---

This web page details our opinions of and experiences with:

TrixiePixie Tees & ANNIEROCKET DESIGNS INC.
TrixiePixieTees, TrixiePixie Tees, Trixiepixietees.com, Trademark Infringement Lawsuit
LeeAnn Brissett
and
OneandOne.com Hosting (1&1 Web Hosting)

One of the Best explanatory articles on Trademark
infringement and domain names (click me)

--Too bad the individual shown below cannot be bothered to READ about the problem she has caused...

If TrixiePixieTees will Steal from Us, will they Steal from You Too?

Just how serious IS the problem of Trademark Infringement,
Copyright Infringement, and Identity Theft in America Today?

 

This website is posted by TrixiePix Graphics™, TrixiePixie Graphics™, and TrixiePixel Graphics™, a tee-shirt printing company under category 040 of the USPTO doing business since 1996 with copyrights running back to 1982. It documents our struggle against one LeeAnn Brissett (above) of TrixiePixieTees.com and AnnieRocket Designs Inc., doing business since 2006 and 2008 respectively, to reclaim our Trademarked identity. If the reader is facing a similar problem, read on. If the reader isn't yet facing a similar problem, but is doing business on the Internet, YOU WILL face a similar problem. It's only a matter of time. Read on.

 

Oneandone
1&1 Internet, Inc.
 701 Lee Road, Suite 300
Chesterbrook, PA.
19087                                   

Registered Receipt # 2103 8555 7490 0827 4589 0065 5000 0481

On 8-11-08 we were informed that one of your customers (a domain-name registrant named LeeAnn Brissett) was operating a t-shirt business under the name of Trixiepixie Tees (trixiepixietees.com). Since our own t-shirt business is trademarked under TrixiePix Graphics, TrixiePixie Graphics, and TrixiePixel Graphics, and has been for many years, the use of TrixiePixie Tees for the very same business is a flagrant trademark violation and must be stopped immediately. To that end we emailed your company (since you hold the hidden whois records on the offending domain) at proxy620599@1and1-private-registration.com. That email detailed the situation just as does this letter, and formally asked for the domain registration information for that domain. As you know, you are required to provide it, or you may lose your registrar status.

In response we received a number of emails from someone identifying herself as one “LeeAnn Brissett”, at annierocket@gmail.com. The reply refused to address our request, but insisted that this person wanted to “get to the bottom of it herself”. This was utterly inappropriate, since we weren’t requesting your company to get to the bottom of anything; we were simply requesting the hidden whois data for the domain. Again we asked for this data. Again this request was ignored. We began asking if this person (LeeAnn Brissett) was an employee of your company, or was in fact the actual domain owner. Again our requests were ignored. She would not tell us. The exchange became obtuse and we finally advised this person that if she was indeed the registrant, she was in direct and flagrant violation of US and International trademark law, and that her refusal to cooperate would be considered a willful act of infringement; and that if this woman was the registrar, she could not legally refuse to provide the whois data for the domain which you have hidden. Again she steadfastly refused to supply the whois data, and again refused to tell us who she was (your employee or the registrant). We’ve seldom seen such a stupid, counter-productive exchange. Did this woman think that by refusing to supply the whois data, we would just go away? In fact, such deliberate belligerence tends to cement in concrete our resolve. Consider that concrete now set as hard as steel. We finally stopped the exchange, realizing that we were not dealing with the brightest bulb in the string, and vowed to go ahead and file suit. The matter has now been sent to our attorney. If the woman named above is your employee, we now consider your company to be an accomplice in a flagrant instance of trademark infringement, and you may be held liable for some portion of the damages. If the woman is the actual domain holder, she does not appear to us to be an individual that any honest, professional company would want to do business with. She is, in fact, a potential liability to you, your name, and your bank account - she should have AT LEAST been upfront enough to tell us she was not your employee.

In any case, we herewith demand the whois data for this domain so that we can obtain an injunction to shut it down without further delay. We had hoped the registrant would be an intelligent, reasonable, honorable human being, and in that case we might have been amenable to helping her reroute her traffic over the period of a few months by allowing limited use of the name during that period. It’s clear, now, if this woman is in fact the registrant, that this is not an individual who deserves the smallest, slightest break, and we are determined to pursue all possible remedies. If we are forced to go to this much trouble and expense, we will sue the domain owner in Federal court for attorneys fees and expenses, and we will ask the court for treble her gross sales since she has been in business (2006) and award those funds to us.

We offer the following, to help bring you up to speed with regard to US and International trademark law:

What constitutes trademark infringement?
Excerpted from: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm

If a party owns the rights to a particular trademark, that party can sue subsequent parties for trademark infringement. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125. The standard is "likelihood of confusion." To be more specific, the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods. In deciding whether consumers are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors, including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3) the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant's intent. Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elect. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 820 (1961).

So, for example, the use of an identical mark on the same product would clearly constitute infringement. If I manufacture and sell computers using the mark "Apple," my use of that mark will likely cause confusion among consumers, since they may be misled into thinking that the computers are made by Apple Computer, Inc. Using a very similar mark on the same product may also give rise to a claim of infringement, if the marks are close enough in sound, appearance, or meaning so as to cause confusion. So, for example, "Applet" computers may be off-limits; perhaps also "Apricot." On the other end of the spectrum, using the same term on a completely unrelated product will not likely give rise to an infringement claim. Thus, Apple Computer and Apple Records can peacefully co-exist, since consumers are not likely to think that the computers are being made by the record company, or vice versa.

Between the two ends of the spectrum lie many close cases, in which the courts will apply the factors listed above. So, for example, where the marks are similar and the products are also similar, it will be difficult to determine whether consumer confusion is likely. In one case, the owners of the mark "Slickcraft" used the mark in connection with the sale of boats used for general family recreation. They brought an infringement action against a company that used the mark "Sleekcraft" in connection with the sale of high-speed performance boats. Because the two types of boats served substantially different markets, the court concluded that the products were related but not identical. However, after examining many of the factors listed above, the court concluded that the use of Sleekcraft was likely to cause confusion among consumers. AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979).

As you can see, our trademark is fully enforceable. It’s not a gray area. The infringement is blatant, flagrant, and demonstrably willful. Obviously one cannot start a business making cars and call it the "Ford Car Company", and then ignore demands that it cease and desist.

Again, we herewith demand the whois data for trixiepixietees.com. You ultimately do not have a choice in this matter. You most definitely may NOT keep whois data secret, and that you would presume to do so makes you quite culpable in this liability. It also indicates what kind of company you are. If you refuse to supply this data within five (5) days of your receipt of this registered letter, we will seek a court order to force you to comply, and we will then sue you for the attorney’s fees and costs expended in obtaining said information.

This could be an eminently simple situation; God knows it should be: the domain owner (holder) has made a mistake. She has started a business using a name that is nearly identical to a long-standing trademarked name. And she’s selling the very same product. Trademark infringement really doesn’t get any more blatant than this. We have reason to believe that this name choice was not accidental, but was certainly misguided. The woman needs to choose a new name – her OWN business name, not someone else’s. She should do that immediately, and she should apologize profusely. Anything less demonstrates an ugliness of character that is intolerable to us, and to any honorable business environment. It makes us think of a common, petty thief that walks in off the street, steals the staplers off the desks, and when confronted, curses and threatens the business owner and refuses to give them back. If she, and/or you, choose a different option than simply selecting a business name that’s not already taken (what a novel concept!), it’s going to quickly become expensive for you, and what will be your justification? –That you believe in this woman’s right to infringe on another business’s trademark? Is that the principle you’ll be fighting and hemorrhaging money to protect? Is there something wrong with you, mentally? Please, talk to your attorney without delay. How would YOU like it if we started a new domain registrar service and called it 1plus1.com? You wouldn’t stand for it, and neither will we in the same situation.

Remember that we need the domain’s current nameservers as well so we can serve the host.

TrixiePixie Graphics (a tee-shirt printer)
[signature]

8-12-08
CC: Public Internet Post (Google it); (attorney)
BCC:

 

UPDATE 8-14-08:

We see that TrixiePixie Tees has now placed the registered trademark insignia (R) next to their un-trademarked company name. Even had they filed the trademark, it would be contested and never granted, but even had they filed a legitimate name yesterday they would be looking at from five months to three years before they're allowed to use the (R). This outfit is clearly a clusterf--- in motion. We are now just about as angry as folks can get. It's bad enough to TAKE something that doesn't belong to you. But when you're caught, to act like this makes it a hundred times worse. Over the past year or two we have become so disgusted and enraged over people who seem to think that copyrights and trademarks are a joke to be ignored, that we were primed and ready to file a nasty suit against the next imbecile who stole from us. It seems to us that imbecile has come along. We are indescribably angry. We are truly pissed off. What kind of human being acts like this? What kind of human being was raised with no moral compunction at all? What kind of people teach these types of values to their children? You can not take the names or intellectual properties of others. You simply can't do it. You must think up YOUR OWN original names and material. Really. You must. Let's say a common street thug sneaks into your home and steals all your food out of the fridge. You happen to see them strolling down the street with it, so you run out and catch them. Instead of apologizing and giving your food back, this scumbag kicks you in the shin and plasters their name all over your food with a magic marker, then dares you to try to stop them from eating it. That'll send ANYONE through the freaking damned roof. It is truly over the top. Because of certain phrases on her website we believe this woman knew about our site, our trademarks and products before she chose her company name in 2006. We believe she simply didn't care and virtually copied our name as her own, wilfully and intentionally. That she is wilfully and intentionally continuing to use it now, after having been documentably informed of the problem, is just atrocious. If she were selling art supplies it really wouldn't matter -- but to use another company's protected name to sell the exact same product is absolutely unconscionable. It is absolutely despicable. It's as morally wrong as stealing someone's dog or car or food or wallet. But then to try to thwart the real owner's attempts to make you stop -- THAT is the epitome of trailer trash. That's as low as it gets. The proper, honorable and moral response to a demand that you stop using someone else's material is, "I'm SORRY! I realize that, morally, I have no claim on your work, and I understand that it's also the law. I'll change my business name immediately, not only because it's the law and doing so will save me thousands in attorney's fees and court costs and penalties, but because I am a decent, stand-up human being, and I know the difference between right and wrong. Do you think you could allow me a few months to make sure my customers are aware of my new company name and domain? Again, I'm very sorry." That's called HONOR (and simple human decency). Apologizing is what WE would do, and it's what ANY decent human being would do, except that only an arrogant few would ask the wronged party to help them out of their self-made mess. Still, our reply to such an approach might have been, "Sure. No problem. We can help you with that." And we would have. End of conflict. She gets her business name changed to one that's HERS, with not the loss of a single sale, we don't sue her, we don't forcibly shut down her site, she continues on with HER OWN company name and succeeds to the best of her ability, just as it should be. Instead this woman has chosen to pretty-much tell us to go F--- ourselves, just like the grocery thief in our analogy above. By GOD that's the wrong attitude to take with people who are already sick to F--ing death of the shysters and scam-artists and low-lifes and human garbage permeating the Internet these days. By GOD we've had enough of that mentality. Here's our last appeal to this broad before serving her and her host with an injunction. It may take a month or more to get an injunction. Every dollar we spend in that pursuit will be sought from her, and the costs have already begun. Godda---m she has pissed us off. We truly don't have time for this otherwise avoidable crap. We are so freaking sick of dishonesty and dishonor that we would spend a hundred thousand dollars to stop it. We'd really like to see this woman grow a shred of honor and do of her own volition what the courts will force her to do anyway. But if she can't find a sense of honor and decency, perhaps she can grow just a small handful of braincells and go see an attorney and then follow his advice:

 

Email to info@trixiepixietees.com

You may follow this process all the way through the injunction and trial at the following url:

http://www.truth-or-consequences.com/badder_business_bureau/trixiepixietees.com/trixiepixietees.html

It is illegal to put the (R) mark next to a name that is not trademarked. We are filing a complaint with the trademark office at this time. We have served your registrar, and as soon as their data comes back we will serve your host. We might have been amenable to allowing you a smooth transition to another business name, but your dishonorable attitude has absolutely enraged us and we are coming at you with everything we can. Once again we advise you to GET SMART and contact a competent trademark attorney. The following information may help. Any window of empathy from us you may have enjoyed is herewith closed. You have really, truly pissed us off, and we want your head on a stick through the courts. The process of being issued a cease and desist injunction takes time, but it has already begun. Every dollar we must expend to stop you is a dollar we will file suit for after the fact. Every product you have sold and every product you continue to sell under what is legally our protected trademark and its variations may be awarded us, times three, by the court.

Please, find an attorney and do what he tells you. You are making a fool of yourself by belligerently refusing to stop using someone else's trademarked name.

We offer the following, to help bring you up to speed with regard to US and International trademark law:

What constitutes trademark infringement?
Excerpted from: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm

If a party owns the rights to a particular trademark, that party can sue subsequent parties for trademark infringement. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125. The standard is "likelihood of confusion." To be more specific, the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods. In deciding whether consumers are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors, including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3) the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant's intent. Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elect. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 820 (1961). So, for example, the use of an identical mark on the same product would clearly constitute infringement. If I manufacture and sell computers using the mark "Apple," my use of that mark will likely cause confusion among consumers, since they may be misled into thinking that the computers are made by Apple Computer, Inc. Using a very similar mark on the same product may also give rise to a claim of infringement, if the marks are close enough in sound, appearance, or meaning so as to cause confusion. So, for example, "Applet" computers may be off-limits; perhaps also "Apricot." On the other end of the spectrum, using the same term on a completely unrelated product will not likely give rise to an infringement claim. Thus, Apple Computer and Apple Records can peacefully co-exist, since consumers are not likely to think that the computers are being made by the record company, or vice versa.

Between the two ends of the spectrum lie many close cases, in which the courts will apply the factors listed above. So, for example, where the marks are similar and the products are also similar, it will be difficult to determine whether consumer confusion is likely. In one case, the owners of the mark "Slickcraft" used the mark in connection with the sale of boats used for general family recreation. They brought an infringement action against a company that used the mark "Sleekcraft" in connection with the sale of high-speed performance boats. Because the two types of boats served substantially different markets, the court concluded that the products were related but not identical. However, after examining many of the factors listed above, the court concluded that the use of Sleekcraft was likely to cause confusion among consumers. AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979).

UPDATE 8-14-08:

We want the reader to understand the expense and trouble a trademark or copyright holder is put to when someone infringes in those intellectual properties, so we're going to detail the exact process we're taking to stop this infringement, and the expenses incurred. As of 8-14-08 we've conducted two brief conversations with our attorney. We haven't yet received a bill, but we will -- probably a couple hundred bucks. Since her expertise is First Amendment law, and since she's swamped at the moment, we're looking into specialized Trademark attorneys. We don't yet know if we can bring this action through Federal Court, or if we must file in New York court, where this sociological prize is doing business. We also do not yet have a certified address for the domain holder, which is needed to serve a process. We must now also research to see if this woman has any other addresses that we need to serve, since she has already demonstrated that it is her intention to be "slippery" and to try to simply duck this whole problem. That attitude always amazes us. We suggest to folks like that, that they grow a damned backbone, stand up straight and take responsibility for their actions, but this seems to be the age of the "non-responsible". It seems not a single human being in America is responsible for a single mistake they make. We're reminded of the brainless house burglar who ransacks some apartment, then sues the tenant because he slipped on the mess he made and broke his arm. That's the mentality we're seeing here. In any case, we expect to have the addresses we need within a week. It will take another week to get hooked up with the process server and get this broad served in New York. The service documents will be posted here, along with every single other document generated by this process. In past experience, the paperwork will efventually amount to many hundreds of pages. We will offer no grace period for this womanh to cease and desist. She is already in violation and is wilfully continuing to be in violation. That being the case, we will ask our attorney to immediately file for an injunction to shut down the website. This will probably take two more weeks, and we expect it to cost about $2500. We will sue the domain owner for this amount after the fact. The injunction will be served both on this woman's host, and on herself; the site's registrar will receive a copy. The host will have no choice but to unplug the website at that exact moment that they are served. Once that's done, the host is out of it. The domain owner may then petition the court to overturn the injunction. Of course we can prove our trademark status going back to 1996, a full DECADE before this woman copied our name, so the injunction will not be overturned. The woman may then sue for a court decision, but the same criteria will apply. This is not a gray area. By that time we expect to have racked up attorney's fees in the range of $10,000. We will seek to collect ALL of it back from the offending party. We will also seek every other penalty and damage the court is willing to award us. The fact that this is now a WILFULL infringement, instead of an ACCIDENTAL infringement, makes all the difference in the world with regard to what the courts will allow as damages. It's important for small businesses in our shoes to be able to see this process dissected, in real time, so they can be prepared for it, and to avoid any mistakes we happen to make in this procedure. Copyright and Trademark infringement are dramatically on the rise, right aong with identity theft and every other type of electronic crime. These disgusting bottom-feeders must be stopped, and if we can help others with this process, so be it.

 

UPDATE 8-15-08:

The current host for trixiepixietees.com is as follows -- looks like the domain holder got a package deal, registrar and host in one:

1&1 Internet Inc.
701 Lee Road, Suite 300
Chesterbrook, PA 19087
Fax: 610-560-1501

The website (not the registrar) lists the following contact data for the site but we have no way to know if this is just bogus data, or data that has nothing to do with the actual domain holder:

LeeAnn Brissett
165 Court Street #192
Brooklyn NY 11201

This woman appears to also be connected to a site called annierocket.com. If it's her site (Annierocket Designs Inc.) we have to wonder if that domain and company name is hers or if it was also lifted from someone else who thought it up first.

ANNIEROCKET DESIGNS INC.

Just a thought -- how would this individual react if we launched a new company and called it AnnieRocket Fashions Inc., then we bought the domain by the same name, started selling goods, put the ® mark next to the name even though we hadn't filed for trademark status, and when LeeAnn Brissett came knocking to find out what we were up to, we told her to shove it? Would there be ANY difference between that atrocious behavior and what LeeAnn Brissett has done to us, here? --None whatsoever. There would be absolutely no difference at all. The hubris of this woman is staggering and repulsive. We're going to give 1&1 Internet, Inc. until close of business on 8-17 to respond with the official whois records on trixiepixietees.com; failing a reply we'll file against them with InterNIC (ICANN).

We see that as of 8-14-08 the TrixiePixie Tees website no longer displays the (r) (registered trademark) symbol next to their company name as it appears throughout the site. This is certainly as a response to our notice that we were filing a complaint with the Trademark office for illegally displaying the symbol for an un-trademarked name, and that this broad even THOUGHT of attempting such a brainless stunt, let alone having actually done it, shows us clearly just how dumb and amoral this person is. This demonstrates to us that we are indeed dealing with an absolutely dishonest individual who will even ignore the law in order to try to trick people. We now have a pretty clear idea of the mentality and morality we're dealing with in this human being. It occurs to us she'll do ANYTHING, regardless of morality or legality, as long as it serves her purpose, and until she's CAUGHT and STOPPED. We'll treat her appropriately from this point onward, but it never ceases to amaze us how you can just go along through life, minding your own business, doing things properly and well and with morality and decency and honor, in a straightforward and honest manner, and yet there are leeches like this who will just glom onto you as you pass by and cause you no end of misery, expense and heartache until, like dog doo on your shoe or bubble gum in your hair, you finally shake it loose and leave the stink behind. How can anyone ever coat themselves with Teflon so this type of person can't get a grip.... We have meetings set up with a dedicated Trademark attorney next week. Every dollar we give him, we will sue LeeAnne Brisset for as recompensation. We get angrier by the day.

 

UPDATE 8-22-08:

We're now completing the documents to initiate a Federal lawsuit against Leeann Brissett of TrixiePixieTees.com. We're using our regular First Amendment attorney for the preliminary work, and a dedicated trademark attorney to prosecute the lawsuit and for assessments and collections. There are several stages. Brissett should be served with the first stage within two weeks. The confirmation of service (multiple) will be posted here. Since her host, Oneandone (1&1 Internet, Inc.) has steadfastly refused to supply the whois data for their client, and in fact have refused to reply in any way after repeatedly signing for registered-mail demands that they supply said data, we now consider Oneandone (1&1 Internet, Inc.) to be active and wilful partners and accomplices in this regimen of Trademark Infringement, and they will be listed as co-defendants in the suit. It occurs to us that these two, Brissett and 1 & 1, were made for each other, sporting the very same lack of morality or, even, simple common sense. Welcome to the Internet and the mentality it spawns. Contact data for the offending host as follows:

1&1 Internet Inc.
701 Lee Road, Suite 300
Chesterbrook, PA 19087
Fax: 610-560-1501

Website Management

1&1 Internet Inc.
701 Lee Road, Suite 300
Chesterbrook, PA 19087

abuse@1and1.com
billing@1and1.com
support@1and1.com
sales@1and1.com

US and Canadian customers:
1-877-GO-1AND1
(1-877-461-2631)
International customers:
+1 610-560-1441

US and Canadian customers:
1-866-99 1AND1
International customers:
+1 610-560-1620

US and Canadian customers:
1-877-300-8316
International customers:
+1 610-560-1621

As of 8-23-2008:
Google Results 1 - 100 of about 11,900 English pages for: "1&1 hosting sucks".
(0.33 seconds)

Looks like we're dealing with a school of bottom-feeders.

 

UPDATE 8-23-08:

On 8-23-08 the following complaint was filed with InterNIC (ICANN):

Domain: trixiepixietees.com
Real Registrar Name: 1 & 1 INTERNET AG
Summary: We have been contacting 1 & 1 hosting (also a registrar for the offending site) for several weeks, first asking then demanding that they reveal the whois data for the registrant of this domain. It is in blatant conflict with our trademarks and we need to file against the domain to obtain an injunction. We have contacted 1 & 1 (oneandone.com) by email repeatedly at ALL of their listed addresses, by telephone, by fax and by registered mail. They continue to utterly ignore every single demand. The offending domain is registered using "private" or "hidden" registration. We require the name and address of the actual registered owner of that domain. Issue: compliance-whois

 

UPDATE 8-26-08:

SECOND complaint to ICANN:

Domain: www.trixiepixietees.com
Real Registrar Name: 1 & 1 INTERNET AG
Summary: Several days ago we filed a complaint stating that the registrar for this domain had refused to supply the whois data for many weeks even in the face of registered letters that they signed for. Amazingly you have replied to us with a boilerplate email explaining how to resolve a domain name dispute; then you closed the file. Is there a ground-water problem in your area? Were sorry that you could not be bothered to actually READ the original complaint and respond to it appropriately. Lets try this again and bear in mind every interaction with you is posted publicly. Again: We have repeatedly asked 1 & 1 Hosting (registrar) (aka 1 & 1 INTERNET AG) for the actual whois data for the domain holder of trixiepixietees.com so that our attorney can file suit against them. 1 & 1 has ignored all requests for this data. We do believe that any and all registrars are legally compelled to supply such data when they hide their clients' data using "hidden registration". It is your responsibility to enforce compliance. Please do so Issue: compliance-whois

 

UPDATE 8-26-08:

All documents have been prepared; we're now awaiting verifications of service. Since we belive this woman to be of the "slippery" variety, we've taken steps to have her served in a variety of ways. Proofs of service will be posted here. Again we have to ask ourselves, what in God's name is wrong with a human being who would pull a stunt like this? All she must do is read the laws and case histories or, if English is a problem for her, she could spend $100 at almost any attorney's office and have the laws and case histories read TO HER, but she is obviously absolutely steadfastly committed to a course of accomplishing nothing more than causing people trouble, and costing herself money. What is wrong with people who do this? We just can't imagine. You see this kind of obstinate stupidity once in awhile, and you just have to wonder if people like this are capable of processing one single logical thought.

 

UPDATE 9-2-08:

We finally have the registrant's whois data for the domain in question. Why is it critical to obtain the whois data as reported by the registrar, and not just depend on data supplied by other sources, or even the person claiming to be the registrant? Because the courts don't care one whit about any address or person except the one who is legally responsible for the offending domain. Let's say you have a website that has ripped off your copyright and/or trademark, and you need to get it stopped, or risk losing your trademark. It doesn't matter whether you "want" to stop the offender or not. It doesn't matter if you can "afford" to stop the offender or not. You MUST. You simply don't have any choice. If you knowingly allow the infringement to continue, you are unwittingly granting license to that person or company to continue to infringe. At some point, the infringement stops being illegal. Look up the laws and case histories on "squatters rights", "adverse possession", and "eminent domain" as it pertains to real estate. You'll be amazed. And terrified. A great page about this problem is here. You can actually lose your own land, your business, even your home, merely by choosing to look the other way. It's the same with intellectual rights and properties. Some offenders wilfully offend -- like this one. So you must appeal to the courts for relief. Let's say that the person using the offending domain name tells you that s/he is the actual owner of the domain, and they supply you with an address. In the first place, the very fact that the person is stealing your property makes ANY claims they may come up with, suspect. If an apartment thief was in your home stealing the stuff out of your fridge, and you caught them, and they told you their name was Bob Smith, and they lived at 123 Main street, would you let them go and then an hour later send the cops to their house to arrest them? You'd be a fool if you did -- that person would never be seen again and the address they gave you would turn out to be a vacant lot. So in the case of an offending domain, let's say you take the offender's word and file a bunch of court documents that notifies them of an impending hearing or trial. At the hearing or trial, no one shows up. You think, "Great! I win by default!" Then the judge asks you for proof that the person you served is the actual LEGAL owner of the domain. You can't provide such proof, because the data you're working from didn't come from the agency that registers the domain. The court gives you a long, sad look, as though you're too stupid to live -- which, of course, you are -- and immediately dismisses your case against the domain, because you have no proof the REAL domain holder was ever notified. Case over. You have to start from scratch, this time serving the LEGAL domain holder -- which is what you should have done in the first place. THAT is why it's imperative to ignore anything someone at the other end of an email address may tell you. You MUST take whatever steps are required to get the data that will be accepted by the court. If the registrar won't reveal it (as they legally must), you can appeal to ICANN. If ICANN won't FORCE the registrar to reveal it, you must appeal to a court for an order that will be sent to the registrar that will compel them to reveal the data, or be placed in jail until such time as they do reveal it. We had to only get about halfway to that point in this case. As the reader can see, Brissett supplied contact data on the website that was completely different from the contact data legally registered in the domain's whois records. In any case, we finally have the legal data for Brissett and her infringing tee-shirt business, and it is as follows. --Good thing we went to this extra trouble, and so must you, should you find yourself similarly screwed:

 

domain:                          trixiepixietees.com

created:                         18-Jul-2006

last-changed:                    03-Sep-2008

registration-expiration:         18-Jul-2009

 

nserver:                         ns57.1and1.com 74.208.2.9

nserver:                         ns58.1and1.com 74.208.3.8

 

status:                          CLIENT-TRANSFER-PROHIBITED

 

registrant-firstname:            Leeann

registrant-lastname:             Brissett

registrant-organization:         Jah Tees

registrant-street1:              366 Madison St

registrant-pcode:                11221

registrant-state:                NY

registrant-city:                 Brooklyn

registrant-ccode:                US

registrant-phone:                +1.7187535802

registrant-email:                annierocket@gmail.com

 

admin-c-firstname:               Leeann

admin-c-lastname:                Brissett

admin-c-organization:            Jah Tees

admin-c-street1:                 366 Madison St

admin-c-pcode:                   11221

admin-c-state:                   NY

admin-c-city:                    Brooklyn

admin-c-ccode:                   US

admin-c-phone:                   +1.7187535802

admin-c-email:                   annierocket@gmail.com

 

tech-c-firstname:                Leeann

tech-c-lastname:                 Brissett

tech-c-organization:             Jah Tees

tech-c-street1:                  366 Madison St

tech-c-pcode:                    11221

tech-c-state:                    NY

tech-c-city:                     Brooklyn

tech-c-ccode:                    US

tech-c-phone:                    +1.7187535802

tech-c-email:                    annierocket@gmail.com

 

bill-c-firstname:                Leeann

bill-c-lastname:                 Brissett

bill-c-organization:             Jah Tees

bill-c-street1:                  366 Madison St

bill-c-pcode:                    11221

bill-c-state:                    NY

bill-c-city:                     Brooklyn

bill-c-ccode:                    US

bill-c-phone:                    +1.7187535802

bill-c-email:                    annierocket@gmail.com

 

UPDATE 9-5-08:

We note that Brissett lists a company called "JAH TEES" as one of her contact points in her whois data. There is a tee-shirt company called JAH TEES at jah-tees.com. Who knows if this is just another name Brissett has lifted for her own use, or if this is, perhaps, her parent company which should be listed as co-defendant in all proceedings. To answer that we attempted to contact JAH-TEES at their contact page, as follows:

We are preparing a lawsuit against trixiepixietees.com for trademark infringement. We note that this domain lists you as one of its whois contacts. Please tell us what your relationship to trixiepixietees.com is. Are you her parent company? The website detailing our proceeding is located at the following url: http://www.truth-or-consequences.com/badder_business_bureau/trixiepixietees.com/trixiepixietees.html. Also, be advised that no matter what email address we input into this form, the form errors out stating that the email address is invalid.

We tried about ten different email addresses; the form said all of them were invalid. It appears this is yet another one of those companies who set up a contact page, never bother to test it, and then wonder why no one ever contacts them. Here's what you get when you try. We'll have to hit them with a registered letter. It always amazes us, the ripples and waves that go out from the center of one stupid, selfish act like taking someone's trademarked name as your own:

 

UPDATE 9-14-08:

We note that TrixiePixieTees is actually adding products using our trademarked name. We had been thinking we would just go to court to stop this woman from using our name, but we have now decided to contest the domain as well. We believe there is something mentally wrong with any human being who would pull such a stunt as this. We haven't heard back from our attorney so we're not sure if this broad has been served yet. Monday morning we'll be on it. Good freaking grief, it takes all bloody kinds..