Bully for Who? How trademark bullying works

Why trademark bullying works

 

Click to read in full size.

2 comments

  • PopSockets is a major trademark bully. I am currently battling them in meritless Trademark litigation in Colorado Federal Court. PopSockets CEO, David Barnett, went before Congress a couple weeks ago and tried to play the victim as being “bullied” by Amazon. Barnett needs to be thoroughly cross examined and his credibility challenged as to his bullying enforcement efforts. He uses the Vorys Lawfirm to send baseless cease and desist letters to small 3rd party Amazon sellers, like me, who are selling legitimate product purchased from a national bona fide retailer and protected under the “Right of First Sale Doctrine”. The baseless letters threaten to sue if the seller does not remove the PopSockets listings from Amazon. PopSockets does not care about the law, facts or evidence. Their objective is tooget rid of competition at any cost and control price. Competition to PopSockets is any 3rd party seller who is selling legitimate PopSockets items on Amazon but is not a signatory to a contract or MAP agreement with PopSockets. Popsockets targets small individuals and small businesses nationwide who they know will hopefully not have the legal knowledge or financial resources to fight PopSockets. So in the end, the 3rd party sellers gives in to PopSockets demands and stops selling the brand on Amazon.

    If you look on PACER, you will see PopSockets has filed 33 lawsuits in the last 23 minutes months against 3rd party online sellers. 9 of those suits were filed in Colorado. All 9 of the filings in Colorado are filed by the 4 same attorneys. Matthew Groves in Denver and 3 Vorys Attorneys in Ohio. There is obviously a license rental agreement between Vorys, Matthew Groves and PopSockets. This is an ethical violation. One of the Ohio Attorneys, Rajeev, has made court appearances on 6-7 of the cases so far. He is not licensed in Colorado and they s licensed only in Ohio. He has not asked the court to appear pro hac vice on any of the cases. This constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. Also, all 9 PopSockets lawsuits filed in Denver by Groves contain the exact same meritless boilerplate speculative and conclusory allegations. No allegations of fact and no actual witnesses disclosed in any of the suits. All the suits also contain the exact same customer reviews which are not unique to each lawsuit or party. This constitutes a Rule 11 violation. I filed ethical cs complaints today, via phone, with the Colorado Supreme Court Disciplinary Counsel against Groves and Rajeev. Groves for his history of Rule 11 violations, threatening me with Rule 11 sanctions, aiding and abetting the unauthorized practice of law and misrepresentation of the law to me. Reported Rajeev for unauthorized practice of law and fraud. I will be glad to share much more of my case details with you. I have been Pro Se on my case and am currently working on a Motion for Summary Judgement to file with the court to hopefully get PopSockets to leave me alone, for them to go away and for the court to sanction PopSockets and all of PopSockets Attorneys on the case.

  • This certainly sounds awful.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.