SalonQuest Cosmetics

Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won
not tay ber own

Tabbers Temptations www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/ 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

SalonQuest Cosmetics
Hall Of Shame Member
Added June 29, 2007

Last Updated January 22, 2010

There are several basic concepts of copyright and trademark law that have eluded SalonQuest and their half-witted internet thugs, Security Essentials:

FACT #1 - A lawfully purchased item may be resold by the purchaser and the original owner has no recourse.
FACT #2 - Fair Use allows a person to use pictures and descriptions of an item when re-selling it.
FACT #3 - A non-party to a contract cannot be held to the provisions of the contract (basic contract law)

So, we ask SalonQuest and its President, Dennis Lubin, what rock did you turn over to find Security Essentials and its pea-brained representative, Patricia L. Urban? We ask this question in all sincerity because Patricia L. Urban of Security Essentials must be a flaming moron to send threatening emails to people concerning the lawful re-sale of the good-awful, over-priced tripe SalonQuest sells claiming they are cosmetics. And who would believe Patricia L. Urban anyway? Certainly not the Federal District Court in New Jersey which politely called her a liar.

In her pompous and explicitly incorrect email, you twit-brained Security Essentials named Patricia L. Urban makes a variety of deliberately misleading and false statments (Dennis, can you say "lies"?), concerning the products offered by SalonQuest:

It has come to our attention that you are offering Aquage products for sale on Ebay. This activity constitutes a violation of SalonQuest's distribution policies.
Additionally, you are displaying copyrighted Aquage containers in your advertisements, yet another violation of SalonQuest's legal rights under the federal Copyright Act.
We hereby demand that you immediately remove all Aquage products from your Ebay offerings.
your agreement to permanently discontinue all sales of Aquage products
the matter will be referred to SalonQuest's legal counsel for further action
Yeah, right. When pigs fly. You've been threatening innocent sellers since 2006 and you haven't had the balls to sue one yet. Why? Because you would lose your ass.

In any case, a container of cosmetics does not have the necessary creativity involved in its composition to qualify for copyright in the first place. Copyright is for creative works, not a name on a bottle. The next sucking sound you hear will be Dennis Lubin, President of SalonQuest, and Security Essentials' nitwit Patricia L. Urban, trying to pull their collective heads out of their collective asses.

In the case of a work lawfully reproduced in useful articles that have been offered for sale or other distribution to the public, copyright does not include any right to prevent the making, distribution, or display of pictures or photographs of such articles in connection with advertisements or commentaries related to the distribution or display of such articles, or in connection with news reports

In Ets-Hokin v Skyy Spirits, 225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000), a case concerning pictures of a bottle of vodka, the court stated:

"We need not, however, decide whether the label is copyrightable because Ets-Hokin's product shots are based on the bottle as a whole, not on the label. The whole point of the shots was to capture the bottle in its entirety. The defendants have cited no case holding that a bottle of this nature may be copyrightable, and we are aware of none."

Dennis Lubin Ever wondered what a smiling jackass looked like?
H - e - r - e ' s Dennis!
Dennis Lubin

For more information on the lying ways of cosmetics companies, visit our Cosmetics page where we list the many lawsuits cosmetic companies have lost while trying to control the seconday market.

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.

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
<