Board index REPAIR & INFO FROM THE SID DOCTOR! Ask the Sid Doctor? About Repairs... Sid Dickens Inc v. Lori Gelbart & Pamela Pollack (UPDATE)

Sid Dickens Inc v. Lori Gelbart & Pamela Pollack (UPDATE)


Posts: 11
Update...

Today is my 11th day after filing a claim against Pamela Pollack and with many fingers crossed and good thoughts I YES indeed got my MONEY BACK!!! :laughing3: :laughing3: :laughing3: :teeth: Not from her of course but from pay pal. I am so thankful that I went through pay pal and didnt meet her directly like she originally wanted me to.
This has been such a hard time and I keep thinking every day how she can do this, and how did she get a stamp, But thankfully she is now caught and everyone is on to her even Pay Pal. I asked them and they said they have there own case against her right now so it looks like she is in a lot of trouble between Pay Pal and Sid Dickens.
Thanks to Robin and to everyone else for your help in this matter! :grin:


Posts: 240
That is so wonderful to hear you received your money back! Yes thank God for this board for bringing her to collectors attention
"Dream as if you will live forever, live as if you'll die today"
-James Dean-


Posts: 1162
Location: Brentwood, TN
iggal55 wrote:
Update...

Today is my 11th day after filing a claim against Pamela Pollack and with many fingers crossed and good thoughts I YES indeed got my MONEY BACK!!! :laughing3: :laughing3: :laughing3: :teeth: Not from her of course but from pay pal. I am so thankful that I went through pay pal and didnt meet her directly like she originally wanted me to.
This has been such a hard time and I keep thinking every day how she can do this, and how did she get a stamp, But thankfully she is now caught and everyone is on to her even Pay Pal. I asked them and they said they have there own case against her right now so it looks like she is in a lot of trouble between Pay Pal and Sid Dickens.
Thanks to Robin and to everyone else for your help in this matter! :grin:


That's great that you got your money back from PayPal and that they are aware of Pamela Pollack underhanded transactions. Hopefully, she will be put some place where she doesn't have the means to make these fake tiles.
Image It's Grr-reat To Be A Florida Gator! Image


Posts: 18
Yup, she'll soon be off to the clink and branch out to making license plates and roadside trash cleanup. :laughing3:


Posts: 18
For those of you following this case: a federal judgement and permanent injunction was entered against Pamela Pollack and all her AKA's (Pamela de Somov, Pamela Desomov, Pamela S omov, Pamela Joy Westerline, Laurent Gelbart, Lauren Decker and Jaunita Nancy Sims) and she was ordered to pay Sid Dickens' legal fees ($14,000).

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/cacdce/2:2012cv07682/541816/28

Court Description: JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJNUNCTION AGAINST PAMELA JOY POLLACK by Judge Dale S. Fischer: JUDGMENT IS ENTERED AS FOLLOWS as to all claims asserted by SDI in this action against Defendant Pamela Joy Pollack (aka Pamela de Somov, Pamela Desomov, Pamela S omov, Pamela Joy Westerline, Laurent Gelbart, Lauren Decker and Jaunita Nancy Sims) (hereinafter referred to as "Pollack"): Judgment shall be entered in favor of SDI and against Pollack. Pollack shall pay SDI's reasonable attorneys fees and costs in the amount of $14,401.65 with interest.This Court shall retain jurisdiction concerning enforcement of this Judgment and Permanent Injunction. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (ir)


COURT ORDER:


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SID DICKENS, INC. Plaintiff,
RODNEY F. DECKER, an individual, LAUREN P. GELBART an individual, and PAMELA JOY POLLACK, an individual,
Defendants.
Case No. CV12-07682 DSF (SSx)
JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJNUNCTION AGAINST PAMELA JOY POLLACK

Pursuant to Rule 55(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for good cause showing, JUDGMENT IS ENTERED AS FOLLOWS as to all claims asserted by SDI in this action against Defendant Pamela Joy Pollack (aka Pamela de Somov, Pamela Desomov, Pamela Somov, Pamela Joy Westerline, Laurent Gelbart, Lauren Decker and Jaunita Nancy Sims) (hereinafter referred to as “Pollack”):
1. This Court has jurisdiction over SDI and Pollack and of the subject matter of this action.
2. Venue is proper in this judicial district.
3. SDI is the owner of the following valid and enforceable United
States Trademark Registrations:

Registration No.
Mark
Goods
3,573,161
SID DICKENS
Tiles, namely artistic wall tiles primarily of plaster, clay, gypsum, glass, ceramic or earthenware.
4,088,345
MEMORY BLOCK

Tiles, namely artistic wall tiles.
4. SDI owns existing common law trademark rights in the mark:
This mark and the marks identified in SDI’s U.S. Trademark Registrations are referred to as “SDI Marks” for purposes of this Judgment.
5. SDI owns trade dress rights in the overall look of its collectible wall plaques (“Memory Blocks”) including the size, shape, designs, and relative dimensions of the various components or features that contribute to the overall appearance. These trade dress rights are referred to as “SDI Trade Dress” for purposes of this Judgment.
6. The SDI Marks and SDI Trade Dress are distinctive, either by virtue
of being inherently distinct or through the acquisition of secondary meaning. The SDI Trade Dress is distinctive because it has acquired secondary and is nonfunctional.
7. Pollack, with full knowledge of SDI’s business and SDI’s rights in these trademarks, has conducted business and has advertised, offered for sale and sold, in this District and elsewhere, cheap, knock-off, counterfeit Memory Blocks using SDI’s trademarks and marks that are confusingly similar to SDI’s trademarks. The sale of products with marks that are identical or confusingly similar to the SDI Marks and trade dress that is identical or confusingly similar to the SDI Trade Dress, alone or in combination with other words and other items, is likely to cause confusion that accused goods and services emanate from or are sponsored or authorized by SDI.
8. Pollack and all other persons, firms or entities acting in concert or
participating with from:
a.
b.
c.
d.
her, are hereby permanently enjoined, directly or indirectly,
using any of the SDI Marks or any marks confusingly similar thereto, or any colorable imitation thereof, in connection with the marketing, promotion, advertising, offer for sale, or sale of any products;
using any simulation, reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of SDI Trade Dress in connection with the offer for sale or sale of wall plaques;
engaging in any other activity constituting an infringement of any of the SDI Marks or SDI Trade Dress or constituting any infringement of SDI’s rights in or right to use or exploit the SDI Marks or SDI Trade Dress;
using any false designation of origin or false description which can or is likely to lead the public, or individual members
her, are hereby permanently enjoined, directly or indirectly,
using any of the SDI Marks or any marks confusingly similar thereto, or any colorable imitation thereof, in connection with the marketing, promotion, advertising, offer for sale, or sale of any products;
using any simulation, reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of SDI Trade Dress in connection with the offer for sale or sale of wall plaques;
engaging in any other activity constituting an infringement of any of the SDI Marks or SDI Trade Dress or constituting any infringement of SDI’s rights in or right to use or exploit the SDI Marks or SDI Trade Dress;
using any false designation of origin or false description which can or is likely to lead the public, or individual members
thereof, erroneously to believe that any product or service was or is circulated, displayed, distributed, offered for sale, sold, manufactured, licensed, sponsored, approved, or authorized by or for SDI, when such is not true in fact; and
e. inducing, assisting, aiding, or abetting any other person or business entity in engaging in or performing any of the activities referred to in subparagraphs 8(a) through 8(d) above.
9. Judgment shall be entered in favor of SDI and against Pollack
10. Pollack shall pay SDI’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in the
amount of $14,401.65 with interest.
11. This Court shall retain jurisdiction concerning enforcement of this Judgment and Permanent Injunction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
5/9/13
Hon. Dale S. Fischer United States District Judge


Posts: 1
There is someone on selling the "Pamela" tiles on ebay right now. 1sassygrannt is the username.
"Sid Dickens" is used in the title. I almost purchased one of them. Are they allowed to use Sid's name to attract potential buyer's?
Thanks.


Posts: 18
Location: Roseville, CA USA
I'd have to look it up to be sure… but… I swear that, when I was learning how to sell on eBay just a few months ago, I came across a policy that stated that a seller's items for sale could NOT utilize other trademark products, either with photos or text. So I would think that this seller is violating eBay policy by getting buyers' attention via Sid Dickens' name. I would think that, once reported to eBay, they will be required to re-categorize their sales posts, and remove the reference to Sid.

Does anyone know for sure? I just may look it up tonite… as seeing exact COPIES of Sid Dickens work is getting annoying. And new additional items keep showing up every day! It is so wrong and like you mentioned what happened to you, Midnite, it's intended to dupe the buyer.

Post Thu May 15, 2014 8:23 pm

Posts: 95
I stumbled across this ad with a shop in Newport Beach selling Pamela Pollack tiles. They (this boutique) is advertising her work nationwide, saying they will ship anywhere. How can she continue selling her designs (taken from Sid) if she lost in court?? Just curious....

https://www.etsy.com/shop/RomanceYourHo ... eader-name

http://minneapolis.craigslist.org/ram/c ... 18998.html

Previous

Return to Ask the Sid Doctor? About Repairs...

cron