Blue Marble Geographics

The complainant was a licensee for a prior version of Global Mapper software and a licensed resellerThese license agreements precluded using the software for training and general commercial services over and above the use of the software in the business of the licenseeThey also limited the
use of any Blue Marble trademarks and the reseller agreement specifically limited the use of Blue Marble trademarks and required the cessation of using any Blue Marble marks or property if canceled. Mr*** violated the terms of these prior license agreements and he has described them in his compliant to youDespite being in violation of the previous license, Mr*** and his business used copyrighted images from the Global Mapper software to promote his business and uses the Global Mapper mark in his businesses URLMr*** used the software to provide unauthorized training to his customers and continues to do soBoth copyright law and the license agreements he signed preclude this even after terminationBlue Marble took steps under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other federal statues to prevent this violation of its intellectual property rightsMr*** claims his use of the copyrighted images on his website was “fair use”, but Blue Marble disagrees and Mr*** has never demonstrated that the “fair use” exception applies to his use of Blue Marble’s work or that he is not in violation of the agreements he signedBlue Marble has simply acted to protect and preserve its intellectual property rights against Mr***, who has consistently disregarded them and has attempted to operate his own training business as a free rider on Blue Marble’s intellectual property rights.The Revdex.com’s charter does not anticipate that one party may invoke Revdex.com processes to resolve a dispute over intellectual property rightsThe appropriate forum is the Federal Court system. We kindly ask that you remove this complaint from our file

The complainant was a licensee for  a prior version of Global Mapper software and a licensed reseller. These license agreements precluded using the software for training and general commercial services over and above the use of the software in the business of the licensee. They also limited the...

use of any Blue Marble trademarks and the reseller agreement specifically limited the use of Blue Marble trademarks and required the cessation of using any Blue Marble marks or property if canceled.   Mr. [redacted] violated the terms of these prior license agreements and he has described them in his compliant to you. Despite being in violation of the previous license, Mr. [redacted] and his business used copyrighted images from the Global Mapper software to promote his business and uses the Global Mapper mark in his businesses URL. Mr. [redacted] used the software to provide unauthorized training to his customers and continues to do so. Both copyright law and the license agreements he signed preclude this even after termination. Blue Marble took steps under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other federal statues to prevent this violation of its intellectual property rights. Mr. [redacted] claims his use of the copyrighted images on his website was “fair use”, but Blue Marble disagrees and Mr. [redacted] has never demonstrated that the “fair use” exception applies to his use of Blue Marble’s work or that he is not in violation of the agreements he signed. Blue Marble has simply acted to protect and preserve its intellectual property rights against Mr. [redacted], who has consistently disregarded them and has attempted to operate his own training business as a free rider on Blue Marble’s intellectual property rights.The Revdex.com’s charter does not anticipate that one party may invoke Revdex.com processes to resolve a dispute over intellectual property rights. The appropriate forum is the Federal Court system.  We kindly ask that you remove this complaint from our file.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 9, 2015/08/24) */
Epicurean catering did not add any additional charges to the complaining consumer's (consumer) invoices that were not a part of the agreed upon contract. The subject additional charges (for equipment rentals) were billed to the customer from a...

third party, Event Rents. The consumer hired an event planner, [redacted] Ohman ([redacted]) to coordinate his wedding. [redacted] hired Event Rents to provide the needed equipment rental. Event Rents invoiced [redacted] for the equipment rentals. [redacted] hired and engaged Epicurean to perform catering services for the consumer. Epicurean helped [redacted] determine what rentals were needed for the event. [redacted], to the best of Epicurean's knowledge, informed the consumer of every event related charge, including equipment rentals. Epicurean had two separate tastings of food meetings (tasting). The original tasting took place in December 2014. The consumer was not in attendance but his wife was at the tasting. His wife was apprised of all rental equipment that was needed to perform the catering services and was given options of the various rentals needed based on menu, etc. These types of rentals are standard and customary in the catering business and are discussed thoroughly with every clients and/or event planner. Moreover, [redacted], as any Event Planner, is fully aware of the need for rentals of this type. Furthermore, Epicurean understands that the consumer or his wife had and read the rental order well before their wedding. However, assuming arguendo the consumer did not know of the rental order, then one should look at his agent for answers as you will find his agent knew an informed him. In any event, Epicurean relied on the consumer's agent to relay the subject information.
In short, Epicurean is not a party to the contract for the complained additional charges from Event Rents. The consumer was, or should have been through his agent, fully aware of the rentals needed and charged for the event. The consumer's allegations are gross misrepresentations of the truth. Also, Epicurean's representative replied to [redacted] (who contacted him and asked him to respond to her) regarding this matter in a timely fashion.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 11, 2015/08/30) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
As stated in the response although no charges were added directly by Epicurean, these charges were completely undisclosed to us, their signing client. If rentals were not provided, would they still have been able to fulfill the agreed services? Bottom line, if we would have been made aware that in order to use their services, it would cost almost 1/3 of their cost we would NOT have selected them.
The agent argument is irrelevant. Agent did not sign the agreement, we did. This makes us their direct client and responsibility. Unfair to use either 3rd party as scapegoats.
Ironic that another Epicurean client shared a similar experience in the past. The below is an excerpt from their review:
"To top everything off, after the wedding our CC was charged additional money with NO explanation. When asked to provide details, we were told, "Sorry you have a bad taste in your mouth about our billing, and by the way our CFO did you a favor and decided not to charge you for your tasting, we normally charge the client back for that". WOW!"
Additional testimonials attached for reference. Coincidence? I think not.
Very disappointed by this response and the apparent lack of service and hospitality it reflects. My wife and I were hoping for an amicable resolution, but in light of this response we will now share Epicurean's unethical and negligent business practices on all channels.
Complaint Response Date bumped because: Holiday