Unforgettable Licensing

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

Unforgettable Licensing
Hall Of Shame Member
Added January 15, 2009

Last updated : February 7, 2010

We have located two federal courts cases concerning the use of fabric to make items to sell:
In Precious Moments vs La Infantil, 1997, the federal court invoked the first sale doctrine in denying Precious Moments attempts to block the use of its licensed fabrics to make bedding for sale. The 1st Circuit Court said making a fabric item from fabric lacked any originality so it was not copyright infringement. Since then, M&M/Mars, Disney Enterprises, Major League Baseball, United Media (Peanuts fabric), Sanrio (Hello Kitty fabrics), and Debbie Mumm, have been sued when these companies tried to block the eBay sales of items hand-crafted from their licensed fabrics. Every one of them settled rather than risk losing the issue in court.

In Scarves By Vera, Inc. v. American Handbags, Inc, 188 F. Supp. 255 - US: Dist. Court, SD New York 1960, American Handbags was using towels manufactured by Vera to make handbags for sale. On some of these handbags made with plaintiff's towels there could be seen, at the bottom, the name Vera coupled with the figure of a Scarab or Ladybug, all three of which were registered trademarks of Vera. The judge rejected Vera's copyright claims.

It should be noted that in both cases the judges required the defendants to provide disclaimers attached to the items because the items were being sold in stores. The disclaimers were to plainly disavow any relationship between the manufacturer of the item and the trademark owner. This was done so "an ordinary, intelligent purchaser" would not be misled that there was any connection. When selling on-line, a prominent, highly visible and well-placed disclaimer, such as our recommended Tabberone Disclaimer, would likely serve the same purpose and legal need as the disclaimers required by the courts. Precious Moments disclaimer court quotation and Scarves By Vera disclaimer court quotation.

So what is so "unforgettable" about Unforgettable Licensing? First, their "legal" counsel is some dim-wit named Brian Breyer Eich, or "Doofus" to those who love him. Their web site at unforgettablelicensing.com lists other dim-wits as Bruce Bronn, President, and Mark Shachtman, CFO. We'll just call them Larry, Moe and Curley for short. We will point out up front we have a major problem with company executives who do not use site email servers, such as dbronn@ix.netcom.com instead of brian@unforgettablelicensing.com. If you are going to present yourself as a reputable business why not use the email server on your web site? They all have one. And it looks so much more professional. But, being professional does not appear to be the goal of this intrepid trio.

We don't really know much about Brian Eich, "Legal" department for Unforgettable Licensing, except that he does not want to work for a real law firm, or cannot get hired by one, so his some ten years of legal experience in Illinois is in servitude to Unforgettable Licensing. We certainly hope his legal expertise in other areas is better than what his company has recently displayed concerning the use of licensed "I Love Lucy" fabrics.

We suppose we should tell you what "Unforgettables" are represented by Unforgettable Licensing:

Abbott & Costello ~ Grandma Got Run Over By A Reindeer ~ The Honeymooners ~ I Love Lucy ~ That Girl

Let's face it. Licensing is all about revenue. There is no other purpose for putting piles of schlock into the marketplace except to gather in the big bucks. Contrary to a statement made by Bruce Bronn, President and Ass-In-Charge, quoted in the New York Times, where he claimed "the money wasn't the important thing", not important that is until the ante was upped to ten million dollars, money is licensing. $10 million can certainly make attitudes change.
Videos, dolls, hats, stickers; you name it, it can bring in more money, more money, more money. So, like many others, Unforgettable Licensing decided to cash in on the licensed fabric cash cow. Why not? Look how many others are doing the same thing. But, alas, Unforgettable Licensing only looked at the dollar signs and did not do their homework. Either that or their corporate staff are all flaming assholes. You pick. We know which way we are leaning.
The dictionary defines an appliqué as "A decoration or ornament, as in needlework, made by cutting pieces of one material and applying them to the surface of another" and "To decorate by cutting pieces of one material and applying them to the surface of another". An appliqué is a logical, reasonable, and long practiced use of fabric. Except to Bruce Bronn, Ass-In-Charge for Unforgettable Licensing. He apparently ordered an eBay auction terminated for copyright infringement because the woman was selling "I Love Lucy" appliqués made from lawfully acquired "I Love Lucy" licensed fabric.
Bruce Bronn, Ass-In-Charge for Unforgettable Licensing told her, "And it is stated when the fabric is purchased it's for personal use not for resale". Tell us Bruce, can we call you Bruce or do you prefer Ass-In-Charge? Who stated this to her when she purchased the fabric or was this on the selvage of the fabric? We're guessing it was printed on the selvage, wasn't it Brucie? Except that you and your impotent "Legal", Brian Eich, cannot point to a single federal or state law that says what you print on the selvage of fabric is binding upon the purchaser, can you? Nor can you point to a single federal case where the cutting up of fabric and reselling it was infringing, can you? But we can point to Precious Moments vs La Infantil, 971 F. Supp. 66 (D.P.R. 1997) where a federal court denied Precious Moments an injunction to stop someone from cutting up their fabric, making bedding from it, and then reselling it in their store. Or Scarves By Vera, Inc. v. American Handbags, Inc, 188 F. Supp. 255, (SD NY 1960), where the federal court said using copyrighted and trademarked towels to make purses was legal under the first sale doctrine. (See above for links to these cases).
We've shown you ours; you show us yours. Bet you will not even try. Ever. Cluck, cluck, cluck.

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
<