Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Vera Bradley Hall Of Shame Member Added March 28, 2007 | ![]() |
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. |
UDPATE - May 21, 2009 - Vera Bradley is now issuing a perjurous Notice Of Claimed Infringement ("NOCI") on the ETSY web site falsely claiming that the use of her fabric violates the "trade dress" provisions under the Lanham Act: |
The distinctive appearance of VBD's fabric designs is also entitled to trade dress protection under Section 43 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §1125). |
Except there is nothing in 15 U.S.C. §1125 about protections for trade dress. 15 U.S.C. §1125 deals with "false designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution". What 15 U.S.C. §1125 does say about trade dress is |
(3) In a civil action for trade dress infringement under this chapter for trade dress not registered on the principal register, the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional. |
Vera Bradley has a number of trademarks but none that we could locate in the principal register.
And what a lie by Very Badley! Very few people would look at one of her designs and know it was a Very Badley Design which is a requirement for trade dress claims. Molly Michael, of Enforcement at Vera's House of Ill Repute, and another clueless twit who appears not to be able to get an honest job, claims in a recent email to ETSY that several ETSY listings violated Vera Bradley's trademarks even though the name Vera Bradley is not mentioned anywhere in the listings. The crime? Using the "distinctive appearance of VBD's fabric designs". Trade dress does not apply to the product line but rather something that makes the line iteself distinctive, like the color green on farm equipment. We can only hope one day someone will sue Vera and stop her foolishness. Laurel Burch was a distinctive designer. Vera Bradley is just disgusting. |
Vera Bradley Designs, also known as Very Badley Designs (because of their bad-itude), is now a proud winner of the Tabberone WESAYSO
Company Award.
Where to begin? There's so much wrong about their eBay VeRO Page and their web site
legal page. The legal misrepresentations are so numerous that they have to be intentional.
These pages are a primer for anyone who wants to study how bottom-feeding
corporate lawyers lie and misrepresent their legal rights and minimize your rights.
Here's a sampling of what we consider to be deliberate misrepresentations (a.k.a. lies) from the VBD VeRO Page and why:
Vera Bradley's boys harp on whether the item is "new", by their definition. Play ground bullies is all they really are.
Shame on you, VB. You and your corporate hacks don't have to lie to protect your trademarks and copyrights. But you are.
You really are trying to control the secondary market. You're the type who used to have their lunch money taken during recess
and now you have the legal jargon to use to beat up on others. That makes you a loser in our book.
And we do not understand why you would take the time and spend the resources to do this. You have your money. These are genuine Vera Bradley products
being lawfully resold. It is not like VBD is being cheated by these people. So why, why are you being such assholes? Drain Bammage?
Use consumerwebfaq@verabradley.com to contact VB by email.
|
![]() | Vera Bradley also qualifies for a Dodo Cluster on their WESAYSO Company Award. | ![]() |
An eBay seller, crazycoolaccessories, had 7 auctions terminated by Vera Bradley in March 2007. eBay has also suspended
crazycoolaccessories because of these auction takedowns. To view a similar auction to those terminated
CLICK HERE.
When asked why Very Badley terminated these auctions, crazycoolaccessories received an email that claimed: |
"If an item was not manufactured by Vera Bradley® or originally sold by Vera Bradley®,.... You may not use any Vera Bradley® mark in the title of an auction...." . |
Whoa, there, Skippy. crazycoolaccessories was selling an item made from Vera Bradley fabric. That makes the fabric manufactured by Vera Bradley. What is the purpose of selling fabric? Yes, you Dodos, to make stuff. You unlawfully terminated these auctions and got a legitimate eBay seller suspended. You are pathetic. |
![]() Vera Bradley |
And it gets worse.
The problem with the "claim" that Vera Bradley will be bringing these laid-off workers in-house is the gap, or down time between the closings and the new facilities. Perhaps when Patricia Miller really means is they will be brought in-house if they move to China and apply for work at a factory there? And since most of the knock-offs come out of China, putting her designs and products into the hands of the very people who will be infringing soon, and China will be, is a master stroke for Vera Bradley. Geniuses these people. Do we see a pattern here? Vera Bradley is moving production to China causing the layoffs of over five hundred workers and lying about re-hiring these laid-off workers. Vera Bradley, All American Manufacturer is saving money by having production moved to Communist China where the workers are housed in barracks and virtual slaves to the government. Yea. Makes us want to run right out and buy some of her over-priced schlock. Vera baby, how about you wave that Chinese Communist flag next time you have a news conference to release disinformation? It's more fitting. |
![]() Patricia Miller |
 
 
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. |
General Articles | Cease and Desist Letters | Federal Court Cases | FAQs & Whines | Glossary | Hall Of Shame | Contributions
Corporate Lawyers |
Definitions |
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 |