(c) Whenever it appears to the Attorney General of the United States that any person is engaged or is about to engage in an act or practice which constitutes or will constitute conduct prohibited by subsection (b), the Attorney General may initiate a civil proceeding in a district court of the United States to enjoin such act or practice.

We seriously doubt that Philip Greene is the Attorney General or attached to the office of the Attorney General. We have not been able to locate anything that gives enforcement authority to the Trademark Counsel of the USMC. But before the emails, let us talk a bit about Philip J. Greene, Esq. He proudly proclaims that he is a "mixologist" and is involved with all sorts of drinking enterprises. A mixologist is a fancy word for bartender. Perhaps it is more designed to mean an amateur bartender when ones primary source of revenue is pulling the wings off of flies or trolling the internet and improperly jeopordizing the livelihood of legitimate on-line sellers, or both. We are not sure but we are sure you can guess our opinion. We wonder why someone in what is supposed to be a somewhat sober profession would salt the internet with pictures of themselves drinking or in drinking atmospheres? Not that we have anything against imbibing. It is a perfectly legal adult activity. Well, until some "Eqsuire" gets involved in the legal definition of "legal" and "adult activity". The "Esquire" will find some perverted argument to try to show that our idea of "legal" and "adult activity" is wrong, according to the interpretation of the "Esquire". And you will see that pattern in the following emails from Philip Greene. It is our offered opinion that not only did Philip J. Greene, Esq. deliberately commit perjury when he ordered an Etsy listing terminated, he then deliberately misquoted (lied) about US Code concerning military trademarks. But then, lying is what lawyers are paid to do. The following pictures show Philip J. Greene, Esq. in his mixologist natural habitat. In our opinion he is very proud of his bartending and his drinking because he sucks at being a lawyer.

Please provide more info on the "licensed fabric" to which you refer. I am familiar with the case you mentioned, however the critical issue is whether the fabric is in fact licensed.

Philip J. Greene makes the statement, "the critical issue is whether the fabric is in fact licensed"? Right from the beginning he infers that he is actually clueless about the fabric in question. He is Trademark Counsel for the USMC. Doesn't he know if the fabric is licensed? Or approved? Both? It does not sound like he knows. And as he admits later on, he has no idea who is licensed and who is not. So why is he issuing NOCIs?

Thanks for sending those attachments, very helpful. Here's our position on fabric. We don't have a license agreement with JoAnn's, Walmart, or other stores, and we clearly need one. I have never heard of Springs, but I cannot understand how they can claim copyright. Perhaps they believe they can claim copyright over the stitching itself, but the underlying work is a trademark of the USMC. But you need to understand how it works with fabric that contains a third-party's trademark. It might be "officially licensed," but it's intended for personal use only. For example, I might purchase a bolt of fabric and make sheets, pillow cases, curtains, comforters, etc., for my own use, or for gifts to friends. But to use the fabric to make products to be sold on the commercial marketplace, that would require a license. It's similar to buying a canister of blank CD-ROMs, and then making backup copies of your favorite music CDs. That's OK. But you can't then make multiple copies and sell them at a flea market, that's copyright infringement. I can purchase a copyrighted book, photo or poster, and I can sell it, that's the Right of First Sale. But I cannot make copies with a photocopier, and then sell them. That's infringement. We're working on a short-form license agreement for use by Etsy vendors, please stay tuned. Thank you. Philip Greene

To begin with, his "position" is not relevant. His "position" is bullshit. His "position" is not the law. Especially his claim that the fabric is "intended for personal use only". That is so much garbage. To make products from scratch to be sold would require a license, depending upon the logos being used, but using licensed fabrics or approved fabrics to make and sell items does not. The comparison to copying CD-ROMs is so lame we wonder if he sent the email after he started some noon-time mixology for lunch.

From: Greene CIV Philip J (philip.greene@usmc.mil), Sent: Fri 10/07/11 8:39 AM:: [content unaltered except to insert paragraph breaks for readability since this email was sent as one l-o-n-g paragraph]

I will indeed communicate in writing, but could we not also have a conversation? Or at least just listen to what I have to say? I believe that it would be beneficial to both of us if we could talk about this, what we're trying to do, what legal authorities we have, what your concerns are, etc. We're not trying to crack down on the little guy, in fact, one third of our licensees are hobbyists who have royalty-free licenses. We're trying to protect the integrity of the brand against the real bottom feeders. If we don't exercise control over the Marine Corps' trademarks, some of which are protected by statute (10 USC 7881, enacted in 1984) and go back to the 18th and 19th century, our marks will end up in the gutter, on sex toys, illegal guns, pornographic web sites, you name it, trashy, offensive stuff. Veteran Marines fight and bleed for the Eagle Globe and Anchor, and they shouldn't have to see it on crap. On Etsy, our goal is to license all legitimate vendors with royalty free licenses. It wasn't our intention to shut them down, but that's how Etsy operates; they don't like to get involved, don't have the staffing, they get a complaint and they take down. So, we've been scrambling to make it work, doing a short-form, royalty-free license, FAQs, outreach, etc. It's a huge undertaking, more time than it's worth, but valuable if it helps us to honestly say to our for-profit licensees and infringers alike, we're taking care of our marks, and we will enforce them. You cannot assert ownership of marks if you just let everyone use the marks as they see fit. It's death by a thousand cuts. It would have been nice if you'd made an effort to get both sides of the story before jumping to conclusions (btw, they are NOT "licensed fabrics" in most cases, we only have one licensee and most of what we're seeing on Etsy and elsewhere is from other sources) and engaging in name calling, but that's what you did, I guess. Thanks. Best regards, Philip Greene

Somewhat dismissive tone. Actually, it was overall dismissive. We were a bother to him, much like a gnat. A wave of the hand and be gone you pests. Actually, they are trying to crack down on the little guy, despite the claims of Philip Greene. His office is going after the little guy without inquiring as to the source of the fabrics. That is the first clue of their intentions. Cutting off the source of unlicensed and unapproved material is the most practical first step in stemming the flow of the material that is being used. If, and that is a really big IF, the party is really concerned about protecting their mark instead of generating paperwork to make themselves look good, like going after the little guys. But they did not inquire. We believe that is because they want to look good, as opposed to really being good. Remember, lawyers lie for a living. As for "royalty-free licenses", they are nothing more than a thinly disguised ploy to control crafters who are in reality doing nothing wrong. The "royalty-free licenses" place limitations and controls upon the crafters when they are not legally doing nothing wrong.

As for fighting and bleeding, Sergeant Michael Meadors received two Purple Hearts and the Combat Infantry Badge while serving with the 4th Bn 9th Inf in 1967. Those Marines are also fighting for the rights of Americans to be left alone when they are not doing anything improper.

What gives Phillip Greene the statutory right to determine what qualifies as "crap"? Not a damned thing. Not one line. In fact, federal statutes specifically deny him any authority to make that determination. Should the insignia of the United States Marine Corps be protected? Most certainly. But to what extent? In the context of the First Amendment, there are permissible "defamations" of The Corps as well as the insignia. But these must be within the realm of "protest" and genuine disagreement. So what use of Marine Corps fabric would qualify as "crap"? Perhaps someone making "peter heaters"? Except there are a lot of Marines, and their wives and girl friends, who might find that particular use to be very amusing and very acceptable. So, besides Philip Greene, who made Philip Greene GOD? Also in our respnse to Philip Greene:

It would have been nice if you had attempted to inquire about the potential harm being caused by indiscriminate letters of complaint. The DMCA set the initial basis for removing material from the internet. Based upon the DMCA, sites like Etsy and eBay formulated policies to cover their web sites by immediate and complete compliance with the wishes of the complaining party. The DMCA also requires that repeat offenders have their internet privileges suspended or revoked. Every take down notice is a black mark against the seller that the provider does not have to remove, even when asked to do so by the complaining party. You attempt to shift the blame onto Etsy but you could have contacted the seller directly to resolve the alleged infringement. You shut them down, not Etsy. and Name-calling? It has been our experience that being polite accomplishes little. It is also been our experience that lawyers lie, a lot. What is interesting has been how they change their attitudes after their clients gets sued. We have been in federal court, representing ourselves, with M&M/Mars, Disney, Major League Baseball, Sanrio (Hello Kitty), United Media (Peanuts) and Debbie Mumm, over the use of their licensed fabrics. Every one of them wanted to settle after we sued them because they terminated listings we had.

Here's what I can tell you: Springs has a permission letter, but only to make and sell 4 products (tapestry products and pillows). The permission letter was issued in 2006. To my knowledge they have no license to sell USMC fabric. Sykel has a relatively recent license to sell fabric. Robert Kaufman has no license or permission letter (that I am aware of). So what we have is a lot of people assuming they're using licensed fabric, when it isn't. I'm not sure it's safe to assume that because, for example, Springs has been selling fabric for 10 years that they must therefore have a license, and that they're just not "in the business of infringing." I can only tell you what I know, I am not aware of Springs having a license to sell USMC fabric. I can't speak for the other services. I can tell you that over my 20+ years as a government trademark attorney, there is a huge degree of misunderstanding over government-owned marks. If I had a dollar for every time I was told, quite authoritatively in some cases, that the USG cannot assert trademark, that USG names, slogans, emblems and logos are all in the public domain, well, I'd have a small fortune. Go to Wikipedia, you'll see a statement that says something like "This emblem was created by USG employees and is therefore not subject to copyright, and is therefore in the public domain." Well, perhaps it isn't protected by copyright, per 17 USC 105, but that's not what this is about. It's a trademark. Oh, really? I didn't know that. Having said that, I cannot speak for Springs, or comment on why they're doing what they're doing. I'm not saying they think it's public domain. After all, they DO have a permission letter, perhaps they think the permission letter covers fabric. As far as I know, it does not, and we're in the process of contacting them, as well as Robert Kaufman. Comments on your blog posting soon. Best regards, Philip Greene

On what does he base his claim that "we have is a lot of people assuming they're using licensed fabric, when it isn't"? Springs Industries printed military fabrics over ten years ago. And, contrary to what Philip Greene claims, Springs Industries does not manufacture tapestry products and pillows. Springs Industries manufactures fabric, not goods made from fabrics.

TMI. Also, FYI - It is not a blog. Your previous email indicated you really do not know who has permission to make and sell the fabrics. Yes, we say the fabrics are perfectly legal. It seems strange to us that after ten years plus of selling military logo fabric, no one, until now, is saying Springs does not have the authority to do so. Springs is probably the largest fabric manufacturer in the US. We have never disputed the right of a trademark owner to protect the trademark. Just the manner in which it is done. A subject you have pointedly ignored. It is not what you are doing, it is how you are doing it. You are hurting people who are not at fault. The seller purchases what they have a reasonable good faith belief is licensed fabric. You claim it is not. But you were not there at the chain store when the fabric was purchased. A major manufacturer selling fabric at thousands of major fabric outlets throughout the US. Instead of going after the manufacturer, you admit you do not know much about the Springs fabrics, you take harmful actions against small sellers when you could have just as easily contacted the seller before demanding Etsy remove the listings. Yes, your complaint to Etsy was in reality a lawful demand that Etsy remove the listing and you know it. Was the fabric authorized? Even you admit you are not sure. Then why not find out first before going after the innocents?

(3) Acceptable use of imitation of the Marine Corps insignia. No request for permission is required when a use or imitation of the Marine Corps emblem, names, or initials includes prominent display of the disclaimer, "Neither the United States Marine Corps nor any other component of the Department of Defense has approved, endorsed, or authorized this product (or promotion, or service, or activity)" as an integral part of the use of imitation. A "prominent display" is one located on the same page as the first use of the insignia, prominent in that use, and printed in letters at least one half the size and density of the insignia. [emphasis added]

Wait? No permission is required? But Phil Babykins is talking about royalty-free licenses for crafters.

We're working diligently to grant licenses to most Etsy vendors. Did you know that about one-third of the USMC's licensees operate under royalty-free licenses? We're not trying to crack down on the little guy, squeeze the hobbyist for every penny. We're trying to get them licensed so they can continue to do what they were doing, and we'll be able to say to both licensees and infringers alike, "those parties are operating under a license."

Phil is giving licenses to people who do not need them. Because the statute plainly states that all that is needed is an adequate disclaimer. Then, we ask, what is the purpose of the "license"? More paperwork? Something to justify Phil's existence? Exercising control over crafters who do not need being controlled? Phil's ego running amuck?

Correct. We've reached out to them a few times and have not heard a reply. Robert Kaufman is not a licensee, then again, they don't offer USMC fabric (just Navy and Air Force), per se. They do offer an Iwo Jima flagraising fabric, but we don't "own" that likeness, as it were. We have adopted it as a trademark (as in the case of the Marine Corps Marathon), but we have to remember that it started out as an Associated Press photo, and then a Felix DeWeldon sculpture. It's not exclusively "ours." I've tried to "hedge" my words with respect to Springs, I've said things like "to my knowledge they are not a licensee." The reason for that is that it's entirely possible that I'm mistaken. We THINK we have complete records of what people did before our time, and we DO have a copy of a permission letter on file with Springs, but only to MAKE products, not sell fabric. For all I know they do have a license, but it's just not in our records. Best regards, Philip Greene

Do they have permission? Yes. But Philip Greene has not received a reply from Springs. So how can he now say "Yes"? And Robert Kaufman certainly does offer USMC fabric. We have two pictures from the Kaufman website of USMC fabric. So, what is the basis of his claim that Robert Kaufman does not? Abject stupidity?

ETK-11011-3 Source: http://www.robertkaufman.com/fabrics/patriots/ETK-11011-3/

ETK-11011-13 Source: http://www.robertkaufman.com/fabrics/patriots/ETK-11011-13/

Those certainly look like USMC logos to us. Then, Philip Greene says he was trying "hedge" his words with respect to Springs. "Hedge"? Is that another word or "Lying out his ass"? "To his knowledge"? If Philip Greene did not know if the fabric from Springs was licensed, why not take the time to definitely find out BEFORE taking potentially harmful action against the seller? Philip? It ain't that difficult to do, Boy. Or was your mixology taking up too much of your time so you couldn't DO YOUR JOB. So, in our opinion, Philip Greene could not have had a good faith belief that the fabric items were infringing when he alleged that the fabric was not licensed because he admits he did not know and still does not know if Springs has permission to print the fabrics. We believe Philip Greene knowingly misrepresented trademark infringement in his NOCI to Etsy. Under the DMCA § 512(f): “‘Knowingly’ means that a party actually knew, should have known if it acted with reasonable care or diligence, or would have had no substantial doubt had it been acting in good faith, that it was making misrepresentations.” (see Online Policy Group v. Diebold, 337 F.Supp.2d 1195,1204 (N.D. Cal 2004), The Notice Of Claimed Infringement ("NOCI") is defined in the DMCA and requires the sender to state the facts are true under penalty of perjury. It is our opinion that someone committed perjury when the NOCI was sent to Etsy.