Uncategorized

Section 3, Contest II

Out of the Thistle Leave a comment
 SECTION 3 ANSWERS:
 Since Bobbie and Berta are being steadfast in their lies about the patterns, which do concern us, we are continuing that discussion. If you didn’t hear from us, sorry, you didn’t win this week’s section!
 
Supposedly Berta had a pattern printed in 2001 (post 1) so she would’ve had a copy to sell or trade when the question was asked a year later. She made no mention of any patterns but said “design your own” in post 3. Then not giving druannapegg any indication that she was going to sell a pattern, she offered it two weeks later which was after Sue had already sold some.  
 
In post 4 Berta states sue was ‘upset and jealous’ because of her first pattern sale, but in section 3 Sue’s pattern sold for a high price which Sue sold before Berta (with Sue’s $280 receipt). She also says that nobody had sold patterns for these until she did in 2002, but in post 5 she states that she knew Thread Bears had sold patterns and kits from at least 2000.
 
Post 1: This was obtained from Berta’s evidence at the Trademark Office in regards to her first pattern/kit 
 
Post 2: Berta’s listing for her first kit/pattern (taken from her evidence at the USPTO).
 
Post 3: Berta’s response to Druanna Pegg’s question about patterns on a bear forum
 
Post 4: Another statement from Berta’s paperwork at the Trademark Office. Hint: Berta is the Plaintiff, we are the Defendants. 
 
Post 5: Yet, another statement taken from Berta’s submissions at the Trademark Office
 
We are giving the owners of these words and images full credit. All statements that were obtained via USPTO were for the Thread Teds by Thread Bears® proceedings. Links to verify any of the publicly posted information is available upon emailed request.







 

Section 2, Contest II

Out of the Thistle 6 Comments
 SECTION 2 ANSWERS:


In post 7 Berta is saying that there weren’t any patterns for “crochet teddies,” but then says it was her “turn” to write down her “knowledge of thread bear making.” If there were no others, then how could it be her “turn?”

In post 1, Berta telling druannapegg “design your own” tells me she didn’t have any patterns available or that she ever made any. At that time, Sue was listing her pattern again (posts 3-6). By the time Berta had offered her patterns there were already some available, and makes her post 7 of why she came up with patterns (that there weren’t any) a discrepancy.

Post 1: Taken from Berta’s evidence at the USPTO. Berta’s response to a publicly posted question on multiple bear forums. (Initial question is at bottom of post) 
 

Post 2: My first email reply to Druanna
 

Post 3: My second correspondence to her about the pattern

Post 4: Email correspondence about another pattern request
 
Post 5: The receipt for my eBay pattern sale

Post 6: An email from the pattern winner

 
Post 7: A public posting on the Thread Animals blog on 9/1/08.
 
 

Prelude

Out of the Thistle 1 Comment
Everyone’s entitled to an opinion
That is, except for us.
And when it comes to our business situation–
How dare we make a fuss!
 
Our competitors can get away
With saying whatever they please.
And comments about our business remain
So long as ev’ryone else agrees.
 
A certain SOMEONE and her friends
Are allowed to whine about us,
But the minute we chime in and make a comment
We are then considered a cuss.
 
We’ve responded to the lies
By setting the record straight.
Our information and comments get swiftly removed,
‘Cause Thread Bears® is easy to hate!

If you continue to hear one side of a story,
You begin to believe those words.
And what other choice do you have, by gosh,
If the other side’s never heard?
 
We asked permission to comment
On a topic that needed addressed.
Though we were permitted to talk about our business
“It was removed due to membership request.”
 
Forums that continue to allow
The trademark misinformation
Are leading others to read and receive it,
Which is adding to the confusion.
 
Since we had no public voice
We started our own public forum.
Where anyone can comment on any blog post,
And so far, these poems don’t bore ’em!
 
It seems as though some need a reminder as to why we are having this contest. This is not an attack. This is our response. We and others have tried to respond to lies about our business on public (and private) forums–such as their blogs, Teddy Talk, Facebook, Thread Animals, and so on. But, typically, those comments get removed.  And since only someone in the wrong hides… we are airing it all out. We even allow other people to give their excuses and opinions on here without deleting them. The ones in the wrong, however, delete anything that is displeasing to them. We allow these comments to remain because we believe that every time someone comments on here, they are exposing more of themselves. So obviously, the ones that don’t want the truth out there are going to work hard to try to get us to stop.
 
And really, everyone reading this, think back, who starts these discussion about us? And when do these discussions get removed? When we post about us or our business.

This is just one example of why this is on our blog…

 
Bobbie brought up the discussion of our trademark on an irrelevant Teddy Talk thread, publicly giving her misinformation. Please pay extra attention to her last paragraph…
 
This is a message we sent to Sue Ann, the moderator of Teddy Talk, in regards to the above topic.
 
A week later we responded with this comment that Sue Ann said that we were within our rights to post. We had only confirmed what Mary and another artist had questioned about what Bobbie said.
 
Though we had calmly discussed our business and brought facts to the front, as Bobbie suggested, this thread was still removed. This is the letter from the forum administrator stating that the discussion was removed due to membership request. So, we know that the ones who don’t want the truth and facts out there were the ones who had this deleted.
 

 

Section 1, Contest II

Out of the Thistle 16 Comments
Here, Berta, is the email that we were referring to in our comments.

Section 1 ANSWERS:
The winner of this week’s section has been emailed–so if you didn’t hear from us, sorry, you didn’t win! REMEMBER, the person who wins the most weekly sections wins the prize–so it’s still anybody’s game!! These are some of the discrepancies they found:

  •  On post 1 Berta starts selling “crochetted bears” in 2001, but lies in post 5 that she has been selling them since 1999/2000. This [woman] must have lost a year or two.  😑 She even says in post 4 that she was “well known” for these in 2000, which was before she even started selling them.

 

  • In post 3 Berta even says that nobody was making these things except for Sue Aucoin. She stated “there was no competition for you,” even though she’s trying to take credit for it.

 

  • Berta says in post 3 that Sue wasn’t the one who “discovered the thread bear,” but Sue didn’t have any competition and Sue was the one who called these things “thread bears” in post 2, not Berta.  Even Sue’s business name was threadbaredesigns. 

 

  • The bear in post 7 has a copyright 2000 date on it with the name “threadteds.” In post 1, with Berta’s first crocheted bear announcement in 2001, it looks like her business was b-wear at that time, not threadteds.
 
 
 
There are those kind of people
Who want to be The First.
Though sometimes, they’re not,
And to them, that’s the worst.
 
They get angry and jealous,
They don’t wanna be the small fry!
So they take accomplishments
By deceiving and lying.
 
You can tell a lie continuously
Until your face turns blue,
But just because you repeat it
Doesn’t mean it will be true.
 
When you try to take recognition
You’re bound to step on toes.
The person who was The First
Has some evidence to disclose.

You weren’t the first to offer the concept,
No matter how much you declare.
What the double-whammy is:
You weren’t even first to call ’em “thread bears!”
 

Though some artist may shrug
At a “harmless white lie,”
When it’s against us,
You better believe it will go awry.

All images are of public domain.  Full credit is given to the author(s). Click on images to enlarge.

Post 1: Berta’s Announcement on a group (you know she never misses an opportunity)
 

Post 2: My email response to her announcement. It has been brought to our attention that Berta has lead people to believe that there was more correspondences from me.  However, this “complimentary” communication was the only time I contacted her prior to trademark ownership. Email taken from Berta’s evidence at the USPTO exactly as it was submitted, with her hand-written note.  

Post 3: An email from Berta 
 
Posts 4-8: Posts or profile information of Berta’s on various websites and public forums
Post 4:
 
Post 5:

Post 6:

Post 7:
 
 
 Post 8:


 

 
Direct links verify to all these public postings are available upon emailed request.
 
 


Section 5, Contest I

Out of the Thistle 4 Comments
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)

 
 

Section 4, Contest I

Out of the Thistle Leave a comment
SECTION 4 ANSWERS:
If you did not receive an email from us, sorry, you did not win this week!



Debbie Gibbons Nicholas told Rhonda that she should do research, but she didn’t even read the email for herself, or she is lying. The email to Berta is explaining how she can’t use “Thread Bears.”  When she uses “thread bears” with “ThReAdTeDs,” she’s infringing on two trademarks.

 
 Post 1: A public post made by Debbie Gibbons Nicholas

 Post 2: Our email to Berta, which Debbie was referring to
 
 The person featured in this section of the contest has been a very big gossip in the whole thing, and has given a lot of false information–even though she doesn’t make and sell these bears as a business, and even though she has had nothing to do with our trademark. We didn’t want her to feel left out, since she wants to feel like an important part of fighting our trademarks.