[E-trademarks] Dirt Candy TM Dispute

Fri Feb 14 18:23:26 UTC 2025

Yes, but one month to rebrand is unrealistic in the best situation and use of the term “unlawful violation” in a “supportive” C&D is not conducive to warm and fuzzy feelings.  In these situations, I always call first and then follow-up with the substance of the conversation in writing to document it.

And let’s not forget to notice that there is no mention whatsoever of any actual confusion.

Best,
Miriam

Miriam Richter, Attorney at Law, P.L.
Make Your Mark! ®
Trademark, Copyright, and other Intellectual Property Matters
2312 Wilton Drive, Suite 9
Wilton Manors, Florida 33305

954-977-4711 office
954-240-8819 cell
954-977-4717 facsimile

NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail message contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by telephone at 954-240-8819 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or anyattachments may not have been produced by the sender.

From: Tim Ackermann <tim at ackermannlaw.com>
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2025 12:15 PM
To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Miriam Richter, Esq. <mrichter at richtertrademarks.com>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Dirt Candy TM Dispute

Miriam, the article says that was tried but an issue of control arose that caused that process to collapse.
Tim Ackermann
The Ackermann Law Firm

E:  tim at ackermannlaw.com<mailto:tim at ackermannlaw.com>
P:  817.305.0690
F:  214.453.0810
W: ackermannlaw.com<http://ackermannlaw.com>
O: 1701 W. Northwest Hwy. Ste. 100
     Grapevine TX 76051

On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 12:13 PM Miriam Richter, Esq. via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>> wrote:

Am I missing something? IMHO, everything about this case was done wrong from the get-go. I always tell clients in similar situations look at it as a business opportunity not a conflict. This is especially true in this situation since the ideology on both sides blends nicely. A co-existence agreement would have been the way to go, especially considering the local nature of both businesses and the geographic distance between them.

I see it as a situation of over-lawyering to the extreme.

Best,
Miriam

Miriam Richter, Attorney at Law, P.L.
Make Your Mark! ®
Trademark, Copyright, and other Intellectual Property Matters
2312 Wilton Drive, Suite 9
Wilton Manors, Florida 33305

954-977-4711 office
954-240-8819 cell
954-977-4717 facsimile

NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail message contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by telephone at 954-240-8819 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or anyattachments may not have been produced by the sender.

-----Original Message-----
From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>> On Behalf Of Terry Carroll via E-trademarks
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2025 12:05 PM
To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>>; For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Cc: Terry Carroll <carroll at tjc.com<mailto:carroll at tjc.com>>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Dirt Candy TM Dispute

On Fri, 14 Feb 2025, Tim Ackermann via E-trademarks wrote:

> This caught "clear-cut case" quote my eye-   "The Cutlers went on the

> offensive. They asked the trademark office to register Dirt Candy Farm.

> Their lawyer told them they had a clear-cut case in part because the

> agency listed farms and restaurants in different categories.

Trademark search shows that this is the first trademark registration application made by that attorney. (He's since done four more,

successfully.)

Of course, there could be others from the firm more experienced behind the scene.

--

Terry Carroll

carroll at tjc.com<mailto:carroll at tjc.com>
--
E-trademarks mailing list
E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250214/717a357c/attachment.html>