Tuesday, July 30, 2013

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! 
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)

Saturday, July 20, 2013

Section 4, Contest I

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. 

Thursday, July 11, 2013

Section 3, Contest I

**Added 9/21/13:  Bobbie was lying about who was sending/writing the email in Post 2 of this section. This is what Debbie had to say about it on one of her blogs dedicated to us. Again, another attempt to make people think they aren't seeing what they actually are. How many of you have ever known Bobbie to refer to herself as Berta, or Berta as Bobbie??

If you did not receive an email from us, sorry, you didn't win this week! 

The first email says that Thread Bears® is cross-examining, not requesting Discovery like Bobbie/Berta says in post 2.  Bobbie (rkr4cds) is also lying in post 2 by saying that it's Berta, even though it came from Bobbie's email.  She even says "Berta was not allowed..." and "Berta will also be forwarding..." 
In 2005 (post 5) Bobbie talks about how Berta is her very good friend and talks about how they collaborate on projects.  In post 4, Bobbie talks about how Berta was giving a class at her "dining room table," and talks about how she works for Berta, driving around people for her class and coordinating her plans.  Then four months later she acts like she doesn't know Berta (post 3), saying that she had to google her to find her website, even though she clearly works for her by advertising for her, coordinating her plans, and emailing for her (like in post 2).

Post 1: Our email to everyone who Bobbie used as "testimony" in the recent court proceedings.

   Post 2: Bobbie's response to our above email.  Those of you who have received this email can also verify that nothing has been changed or added. Email addresses have been blacked-out.

Post 3: One of Bobbie's posts on a public yahoo group
Post 4: A public post on Teddy Talk, made by Bobbie

Post 5: Another public post made by Bobbie on the yahoo group

It has been shared with us that some readers believe that we have changed Bobbie's words.  However, this information is posted as she stated it. We are posting only what she has stated. These are all snapshots of her own words, and none of ours, and her messages here are shown in full. As said before, we have not changed or added anything. If anyone would like to verify the information, we would gladly supply links at your request. 

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Section 2, Contest I

If you did not receive an email from us--sorry, you didn't win this section!

Bobbie is complaining that Thread Bears® is removing everyone using "thread bears." But then she says in post 3 that there are websites using "thread bears" that aren't removed (policed).

Then she says that no one is using "Thread Bears," (I'm assuming it's about the capitalization), but then she gives three examples of other artists who are using it capitalized in post 4. Then she complains that they aren't removed (policed).

These are snippets taken from her filings at the Trademark Office, exactly as she posted them, exactly as she had sworn them to be.  And to our readers, consider this: Why would Bobbie encourage others to use our trademark, then turn them in to the Trademark Office as needing to be policed? 

Post 1:
A statement made in Bobbie's filing to the Trademark Office:

Post 2:
A statement Bobbie made to the Trademark Office

Post 3 and 4:
Descriptions of the evidences she submitted at the Trademark Office