The Gossipers


Our contest has ended, but since Debbie has decided to continue to post more lies in regards to our business, we will address those. Recently Debbie posted this:
She wants others to believe that we are attacking Berta by having a "Thread Teds by Thread Bears" page on our website. However, we are allowed to use it since Berta tried to oppose that trademark and lost. We own the mark. Here's a reminder for her of the legal advice she asked for, in which this lawyer also addressed "thread teds."
Now, in this discussion she asked if she was allowed to call her crocheted bears "thread bears." Here's her question:

Including the post above, three different lawyers (yes, lawyers, check their credentials) told her that she would be infringing on our mark. Here are the other two responses.

So, Debbie has also had to say this on her blog,
In her not-so-honest opinion, she says no lawyer has disagreed with "Thread Bears" being a generic term. However, the three lawyers above clearly disagreed with that assumption. And perhaps Debbie needs to be reminded of our Gossiper Extra Credit 2 (below) in which she made it clear that she did not know the law, but that she understood that disclaimers do not invalidate a trademark.

And might we point out that Debbie Gibbons Nicholas has devoted FOUR blogs to bashing us or our business, or has devoted them to infringing or encouraging others to do so. So if you come across any of these blogs, be aware that this person is certainly not affiliated with our business.

Contest Extra Credit
This extra for the contest has already been announced. The winner of the contest has been awarded their prize. Thanks to those who participated!

Gossiper Extra Credit 3:
In post 1 Bobbie says that changing one little thing about someone else's idea doesn't mean it's not an infringement, but in post 2 she tells threadanimals group that they can use thread bears after it is part of a registered trademark. How is that not infringement?

Post 1: A comment made by Bobbie on a public knitting forum

Post 2: A message Bobbie sent to the members of the Thread Animals group

Gossiper Extra Credit 2:
We have this first comment made by Debbie posted on our blog, but felt that it needed to be addressed on the Gossipers Page along with some of her other statements so, you know, she doesn't feel left out.

In post 2 Debbie commented that all she said was that you think Berta copied you. That's not all she said in post 1, she also says that she doesn't know how her copying could've been prevented, and that if not her, someone else would've done it. 

In post 3 she says that she doesn't believe that you are within your rights to police your trademark because of disclaimers. In post 1she says that disclaimers don't invalidate trademarks and that she doesn't want anyone getting into trouble for accidently using the term.

Post 1: A message Debbie had sent to us

Post 2: A post on one of Debbie's blogs dedicated to us.

Post 3: A post made by Debbie on another blog dedicate to us.


Gossiper Extra Credit 1:
We've shown you our email contact with Joanne Noel for the extra credit below--which you can even compare with this post.  This a comment she made on a Facebook group about that same email discussion.  She states that this was an email reply she had sent to me (Sue), which I never did receive. However, we would like you to just pick out the discrepancies you find in this one comment alone. EDITED: Joanne has posted the second image below in our comments as her supposed email response to me (which we still never received). Pick out the discrepancies between Post 1 and Post 2.

If this is supposed to be Joanne's email response to Sue, then why is Sue's name in the SUBJECT line of her comment in post 2? The email was sent to threadteds, not threadbears. Also, the email date is 9/18, but she commented on 7/15 that she had already sent the email.

In this email her discrepancies: -Why would she apologize if she had nothing to apologize for?
-She says she's not contacting or directing people to misinformation, but she contacted the one girl to send her to Berta's blog. 
-She says that you have no information that people can see, but she comment on your blog, so she knows it is all the info about your trademarks.

Post 1: Joanne Noel's facebook comment

Post 2: Joanne Noel's supposed email response to me that she posted in the comments 9/21/13, 6:48pm (which I'm sure she has deleted by now).

This part of the contest has ended.

"Gossiper" 2 ANSWERS:
In post 4, Joanne Noel makes it seem like Sue sent her nasty emails just because she sent someone to Berta's site. However, as posts 1 and 2 show, she was actually contacted for referring people to Berta for information about the Thread Bears® trademark.
In post 3, she says that a girl contacted her, but in post 1, she was commenting on someone's post, not replying to a message.  Unless, she was talking about someone else that she also sent to Berta for information about the Thread Bears® trademark.
 Also, in post 3, Joanne talks like someone else is causing unnecessary issues.  However, she is one causing problems.  Why would someone contact her about information about someone else's trademark.

Post 1: An item on Facebook that was relisted after being removed for trademark infringement

Post 2: Our 1st email to Joanne Noel (A.K.A. Cajun Cuties, Weebears, String Bean Bears, and now Bayou Bears, etc.)

Post 3: Response from Joanne Noel

Post 4: Comments on one of Berta Hesen-Minten's Facebook Posts

"Gossiper" 1 (Contest I) ANSWERS:

DeBBity Bears shared a link on her profile and said in post 1 that someone made the video owner change the title. But in post 2, the video owner wasn't contacted until after she changed her title. She even says she wanted to save anyone the trouble of sending her a notice. 
When she was contacted, in post 2, she was thanked for changing it, and was not attacked, like DeBBitty Bears says in post 3.  

Post 1: Debbittybears' Facebook posting, sharing a crocheting video

Post 2: comments on the tutorial video site

Post 3: Her response to us in regards to the above post



  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. Sorry you have such an attitude... And, you are not being honest. You have no reason to talk the way you are. I've never been nasty, and I never said I removed your stuff on Facebook. You do know who I am because you have been a customer of mine in the past, and you have emailed me before being very nice to me. So, I don't understand your attitude at all. You were a follower on our blog until you were notified of your infringement. I've never been nasty to you, or to Joanne Noel. It's a shame you chose to believe gossip and not what's right.
      Now, our blog is not a place for you to advertise your business--which is why we removed your flurry of comments that had your item listing in them. This is why we also removed your duplicate postings of this same comment.

      If you want to participate in the contest, then your answers should not be in the comments--if you have information you want to add to the contest, they should be addressed in emails. If you have comments to add to it that are true, that's fine. If you don't want your email used in public, don't put it out in public. The words you speak are out there permanently.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. No, it is not a lie if you are confirming it. So, thank you for confirming my words that you weren't being honest--that you did know who I was.

    Thank you for praying for me. And no, I do not need any medications. I am very well, thank you.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. Thanks for sharing this informative blog withus.Interesting and useful information that you have provided here on your post.

    Trademark Attorney Los Angeles & Trademark law firms

    1. Thank you for your input, Ellen. Although, we are a little unsure of what exactly you think is useful and interesting information. Hopefully you don't mean the gossip is useful! :)

      We believe that it's important to see how people perceive what we're doing, both the good and the bad, so we value your comments. We knew we had to put the truth out there in regards to the degradation of our business reputation. We were able to use other people's own "facts" of the law to show their inconsistencies and misinformation about our business. And a person really can't argue against their own words!

      Again, thanks so much for your input.