Section 5, Contest I

Added 9/7/13:
*** Berta, your comment below states: Reading your above reply to Lisa: “.. I stopped telling you my plans..” confirms that you already then had the plan getting registration for Thread Bears® and then use it against me and all other thread bear makers.
 
Here is an email from Lisa to you (taken from your evidence at the USPTO) where she told you what my “plans” were…which did not involve a trademark.  As for the rest of your comment, it will be addressed in due time.
 
And again Berta we ask this question (which you neglected to answer): Why did Lisa come to you and think you would have the answers to why I didn’t trust her, when my email said nothing about you or your friend?
 
 
The winner for Contest Part I has been notified, but is choosing to remain anonymous.  If you didn’t hear from us, sorry, you didn’t win! 
 
SECTION 5 ANSWERS:
  
Lisa’s supposed first contact with Berta was on Jan 18 where she introduced herself, but on post 3, the day before, Lisa says “Hello again” and “thank you for answering my email” which means they were in contact before.  So clearly, at least one of the emails was changed.
 
 In post 2 Lisa claims that she hasn’t said or done anything against Sue, but in post 3 Berta said, “Thanks for comming to me.  Better to talk abot this first and think what to do.”  This shows she was already plotting/chatting with Berta.  Sue didn’t even mention Berta’s name in that email, so why did Lisa email Berta the same day asking about Sue? 
 
The emails to Berta were taken from her evidence at the Trademark Office exactly how she submitted them. In Lisa’s reply to Berta, her phone number is typed as “xxx-xxx-xxxx” instead of being blacked out, so that means that this email was retyped. Especially if the dates don’t make sense. So, we ask, what else could’ve been changed in these emails?

 

 
Post 1: An email to Lisa Defehr

Post 2: Lisa’s reply


Post 3: Email communication between Lisa and Berta (message obtained from Berta’s evidence online with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board)

 

Post 4: Email communication between Lisa and Berta (message obtained from Berta’s evidence online with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board)

 
 

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Section 5, Contest I

  1. Wrong answer Sue.. As you can see the email with date 18 January was sent through ebay message. Time 6.16 AM.

    18 January 6.16 AM in the Netherlands is 17 January 9.16 PM PST time in USA .

    Range of email is:

    1. Thursday, January 17, 2002 1:48 PM (Lisa to you)
    2. Thu, 17 January 2002 (Your reply to above email)
    3. eBay message 18 January 6:16 AM = 17 January 9:16 PM in USA
    4. Reply Lisa to me: 17 Jan 2002 22:19 = 10:19 PM in USA

  2. Berta, the people who gave answers could clearly see that it would make no sense for a person to introduce themselves after she already thanked you for responding to an earlier email. And you don't even understand who's talking to who. My email was to Lisa first, not the other way around.

    Why did Lisa come to you and think you would have the answers to why I didn't trust her, when my email said nothing about you or your friend?

    And at least one of those emails was changed. Why would one email that you receive have a different date format from the other:
    1. 17 Jan 2002 22:19:15
    2. Friday, January 18 2002 6:16AM

    In every email you receive, the headers don't change. The formats stay the same. So, would you like to confess to altering the last email?

    And who's the one that twists things and manipulates them to look like something different from what they are? Berta, I know that this “introductory” correspondence is a lie, because I can show where you and Jeanne were already emailing Lisa in 2001.

  3. I know I have nothing changed in any of the emails or post to the trademark office and I don`t spent more time to relay your words. Suspicious as you are, you always will find something else..
    It is a shame anyway that you post private emails in public from others then yourself.

    I can Imagen that the winner (if there is any) like to stay anonymous, he/she probable is ashamed to take part on a contest like this.
    Besides, you can make up all you want here on your Blog.

    You absorbed my trade name ThReAdTeDs® in your Thread Teds by Thread Bears® mark. You say, the reason you had to do this:

    “Yes, Berta Hesen-Minten can carry on in business as “ThReAdTeDs,” but she will no longer be able to associate our mark, “Thread Bears,” with her business.”

    but is it not that you want to say:

    “Yes, Berta Hesen-Minten can carry on in business as “ThReAdTeDs,” but now we are able to associate our mark, “Thread Bears,” with her business.”

    Should I be flattered now ?

    I never pretended to be the company Thread Bears® (which was not yours as I started making thread bears), and I NEVER used it as my company name. I only used it to describe the bears I make. Reading your above reply to Lisa: “.. I stopped telling you my plans..” confirms that you already then had the plan getting registration for Thread Bears® and then use it against me and all other thread bear makers.

    However, you managed to get Thread Bears® and now you received your registration for Thread Teds by Thread Bears® and still you are not pleased.. is it, because of your disclaimer for “thread teds” and “thread bears”, which makes it free for us to use “thread ted(s)” and “thread bear(s)” to describe our product??
    I know you refer all who like to know about the use of “thread bears” to that 2008 Cancellation ruling , but your 2009 signed disclaimers SUPERCEDES (goes over) that one because the USPTO said so in their writings in the past about Prior Registration & Use from this posting (Please copy and past the next link in your browser:

    http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn78553324&docId=OOA20070214133711#docIndex=17&page=1

    I think it makes more sense to refer people to those official documents, instead of to the owners of the Thread Bears® mark.

  4. And is Berta to be pilloried because you can only see one solution, that in your always suspicious minds there was mischief made? That rather than having changed dates before printing, a simple solution could be that, in originally formatting different (home? work? multiples? Public?/Library?/whichever-printed-from?) computers, depending on who performed this initial set-up task, the date arrangement might have been entered differently, so that it prints out differently from each of these different computers?

    Most of these different formats came from Lisa DeFehr, yet you are 'implying' that Berta is responsible for changing all of the data. Totally unfair and a lie. You make mountains out of molehills where no moles ever existed, merely for the sake of creating controversy.

    Presentation of the dates is what you based the whole Section 5 on, not what this whole topic really addressed in your first email. Making these public do not make you look good. The USPTO document Berta posted in her message is the only one which counts, not your 'merely citizen, non-lawyerly' opinion, just like the rest of us.
    http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn78553324&docId=OOA20070214133711#docIndex=17&page=1

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s