Quantcast
Home | Back

White Light owner must pay for ripped-off pie

Share Story:     Share_email E-mail Story    |    Share_print Print Story    |    Comments    |   

Rick Paul, owner of Rick's White Light Diner, was found in contempt of court Monday and must pay $1,000 to a charity of his choice, for again infringing on the Derby-Pie trademark.

Before U.S. District Judge Joseph Hood in a Lexington courtroom, Paul was found in contempt of court for violating a 1997 permanent injunction signed by Hood, ordering Paul not to infringe on Kern's Kitchen Inc.'s trademark Derby-Pie.

Paul also must pay Kern's Kitchen's attorney fees and costs.

"I am disappointed with the judge's ruling and I accept it," Paul said today. "Our proof was considerably different than Derby Pie's. The judge's ruling was, in part, based on me keeping the Derby Pie in the freezer. I failed because I did not tell the judge that I keep other pies in the freezer and then warm in a microwave prior to service."

Kern's Kitchen Inc., of Louisville " owner of the federally and state registered Derby-Pie trademark " filed an April motion in federal court claiming Paul violated the permanent injunction.

Kern's sought up to $1 million in damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney fees.

Louisville attorney Don Cox today said Kern's is pleased with the outcome.

"We're trying to get this guy to leave us alone," Cox said. "It's not about the money. It's about him complying with the permanent injunction and not infringing on the Derby-Pie trademark."

Cox said Kern's attorney fees would amount to "several thousand dollars."

According to Kern's Kitchen's motion in April:

>Private investigator John Landreth ate lunch at the White Light Diner on Jan. 15.

>A hand-lettered sign hung at the restaurant's entrance stating, "Have a Piece of Derby Pie."

>After lunch, Landreth's female assistant ordered a slice of "Derby Pie," referring to the sign. The waitress brought her a slice and was asked about an identical looking pie displayed under plastic wrap. The waitress said that was a whole "Derby Pie," which Landreth purchased for $18.

>When asked why the pie was not on the menu, the investigators were told it was the same as the "Bluegrass Bourbon Pie" listed on the menu.

>Then Paul spoke, saying the "Bluegrass Bourbon Pie" was not listed as "Derby Pie" because "'that damn pie had caused him to be sued for $350,000.'"

>After a discussion about the lawsuit, Paul said although he had stood up to Kern's Kitchen, he had not won the suit, which was the "reason for the menu listing "Derby Pie' under a different name." Basically, Paul was selling a similar pie to the Derby-Pie chocolate nut pie, calling it "Bluegrass Bourbon Pie," but still advertising it as a Derby-Pie brand product.

>Landreth said when his assistant then made reference to the Derby Pie sign outside, "Mr. Paul then revealed his master planconcerning how he intended to "make fools of the Kern's people, their lawyers and the courts.'"

>Then Paul produced from his freezer a real Derby-Pie brand frozen product in its original box. Paul said "when he was taken to task by "them' he intended to produce the "real Derby Pie' and offer to sell them a piece, thereby fulfilling their request for "Derby Pie,' and making fools of them since they could do nothing about his actions."

>The assistant then asked whether the Derby-Pie product was for sale. Paul "laughingly replied "sure, but it will cost you $80.'" He explained he needed to keep it in stock for his own protection in case "'they show up' about the "Derby Pie.'"

According to Paul's court affidavit on May 5:

>He didn't remember investigator Landreth coming to his diner. "For 11 years now I have been asked about the Derby Pie lawsuit," Paul said. "There have been a lot of stories shared by customers over the years.

>He nor his waitress has ever called the White Light Diner's Kentucky Bourbon Pie a Derby-Pie.

>Kentucky Bourbon Pie "has pecans and chocolate and bourbon in it. Kern's Derby-Pie has walnuts, chocolate and no bourbon in it. I have never called my pie Bluegrass Bourbon Pie.

>He said he has never had "a master plan. I have never wanted to make fools out of Kern's or their lawyers or the courts."

>He said Derby Pie is a "Kentucky tradition but it is Kern's trademark. I posted a sign in January 2008 advertising Derby Pie. I bought the Kern's pie and offered it for sale."

>He said he "did attempt to inject some humor into this matter. This may have been poor judgment on my part. I am willing to publicly apologize to the plaintiffs. But I never have called my pie Derby Pie. I have consistently called it Kentucky Bourbon Pie.




Comments
By Posting to this site, you agree to our Terms of Service Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed. State-Journal.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.

Login above or Register to comment.
Jump to Page: 1 2 3 ... 15
   Next 10 Comments of 143 Total Comments
143.
    Posted by phillipsonline September 29, 2008
How in the world, can you get a patent on the name "Derby Pie"? Does that mean no one in the world can make the same or other variation of the pie? Ever heard of the "weedeater". Yes, there is a patent on the name because of the brand, but honestly, what does everybody call their grass trimmer? A WEEDEATER. So, in that fact, every recipe web-site that has a recipe for derby pie should also be sued, hmmm how long would that take? Ridiculous!

142.
    Posted by nativeson July 6, 2008
Wonder if Rick Paul's paid his fine yet, or done the work to pay it off? Wonder if he'll spend time in jail for not meeting the terms of his sentence? Stay tuned!

141.
    Posted by hothead1 June 28, 2008
LOL

140.
    Posted by clarencelobell June 17, 2008
Oh boy, now I know why everybody here is so irritated with nativeson etc....

139.
    Posted by stubbornasamule June 15, 2008
Posted by sojourner 22 hours ago
"identity not been discovered and unless your name really is Mule I don't see you advertising your true identity."
"I'd have no problem quoting Shakespeare to anybody."
If you did discover my "true identity", sojourner, just what would you do with it? Is it that important that you would Google it, look it up in the phone book, see if I'm on myspace, facebook, post pictures from high school yearbook,etc. Examples of your so-called detective work have been posted here and elsewhere. Most likely we have no "history" but not knowing who someone is seems to torment you. I personally don't care who YOU are. If you decided to walk down the streets of Frankfort with "SOJOURNER" in big letters on a t-shirt AND I happened to see it you may get a reaction. Otherwise you'll just be out the cost of the shirt.
As far as quoting Shakespeare as an insult I'm sure the Bard himself would be quite proud of your recital. Did you copy and paste?

138.
    Posted by nativeson June 15, 2008
"I don't know what happened in the past that caused you to hold this longterm grudge against Rick. But your posts here are such a public smear campaign that you are bordering the territory of libel and slander, maybe even crossed it. I have no idea if Rick really did all the things you accused him of, lol. Anyhow, since you want to sue everybody, who is not of your opinion for libel and slander, you might want to look up what that really is."

Your problem seems to be that you want to jump in and start posting messages without having any idea of what's going on.
One, it's not libel or slander or anything else to repeat factual information about someone, material that's in the public record and not in dispute and not LIES.
It IS libel to attempt to smear someone with allegations that you know to be false, which is what sojourner is trying to do. Making hints, dropping names, running around the subject without coming out and saying what they mean - cowardice, libel by implication.
All I'm saying is, if you got something to say, come on out and SAY IT, stop the playing around, which is just cowardice. Otherwise shut up. And when you DO come out and write those lies, be prepared to be sued by the target of them.
As for talking about Rick Paul - when people stop defending his stupidity and he stops playing the victim and when people concentrate on the facts about what he's done, then it'll be time to stop writing about it.
But you and others want to change the subject and ignore the facts and play games with other crap, divert the discussion to other people. That sure sounds like little Ricky's past history to me. If the shoe fits, wear it, otherwise change shoes.
Obsession? What do you call it when YOU keep coming back here to post messages about this?

137.
    Posted by trying June 15, 2008
Sorry, but I'm not Rick. And you should know better. But that just proves how paranoid you are. Are you so afraid of Rick? Sure looks like you are on a crusade and smud campaign.

I don't know either one of you. Well, you more from your many many many postings here, lol. But still to an outsider you it looks like this: Yes, what Rick did was stupid and idiotic. So is what you do with your crusade in your flaming posts against him. I'm sure Rick does have some mental problems judging by what other people described. From the looks of it, so do you as any form of criticism of your ideals or persona have you on the warpath with the 'offender'. In fact, in many ways you two seem to be very much alike. Except one is liberal and freespirited, the other conservative and stuck up like his guns.

I don't know what happened in the past that caused you to hold this longterm grudge against Rick. But your posts here are such a public smear campaign that you are bordering the territory of libel and slander, maybe even crossed it. I have no idea if Rick really did all the things you accused him of, lol. Anyhow, since you want to sue everybody, who is not of your opinion for libel and slander, you might want to look up what that really is. Then take a good look at all of your posts, even in those threads which are locked. Just because they are locked doesn't mean they are not accessible for discovery and evidence purposes. You threw a lot of dirt for the purpose of character defamation at this Rick. Since you strike me as a lawsuit happy person, you, in his position, would already dragged your sorry ass into the courtroom. Think about that before you feverishly post your next insults.

Oh, forget it, I already know you won't. Dig your own grave..

136.
    Posted by nativeson June 14, 2008
"Wow, at least most of us have something better to do with life than sitting at the computer trying to 'catch the enemy', rofl."

Obviously you don't since you're posting here and the number of you who've been following this page have kept its numbers high.
You're so transparent, Rick.

135.
    Posted by trying June 14, 2008
This is still going on? He already stated he wants to be called Charles and refuses to be called any other form of that name, lol. To claim he is not Chuk, Chucky, Chuck, Chuckster...,well that fits right in with that. As is the paranoia that people are watching this thread. His constant checking on this topic apparently kept it in the most viewed category. Of course people will occasionally have a look to see what dillusional dribble Chucky came up with next. Always worth a laugh.

It's fascinating though. And just out of curiosity, since you want to sue all of us, lol, what ground would you have to sue any of us for libel, slander, or anything else? I mean you must actually have something to fit under that category or do you just like to keep the court system busy??? Thus far I have seen nothing. You know, it's not only an empty threat, it's a stupid one. Do you really think people will fall for that? They read it, they laugh, and they think you are a joke. That's all you have achieved.

Wow, at least most of us have something better to do with life than sitting at the computer trying to 'catch the enemy', rofl.

134.
    Posted by sojourner June 14, 2008
Sorry for the double post...didn't mean to perseverate.

   Next 10 Comments | Home | Back