From: Abdul Popal [ This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ] To: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it Date Tuesday 19th February 2002; 7.57PM NOTICE OF ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT CafePress.com's copyright agent has received proper notification under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") from an alleged copyright owner of Precious Moments. Under the DCMA, CafePress.com, as and Internet Service Provider, is required to take down web sites when all of the requirements of notice are fulfilled. The complaining party has provided to us the following information under penalty of perjury: 1. S/he is the copyright owner or agent and has not authorized anyone to use Precious Moments artwork for the sale of merchandise. 2. S/he is the trademark owner of Precious Moments. [3] S/he identified http://cafepress.com/predmom1-10 as the address that allegedly contains the material which infringes upon his/her copyright rights. We have de-published your CafePress.com web site in order to comply with the DCMA. You have the following option. 1. You may respond with a proper "counter notice" if you think there has been a mistake. E-mail the "counter notice" to This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it Under the DMCA your counter notice must contain: (a) Your name, address, phone number and physical or electronic signature; (b) Identification of the alleged infringing material (a description) and its location before removal (e.g. the member's web address); (c) A statement that under penalty of perjury (you must state specifically that you "under penalty of perjury...") have a good faith belief that the material was removed by mistake or misidentification (explain your rights to use the material); and (d) You consent to local federal court jurisdiction in the district where you are located and will accept service of process from the complaining party. E-mail to the copyright agent proper counter notice. If we do not receive notice that the complaining party has filed in court of law an action restraining the infringing activity, we will republish your CafePress.com web site within 14 days following receipt of the counter notice. If you have any questions about complying with these requirements, please e-mail CafePress.com at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it . Copyright AlertCafePress.com

I could probably add '[sic]' where appropriate, but it would be likely to double the filesize of this ASP. Update 11th March 2006: New server; it's not a .asp anymore; it's a .php, for those wondering what in hell I'd meant by that.

Also, I could probably transcribe my official response, as uploaded to PredaciousMoments.com later that day. Or I could just show you the flashfile itself, which looks like this Another Update 11th March 2006: Not an update so much as a hint--you can scroll up and down a bit to see how the points within the flashfile relate by number to the points within the Cease&Desist Letter, above:

I mentioned that I'm an interminable smartass, right?
So. That was my response. Since, being a nullifidian and fluent in English, I can't actually claim to harbour a 'good faith belief that the material was removed by mistake or misidentification', granting that I happen to have the original, uncoloured versions of these six characters sitting on my damned desk [evidence precludes belief] and I remain sceptical about any 'mistake or misidentification' within the perjurious libel of what we'll have to assume was in fact the trademarkholder of PreciousMoments, unless CafePress.com are equally liable for this shit.
Anyway: I left PredaciousMoments.com looking like that for a few weeks before making the gear available again within wastedinc.com. To date, some thirty-odd months later, I have yet to hear anything else from the known criminals at PreciousMoments.com.
So why, you ask [I assume], would I wait until 2005 to bring this shit up again. Two reasons. Three, if you count the part where I still find PreciousMoments.com's libel to be insanely fucking funny. Who knew PreciousMoments.com had toddlers dressed up as hookers and zombies and [dare I gasp] BLACK PEOPLE available for the stealing....
Fucking morons.
Reason Two: having been nearly shocked by the idiocy of PreciousMoments.com [nothing quite fully shocks me: I'm a scientist], I began watching for similar bullshit from similar morons regarding similar unsimilar images. And fucking hell did I find one.
Enter CautionWear.com. Here we appear to have an uninspired moron blaming his lack of sales not on his inabilty to come up with anything anyone could ever care about, but on the unfortunate fact that people have found the word caution in the fucking dictionary. Because: this idiot claims to have somehow secured a registered trademark on CAUTION!® for use on clothing. Wow. Colour me impressed. Which is, I think, a shade or two darker than puce. Don't ask me, though: I'm colourblind.
Just when I'd thought no one could be dumber than PreciousMoments.com with their claim that I'd stolen their zombified negro prostitutes, we now have a guy claiming, by implication, that Ralph Lauren is into him beaucoup for his illegal use of CAUTION: DRY CLEAN ONLY tags in Polo oxfords. Though a more rational treatise on the matter suggests that CautionWear.com is owned and run by a retarded lunatic. Could go either way; we'll wait for Polo.com's official response on the matter.
So what's dumber than that? Reason Three. Which is what it took to get me to write this thing, since the CautionWear.com nut only warrants a couple of paragraphs and the PreciousMoments.com criminals are outdated news. Reason Fucking Three:

From: Norine Moy [ This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ] To: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it CC: Candice Carr [ This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ] Subject: Notice of IP Violation Date Thursday 13th January 2005; 12.36PM Dear Shopkeeper Thank you for using CafePress.com. In accordance with our Intellectual Property Rights Policy, Tonia Zaccaria on behalf of Neuro-Mart provided us with a notice stating that your use of the trademark “got brains?” infringes upon their intellectual property rights (copyright/trademark). As you know CafePress.com is not in a position to evaluate the merits of an infringement claim made against you by a third party. In order to best protect ourselves from risk, we must take all allegations of infringement seriously and take action in removing the content from our site. Penalties for copyright infringement can potentially reach $150,000 per work infringed and penalties for trademark counterfeiting can potentially reach $1,000,000 per trademark for each type of goods sold. An intellectual property rights owner may also have the right to recover the attorneys’ fees that they incur in bringing an action against a person that infringes upon their intellectual property rights. Accordingly, we have set the content that is alleged to infringe the rights of the third party to “pending status” which disables said content from being displayed in your shop or purchased by the public. You may review the content set to pending status by logging into your CafePress.com account and clicking on the “Media Basket” link. The content set to pending status will be highlighted red. If you believe that you hold the rights to the content alleged to infringe the rights of the third party, we encourage you to contact the alleged rights holder directly for a resolution to this matter. Below please find the contact information for the party alleging infringement. Tonia Zaccaria 65 Sprague St Suite West B Boston, MA 02136 Ph: (617) 364-5554 Fax: (617) 364-5564 Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it For additional information and FAQ's on Intellectual Property, please visit our Intellectual Property (Copyright/Trademark) Guidelines (this includes information on the Right of Publicity), Intellectual Property (Music & Electronic Media) Guidelines and Intellectual Property (Publishing) Guidelines. We apologize for any inconvenience that our actions may cause you. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Norine M. Content Usage Associate CafePress.com Disclaimer: The information contained in this email is provided solely for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. CafePress.com is not a law firm and is not a substitute for an attorney. If you require legal advice, please consult an attorney who is authorized to practice law in your jurisdiction. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The contents of this message, together with any attachments, are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message, or any attachment, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return E-mail and delete this message, along with any attachments, from your computer. Thank you.

Wow. That sounds both stoopid and legally dangerous. I'd better respond to this invenerable bullshit....

Dear Shopkeeper
Call me Gremlin.

Thank you for using CafePress.com.
Don't mention it.

In accordance with our Intellectual Property Rights Policy, Tonia Zaccaria on behalf of Neuro-Mart provided us with a notice stating that your use of the trademark “got brains?” infringes upon their intellectual property rights (copyright/trademark).
I've never used 'got brains?' for anything. I did, however, use 'got brain?', which is arguably an infringement against the Dairy Council. But I'll let them go after Zaccaria first.

As you know CafePress.com is not in a position to evaluate the merits of an infringement claim made against you by a third party.
Or to check the spelling and note a measurable difference between 'brain' and 'brains'.

In order to best protect ourselves from risk, we must take all allegations of infringement seriously and take action in removing the content from our site.
Really? Because I'm pretty sure I used 'cafe' and 'press' in the same sentence back in the eighties. Pay up.

Penalties for copyright infringement can potentially reach $150,000 per work infringed and penalties for trademark counterfeiting can potentially reach $1,000,000 per trademark for each type of goods sold.
So the real money is in lawsuits. I'll make a note.

An intellectual property rights owner may also have the right to recover the attorneys’ fees that they incur in bringing an action against a person that infringes upon their intellectual property rights.
Have I mentioned that my EMail address is a trademark? Let's discuss usage fees....

Accordingly, we have set the content that is alleged to infringe the rights of the third party to “pending status” which disables said content from being displayed in your shop or purchased by the public.
Saves me the trouble of disassociating myself from any confusion with this Zucchini moron, I suppose....

You may review the content set to pending status by logging into your CafePress.com account and clicking on the “Media Basket” link.
Okiedokie....

The content set to pending status will be highlighted red.
Good eye. Photoshop called it FF0000 exactly.

If you believe that you hold the rights to the content alleged to infringe the rights of the third party, we encourage you to contact the alleged rights holder directly for a resolution to this matter.
I don't believe things: I'm a nullifidian.

Below please find the contact information for the party alleging infringement.
I'll do that....

Tonia Zaccaria

65 Sprague St

Suite West B

Boston, MA 02136

Ph: (617) 364-5554

Fax: (617) 364-5564

Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

I wonder whether Zamboni knows that someone else is using NeuroMart.com:

Registrant:
Kevin Domingos
1854 River Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02136
United States

At least Domingos is in Boston, too; maybe she can hunt him down. These guys might be more difficult to catch....

Registrant:
Clubnatural Home - ClubPaks (GOTBRAIN-DOM)
17595 Harvard Avenue Suite C521
Irvine, CA 92614
US
Domain Name: GOTBRAIN.COM

Registrant:
Buy This Domain
4200 Wisconsin Ave NW
Washington, DC 20016-2143
US
Domain Name: GOTBRAINS.COM

That registrant of GotBrains.com particularly must be a thorn in Zippitydoodah's side: it's precisely the trademark she's registered, and Mister Buy T. Domain is ATTEMPTING TO SELL IT FOR MONEY!!!.

For additional information and FAQ's on Intellectual Property, please visit our Intellectual Property (Copyright/Trademark) Guidelines (this includes information on the Right of Publicity), Intellectual Property (Music & Electronic Media) Guidelines and Intellectual Property (Publishing) Guidelines.
I might do that. So might my visitors.

We apologize for any inconvenience that our actions may cause you.
Meh. I had to expose someone's idiocy; why not this?

Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.
Got a copy of the White Album?

Sincerely,

Norine M.

Content Usage Associate

CafePress.com

Disclaimer: The information contained in this email is provided solely for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. CafePress.com is not a law firm and is not a substitute for an attorney. If you require legal advice, please consult an attorney who is authorized to practice law in your jurisdiction.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The contents of this message, together with any attachments, are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message, or any attachment, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or by return E-mail and delete this message, along with any attachments, from your computer. Thank you.

Disclaimer: 'all submissions automatically become the property of gremlin.net and cannot be returned.'

So, now that my attention has been drawn to idiocy and the use of language, let's analyse a few things here....

Neuro [adjective; from the Greek neuros]: Relating to nerves.

Mart [noun; from the Latin marcatus]: A place where goods are sold.

NeuroMart [compounded noun--probably a Registered® Fucking® Trademark®; from neuros et marcatus]: A place where nerves are sold.

Now, call me kooky, but NeuroMart.com does not appear, in any sense of the term, 'to sell nerves'. Does it? Am I missing something important? I'm not seeing it.
So. We now have libel coming from a nut who A) regards 'brain' and 'brains' to be synonyms within the realm of trademark law, B) lacks control of NeuroMart.com, C) lacks control of GotBrains.com, and D) lacks saleable nerves. One of us is missing something utterly fucking critical here. Is it me? Be honest.
Another important question: is Zeppelin attempting to shut down and/or sue neurologists and surgeons who might, in fact, be selling nerves? Or are the neurologists and surgeons mounting a ClassAction against Zephyr for her inappropriate use of NeuroMart.com? Or are neurologists and surgeons not typically that stoopid--I hope mine aren't: they do shit with my brain. Which, for the record, is a singular organ. Steve Martin I ain't.
And where in hell are the Dairy Council in all this? Lemee run a quick trademark search on...yeah: 'GOT MILK? is a registered trademark and has been licensed nationally since 1995.' [http://www.gotmilk.com/news/news_018.html]. If anyone was likely to give me any defensible shit over 'got x?', you'd expect it to be these guys. But they never did. I suspect they've ignored Zapruder for the same basic reason: that she and NeuroMart.com are meaningless to them.
These leads me directly into a hunch: that Zambia here regards herself as a larger fish than I. Which is great, if you're into being an overweight icthyd. Me, I'm comfy with being a smartassed intellectual. Three last things....
First of all: let's make sure we're not dealing with a total fraud here. Time to do our own trademark search on got brains?®...found it: http://tess2.uspto.gov lists the following [I love the public domain nature of DotGovs, don't you?]:

This tells me two critical bits of information: A) that the trademark holder is not, in fact, Tonia Zaccaria, her perjury notwithstanding, and B) Kevin A Domingos of 'Boton, Massachusetts' has had problems with the letter S in the past >:)
Second of all: until or unless this fraudulent creature concedes and retracts her perjurious libel, the got brain? section of wastedinc.com will lead directly to this ASP. That way, based on my suspicion that Zenith has nothing particularly better to do than to reload wastedinc.com over and over, clicking on the got brain? link until she finds something new to get all fragile about, she'll see this and either A) ignore it, B) concede and retract, or C) bother me with a lawsuit I can at least take seriously. Not that the latter is a good idea, in the opinions of my legal department.
Third of all: I think we've answered the question now. Got Brains?® No. Trademark: yes; brains: not evidently, no.
Of course: that's just my opinion; I've only got the one brain, after all....

--Gremlin

Update 3rd Febuary 2005: sometime in the last week, the registered trademark seen above was forced into competition against a similar trademark by someone of the same name, but in Boston, instead of Boton. I think we can take this to mean that someone at NeuroMart.com followed the link here from wastedinc.com after all.
No news yet on what these imbeciles might try to do about this exposure, though. We'll have to wait and see, I guess....

--G

Update 11th March 2006:

Not entirely unrelated, though dumber by far, someone who may have worked out that trademarksquatting can be even more profitable than holding McDonalds.com for ransom seems to have gone a step further than most, not only claiming copyright on the term SweetPea for use on clothing, but actually taking legal action against fifty-two separate people for--primarily, at least--thumping the words SweetPea onto shirts through CafePress.com.
As of now, the ongoing suit is being documented more fully at SourPeas.org.
Worth mentioning in general is that Sweet Pea Limited, Inc. [more on that in a moment], having registered the trademark on 16th October 2003, are apparently extorting these fifty-two for an easy settlement of US$5,000 each [potentially $260,000 total] under the probable barratry of a $16million infringement suit. Also noteworthy is Sweet Pea Limited Inc.'s evident ignorance of larger companies [larger both than these fifty-two glorified hobbyists and Sweet Pea Limited, Inc. combined] who might have the five thousand bucks to waste, the $16million to waste, and even the lawyers to waste in counterattacking this bullshit.
A few things getting my attention [I assume you're interested in my thoughts: you're still here]....
1) Sweet Pea Limited, Inc. makes no sense. Not just the company: the name. Perhaps one day they'll sue, say, Sweet Pea Incorporated, Ltd, too. Or the Sweet Pea Incorporated Corporation. Or the Incorporated Alliance of Corporate Sweet Peas Unlimited, Ltd. Or WalMart. Or something.
2) Mama's Family Episode 128 Look Who's Breathing [inset], broadcast 15th February 1990; several lawyers have gone on record claiming that, in point of fact, 15th Feburary 1990 predates 16th October 2003.
3) Granting that, for the most part, none of these fifty-two Defendants has ever actually sold a shirt reading SweetPea [the harsh reality is that uploading an image to CP is monumentally easier than getting someone to buy a shirt adorned by it], by the nature of PoD fulfilment, few of these Defendants have yet been involved in getting said trademarked element onto precisely the wearable media protected by said trademark. Which is to say that, until or unless the trademark appears on a damned shirt, no one's violating a trademark granting the Sweet Incorporated Pea Limited Corporation exclusivity on shirts reading SweetPea. That alone, to me, suggests that there's really no case here at all. Until it's a shirt, it ain't a shirt; it's an image; the Corporate Peas of Sweet Limitations have no trademark on images. That, at least, would be my call, if I were the judge presiding over this bullshit, and if I ever wanted to be reelected in this hemisphere. But that's me.

--G