Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won
Precious Moments vs TabberoneOn October 15, 2002, we received an email from Precious Moments wherein they made a "cease and desist" demand.
In light of their having lost a very similar case in 1997, Precious Moments vs La Infantil 1997, (D.P.R.) 971 F.Supp. 66, we were really surprised to receive this threat from them.
But, they didn't know with whom they were dealing. At the time we were preparing for a federal court appearance in New York and we were ready to take them on. In legaleese, there's something called "collateral estoppel" which means, from what we understand, that if a party has a court ruling against them then they are barred from again pursuing the same matter.
On October 16, 2002, we replied by email to Precious Moments. Their original email demanded a reply within 48 hours.
We have not heard back from them. Gee, was it something we said? We hope so. We have noticed a significant increase in eBay auctions featuring fabric items made from copyrighted fabric for Precious Moments. Could it be they finally got the message?
Tabberone 2, Trademark/Copyright Abusers 0.
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.
Articles | Cease and Desist Letters | Federal Court Cases | FAQs & Whines | Glossary | Hall Of Shame | Contributions
Initial Interest Confusion |
Likelihood Of Confusion |
Material Difference Standard
Parallel Imports | Post-sale Confusion | Puffery | Secondary Meaning | Subsequent Confusion | Trademark Abuse
Unauthorized Use | Unfair Competition | What is a Trademark?
Angel Policies |
Contributory Infringement |
Copyright Extortion |
Copyright Misuse Doctrine
Derivative | The Digital Millennium Copyright Act | EULA | Fair Use | First Sale Doctrine | Product Description
Registration | Registration Denied | What is a Copyright? | What is not Copyrightable?
Embroidery Designs |
FAQs & Whines |
Image and Text Theft |
Licensed Fabric |
Licensing & Licenses |
Patterns Index | Profit | Quilting | Selvage | Stanford School of Law Case Outline
Tabberone Disclaimer | Trademark Extortion | Urban Myths | What To Do If You Are Veroed
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 © 1999-2019|