If it's on a t-shirt, it has to be true.

They will fight using trademarks, and they will fight using t-shirts?

I confess that because of the early hour I don’t know what to think. It would make sense as some kind of third-party guerrilla tactics designed to lower the brand’s value, because otherwise it seems like a misguided attempt by the company to have a little fun, but with the same end result of damaging its own goodwill. You decide. And see who else hearts this New York sewing enterprise, too!

I don’t know who this Jenna in Toronto is, but if Google is correct, she’s a 22-year-old Russian model working as an escort. That’s some classy clientele!

I wonder, whom do Elissa and Gregory love?

This entry was posted in stitch v. bitch, themes. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to If it's on a t-shirt, it has to be true.

  1. emmacrew says:

    I was reading back through old comments in this category and came across one suggesting Starbucks was stopping everyone from using “bucks” in their name, which I’m sure is a surprise to the Megabucks Lottery folks. Here in the Seattle area we’ve also got Starbuck’s Towing, which makes me smile (what a difference an apostrophe makes).

  2. Carol says:

    I got a shirt for her escort company:
    “All your Johns are belong to me” How’s about we sport some of those?

  3. Carol says:

    That’s what I get for being an upstanding over worked girl…

  4. Amie says:

    OMG. I could just pee my pants over that one “Grelissa.” That’s a little piece of fabulous if I do say so myself.

  5. Grelissa says:

    I know what Greg and Elissa love…


  6. Amie says:

    Some how I got into the “lucky ring.” See my shirt? And as I like to say often, “I always get the last laugh.” Just wait and see….

  7. aristade says:

    This must be Garvin in this video. Has anyone ever seen this guy? Maybe he doesn’t exist. http://youtube.com/watch?v=xvsbpj0m8-Y

  8. Shannon says:

    Aww, now I’m hurt. One of their defenders put up an entire blog devoted to ripping on me and what I wrote about what they were doing, yet there’s no “Shannon…”

    He doesn’t actually have the world’s smallest, Franklin, he lost it in an unfortunate serger accident. Whoops.

  9. j. says:

    Wrong Brenda, Franklin!

    Of course now that you’ve pointed this out, they can add another Brenda t-shirt, too… and a Franklin. The Cafepress shop will be just like those gift shops with racks of pre-printed kids’ placemats! (But those shops never had my name on a placemat.)

  10. Franklin says:

    I notice they got “Brenda” too, as in Brenda Dayne of the Cast On podcast. As I recall, in her extended take on the subject she hypothesized that Greg Garvin may have the world’s smallest penis. It would explain a lot.

    But I feel slighted, as I posted a cartoon about it on my blog on 02/07/2006 and yet they didn’t include a “Franklin.” I cry sexism.

  11. Dr. Steph says:

    That Jenna sounds like my kind of girl.

  12. fillyjonk says:

    Cripes. Really grown-up on the part of whoever is making/marketing the shirts. (I have my ideas as to who it is but considering that they’d stoop to this kind of tactic, I’m not going to say).

    Look, “Stitch and Bitch” appeared in books from the 1940s. Can’t the parties involved just conclude it’s a term NOT ORIGINAL TO THEM and be kinda big-tent-y about it? I’m sure that one entity has done far more damage to their business by creating bad feelings than could ever have been done by their not having “exclusive” use of the phrase.

    I don’t know – it just seems so petty and so silly. Kind of like someone trying to trademark the phrase, “That’s hot!”

  13. minnie says:

    can i puke now?

  14. Jersey Girl says:

    I think it is quite a laugh. Actually, I would think that no one except them can use the mark still right? They own it and seem to be using it on a variety of their marks and really promoting the facts that it is their exclusive brand and they were the ones who created NYC’s first stitch and bitch.

  15. Leah Kramer says:

    And let’s not miss the irony of the fact that they are using the term “Craftster” on their shirts which was trademarked by me. Did they get permission? I think not.

    Just when you think you’ve seen it all! :)

  16. Janice in GA says:

    Does this mean that the rest of us can start using “Stitch and Bitch” in our groups and on t-shirts again now too? I mean, what’s good for the goose is surely good for the gander, right???

    Jeezopete. Morons.

  17. amy says:

    whoops, thought the proper name ones said love, not loves. well that just opens up a whole realm of possibilities! (jim jones, satan, etc. etc.)

  18. amy says:

    i had to laugh at the “vicky,” “debbie” and “craftsters” versions. so sad, so pathetic, and for the singular versions, so grammatically incorrect. (go go gregory!)

    if sfse weren’t actually getting a profit off of these, there are several versions i would order:


    “jerks” (or a/h, trying to keep your comments clean, though. =])

    “you’re nuts if you”

    “people without an original thought in their head” (that one might be hard to fit)


    “molesters” (and any subsequent criminal designation – murderers, thieves, drug dealers, etc.)

  19. turtlegirl76 says:

    Ha! If I were Debbie Stoller’s lawyers I’d be all over that! Do they have 13 year old girls running the company or something? Just seems a bit petty.

  20. Carol says:

    I feel so slighted.

    What is weird is that for purposes of the litigation, wouldn’t any post-lawsuit-filing attempts by them to solidify their trademark (like these T-shirts) be after the fact and therefore irrelevant (read inadmissible)?

    And once again, if you were their lawyer, wouldn’t you tell them to knock the cute stuff off? Because I sure would. Especially since it’s the kind of thing that would make the other side extremely pissed and therefore throw a wrench into settlement negotiations.

  21. lori says:

    hmmm… more coffee?