." Meanwhile, Dessert has reported sales exceeding $120 million dollars. A true David vs. Goliath story, indeed. - T.R.I. Public Relations 2006