Tabberone's Hall of Shame - ePatterns & DRG Texas

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

ePatterns & DRG Texas
Hall Of Shame Member
Added May 15, 2007

Last Updated - December 18, 2009

DRG Texas, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Muselman Family from Berne Indiana, joins these pages through ePatterns, one of their many (apparently mis-guided) companies. DRG Texas also receives the Tabberone WESAYSO Company Award.

goliath.ecnext.com lists companies and their corporate information. For DRG Texas, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Muselman Family from Berne Indiana, goliath.ecnext.com lists them under Yarn Spinning Mills. Well, they are spinning more than knitting yarn on their copyright statement page on their web site.

It looks like the great minds at DRG Texas, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Muselman Family from Berne Indiana, are not aware of what they can and cannot claim as exclusive rights under U.S. Copyright Law.

In their copyright statement, they flatly claim:

You do not have the right to use a design for creation of items that are to be sold or used for any other commercial reason. This includes craft shows, bazaars, fund-raisers, etc.

What is in the water in Big Sandy, Texas? Is there peyote growing wild nearby? Or did your collective mommies drop you on your teeny collective heads when you were born?
Your copyright extends only to the patterns you are selling. The purchaser may not copy these patterns for the purpose of selling them or to give them away. That's it. Period. The patterns are covered, not anything made from the patterns, you nincompoops!
You cannot claim that the end product is covered by your copyright because you are not selling them an end product, just instructions on how they can make it. You cannot claim the end product is a derivative because the end product is a useful item, a clothing item, and therefore it cannot be copyrighted. See Galiano v Harrah's, 416 F.3d 411 (5th Cir 2005) and , Whimsicality v Rubie's Costume Co, 891 F.2d 452 (2nd Cir 1989). For a product to be a derivative it must be copyrightable in its own right. See LEE v A.R.T. Company, 125 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 1997), and see Gracen v. The Bradford Exchange, 698 F.2d 300 (7th Cir. 1983) and see Ets-Hokin v Skyy Spirits, 225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000) and see Lee v. Deck the Walls, Inc, 925 F.Supp. 576 (N.D.Ill.1996).
There is no federal or state statute supporting your outrageous claim. There is no federal or state court decision supporting your outrageous claim.
Who is your legal beagle? Tweedle Dum or Tweedle Dee? We're betting on Dum. Considering the large number of web sites and publications owned by DRG Texas, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Muselman Family from Berne Indiana, you are doing the sewing community a major disservice spreading the crap that you do about selling items made from your designs. You are pathetic.

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
<