Precious Paws 4 You

I posted the EXACT email, in it's entirety, the SAME day I sent it to you!!! As you requested, I REMOVED the picture you took of the puppy I shipped you within 24 hours, BUT you CANNOT remove ALL the pictures you posted of my puppy from the internet!!!!!! You will find ads all over the internet, you placed the day AFTER I shipped her to you and NOT one ad for her the day BEFORE!! WHO is lying!!! If my puppies are SO SICK, SO UNHEALTHY, WHY would you RESELL ONE!!! A DNA test will prove in court who is LYING!

The lady that said she sent you the money posted HER OWN complaint!! I had nothing to do with her other than when she contacted me and told me she had tried to buy the puppy you had bought from me. POST the email I wrote you about reselling my puppy!!!

LOOK AT "mypupsnkids" to see for yourself!!!

As I stated before NEVER contact me again about buying one of my puppies!!!!

My only comment on this is that why on earth are you selling dogs, when there are too many being killed in the so-called "shelters" for merely taking up space?

"Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight."-Proverbs 3:5,6

"Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight."-Proverbs 3:5,6

These people speak of FACTS!!! REALLY???

Here are the FACTS:

I have been raising and selling quality puppies for over 28 years and until 4-14-2012, I have NEVER had 1 negative post on the internet!!! These are nameless cowards, that hide behind the facade of an internet forum to spread malicious lies!

If you are an honest and ethical business you should NOT have negative complaints anywhere. The fact, if you will even look at the facts, is this person or business made all these accusations about me for absolutely no reason and if you look at the ip addresses at both RIPOFF.COM and pissedconsumer.com, you will find them to be the same.

FACT: They had purchased one of my puppies, advertised it to re-sell, a lady in Florida sent a deposit, when the puppy was not delivered as promised she went on the internet and by some astronomical miracle found me, the original breeder. When she contacted me about her situation, I contacted the people who had bought my puppy and made this horrible post and ask if they would send her the puppy or at least refund her deposit.

I should not have to defend myself, I have done nothing wrong and the law is on my side if this goes to court. Websites like yours, that allow people to go online with nothing but malicious intent in their hearts and make libelous remarks, do not serve the greater good. If you look in your records another person had a complaint about Tiny Teacup World in July of 2011. She was attacked much the same as I, but mine was without provocation.

I NEVER WROTE ANYTHING ABOUT ANYONE ON THE INTERNET. Until yesterday, I had NEVER been on your site.

I am only aware of ripoff.com and the pissed consumer.com. My attorney will be looking into this, but I will not tolerate the defamation of my character and assault on my lively hood.

I am not very tech savvy, but have enough knowledge to know once something is on the internet, be it good or bad, it has a profound affect on people. The laws are very clear when it comes to defamation on the internet and more and more cases are going to trail.

The greatest travesty is when there has been a wrong and good people do nothing.........

Sincerely

Sheila Flowers

Owner Precious Paws 4 You

Tiny Tea Cup Management.

I CAN NOT WAIT TO SEE THIS SO CALLED LEGAL ACTION.

LOOKS AS IF THE ONLY COMPLAINTS ARE ALL FROM ARIZONA AND THE SAME AREA???

You are pathetic and I plan to be of assistance to Mrs. Flowers moving forward.

WE ARE PENDING LEGAL ACTION AGAINST PRECIOUSPAWS4YOU / OWNER : SHEILA FLOWER AS OF 04/13/2012

WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS ORIGINAL POST , BUT IT IS APPARENT THAT THEY HAVE MANY CUSTOMERS COMPLAINTS THAT ARE NOT HAPPY WITH PRECIOUSPAWS4YOU.

TRUE FACTS :

Mani our chihuahua was sold to a family in CALIFORNIA and we have reviews , pictures , contracts and delivery confirmation to prove this transaction took place.

Sheila ( a breeder and an obvious competitor) is spreading false rumors about our company , writing online that we sold our mani to someone in FLORIDA and that she was never delivered once purchased.

Sheila has no idea to whom we do business with and to which city and state we deliver to. She is not affiliated with our company .

Sheila lies and uses false statements and deception schemes to get ahead and increase traffic to her website.

She also has all of her friends from texas ,florida and canada ( which are affiliated with her ) write false statements about us as well.

We will not stand for lies and deception and legal action has been taken against her and her company.

Anyone can visit our website tiny teac cup world .com and read reviews and see pictures of Mani's new family in California.

p.s. as for the BBB complaints , if read carefully , all 5 cases have been resolved . we have been in business for 25 years and we have over 10,000 puppies to happy customers worldwide.

Management

Look at bbb they have 5 complaints on product shipped aka puppy

0 Customer Reviews on TinyTeaCupWorld.com

Customer Experience Total Customer Reviews

Positive Experience 0

Neutral Experience 0

Negative Experience 0

Total Customer Reviews 0

Read Customer Reviews | Submit a Customer Review

Customer Complaints Summary

5 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years

Complaint Type Total Closed Complaints

Advertising/Sales Issues 0

Billing/Collection Issues 0

Delivery Issues 0

Guarantee/Warranty Issues 0

Problems with Product/Service 5

Total Closed Complaints 5

Tinyteacupworld.com also has had 5 complaints with the BBB (Better Business Bureau). Who would you trust? I can tell you that Sheila has never had any!

People... Take a look at all the negative comments...

They ALL come from the same place. The ip address is also the same person and they are all on the same day. This entire thing was created by TinyTeaCupWorld to make a true wonderful breeder look terrible. I have two babies from Sheila and they are amazing and she is amazing.

I also have more than 10 people in my area that have purchased puppies from Sheila over the years after seeing my babies.

NONE of those people have EVER had a single issue with their dogs.

I do hope that TinyTeaCupWorld gets seen for all the lies.

I personally know that these negative comments about Sheila Flowers and her kennel, preciouspaws4you.com, are false. I have been in her kennel and home many times and have seen how well she cares for all her dogs.

They are extremely healthy, beautiful, and probably in whole the smallest of their breed. She is a Christian lady who would never cheat anyone, never lie, and would not do something harmful to the breeding industry.

Please ignore these comments sponsored by a lady who bought a beautiful puppy from Sheila (I saw the puppy myself) and then resold by taking a deposit and never delivering the puppy to the lady in Florida. These comments are an attempt to "get even" with someone who found out the true situation at tinyteacupworld.

I know Sheila personally and her babies. She is one of the most honest Christian people I know.

This hateful person (who posted all the comments yesterday from Phoenix, AZ , you did not think of your location being published, did you?) is trying to deflect the negative attention you received when you SCAMMED mypupsandkids. Shame on you and don`t use our Lord and Savior to tell lies!

Sheila is a true breeder. If u are a consumer reading these posts look at all the bogus names tinyteacupworld made to make all there's negative false reports also they are all from the same city in Arizona at around the same time of day way to coincidental that so many people bought from Sheila when she's hasn't sold more than one pup to Arizona anytime recently. Look on her site.

Would love to know when you bought this "phantom" puppy???? What breed it was, how old it was when I shipped it, Oh yes, you contradicted your own self. Your own words:QUOTE "YOU WILL PAY AND NEVER RECEIVE YOUR PUPPY!!!"

Since you obviously got this "phantom" puppy and your post was written yesterday, WHEN did you get this puppy and what is the name of the vet that you paid all this money to??? Any reputable breeder knows the veterinarian must send a report to file a claim on a health guarantee and more over, I have only shipped 2 puppies to Phoenix in the last year. YES I said SHIPPED! Unlike Tiny Teacup World, I make no claims my babies are "too Tiny" to ship. My babies are all HEALTHY and I do not have to worry about shipping them! I have the flight bills to verify when and where I ship. Amazingly the "TINY" litter mate to the one Tiny Teacup World resold is right there in Phoenix as well.

Below is an email I received from Joyce, the lady who bought Trinket's brother TimBit, aka RICO.

Hi Sheila,

I can't believe how fast we have fallen in love with this new puppy! Rico has been to see our vet here already and is doing well.

Chica is getting much-needed exercise playing with him; they are true buds now.

Thanks for making this match happen!

Please keep me in mind when the new litter arrives in May ;>)

Joyce Rindt

Once again you cannot backup your lies with facts. It is only a matter of time before the truth is known.

If your dog died why hasn't Sheila been notified dogs breeders guarantee health of pups Sheila has sold all over the world she has famous pups what accreditation does tinyteacupworld world have????? I haven't found any yet.

To tinyteacupworld you might as well stop now with the negative posts towards sheila and precious paws 4 you. As soon as I post a copy of a money order u cashed I'll personally have my attorney who is head of the legal offices here shut your operation down. Remember u are the scammers. You are in violation read this

 

"Any advertising or promotion that misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities or geographic origin of goods, services or commercial activities" (Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(a)).

Proof Requirement

To establish that an advertisement is false, a plaintiff must prove five things: (1) a false statement of fact has been made about the advertiser's own or another person's goods, services, or commercial activity; (2) the statement either deceives or has the potential to deceive a substantial portion of its targeted audience; (3) the deception is also likely to affect the purchasing decisions of its audience; (4) the advertising involves goods or services in interstate commerce; and (5) the deception has either resulted in or is likely to result in injury to the plaintiff. The most heavily weighed factor is the advertisement's potential to injure a customer. The injury is usually attributed to money the consumer lost through a purchase that would not have been made had the advertisement not been misleading. False statements can be defined in two ways: those that are false on their face and those that are implicitly false.

Development of Regulations

One early attempt to create advertising industry standards was made in 1911 when the trade journal Printer's Ink proposed that false advertising be classified as a crime. As a result, false advertising became a misdemeanor in 44 states. Statutes were based on the model statute suggested by Printer's Ink. These statutes are still in effect; however, they are rarely used because it requires proving that the false advertising exists Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, a difficult standard to meet.

In place of the Printer's Ink statute, states adopted the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act of 1964 (revised 1966), which lists a dozen different items that are prohibited in the advertising trade. The only remedy available under this act is injunctive relief—a court order that admonishes the guilty party for its actions— which may explain the low number of states that have adopted it. (As of 2003, only 12 states have adopted the statute in some form.) Other states have different statutes regarding false advertising. Most of these statutes require the courts to interpret state laws using federal guidelines provided by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). According to the FTC, which amended its standards to help regulate cigarette labeling, three elements are necessary to show that an advertisement is false or unfair. The ad has to offend public policy; be immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; and substantially injure consumers.

Types of False Advertising

Today's regulations define three main acts that constitute false advertising: failure to disclose, flawed and insignificant research, and product disparagement. The majority of these regulations are outlined in the Lanham Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C.A. § 1051 et seq), which contains the statutes that govern trademark law in the United States.

Failure to Disclose It is considered false advertising under the Lanham Act if a representation is "untrue as a result of the failure to disclose a material fact." Therefore, false advertising can come from both misstatements and partially correct statements that are misleading because they do not disclose something the consumer should know. The Trademark Law Revision Act of 1988, which added several amendments to the Lanham Act, left creation of the line between sufficient and insufficient disclosure to the discretion of the courts.

American Home Products Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 654 F. Supp. 568, S.D.N.Y. 1987, is an example of how the courts use their discretion in determining when a disclosure is insufficient. In this case, Johnson and Johnson advertised a drug by comparing its side effects to those of a similar American Home Products drug, leaving out a few of its own side effects in the process. Although the Lanham Act does not require full disclosure, the court held the defendant to a higher standard and ruled the advertisement misleading because of the potential health risks it posed to consumers.

Flawed and Insignificant Research Advertisements based on flawed and insignificant research are defined under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act as "representations found to be unsupported by accepted authority or research or which are contradicted by prevailing authority or research." These advertisements are false on their face.

Alpo Pet Foods v. Ralston Purina Co., 913 F.2d 958 (D.C. Cir. 1990), shows how basing advertising claims on statistically insignificant test results provides sufficient grounds for a false advertising claim. In this case, the Ralston Purina Company claimed that its dog food was beneficial for dogs with canine hip dysplasia, demonstrating the claims with studies and tests. Alpo Pet Foods brought a claim of false advertising against Purina, saying that the test results could not support the claims made in the advertisements. Upon looking at the evidence and the way the tests were conducted by Purina, the court ruled not only that the test results were insignificant but also that the methods used to conduct the tests were inadequate and the results could therefore not support Purina's claims.

Product Disparagement Product disparagement involves discrediting a competitor's product. The 1988 amendment to the Lanham Act extends claims for false advertising to misrepresentations about another's products.

Trademark Infringement

Trademark infringement is similar to product disparagement, and is described in section 32(1) of the Lanham Act. This section states that:

anyone who shall, without the consent of the registrant—(a) use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution or advertising of any goods or services or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or cause mistake, or to deceive … shall be liable in a civil action by the registrant.

A trademark is a symbol, phrase, or some other device that distinguishes ownership of a product or service. A trademark also stands as a mark of quality, which means that consumers rely on Trademarks when making purchases. If one company adopts a trademark similar to a competing company, the public may think the trademark's owner either sponsored or approved the use of the trademark. Therefore, the reputation of the original holder of the trademark is compromised and consumers are deceived and confused by false advertising.

In determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under the Lanham Act, the courts use the Polaroid test, which includes eight factors established in Polaroid Corp. v. Polara Electronics Corp., 287 F. 2d 492 (2nd Cir. 1961). They are the strength of the plaintiff's mark, similarity of uses, proximity of the products, likelihood that the prior owner will expand into the domain of the other, actual confusion, defendant's good or bad faith in using the plaintiff's mark, quality of the junior user's product, and sophistication of consumers. These eight factors do not all have to be satisfied to prove a case; the major factor the courts focus on is the potential to confuse consumers.

The Polaroid test is for cases that involve commercial exploitation. When an advertising dispute involves First Amendment violations, the issue at hand is often the use of Parody.

Parody

For parody cases, a Balancing test that is more useful than the Polaroid test was established by Cliffs Notes v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, 886 F.2d 490 (2nd Cir. 1989). The court held that Bantam's production of Spy Notes, which was a parody of Cliffs Notes study guides, was not a violation of the Lanham Act because Bantam clearly conveyed in advertising that Spy Notes was a parody. Therefore, there was no confusion. As a result, the balancing test used by the court in Cliffs Notes requires that "a parody must convey two simultaneous—and contradictory—messages: that it is the original, but also that it is not the original and is instead a parody." If a parody does not have both messages, it is likely to confuse the consumers.

Another claim involving parody is the 1995 case of Hormel Foods Corp. v. Jim Henson Productions, 73 F.3d 497 (2nd Cir. 1996). In this case, Hormel brought Jim Henson Productions to court for trademark infringement and false advertising under the Lanham Act. At the time the case was initiated, Henson was producing the movie Muppet Treasure Island with a new character: an exotic wild boar named Spa'am. Henson's intention was to make the audience laugh at the intended parody between the Muppet's wild boar and Hormel's tame luncheon meat.

Hormel's claims of false advertising and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act and its common-law claims of trademark dilution and deceptive practices were all denied by the court for several reasons, the main one being that Henson had clearly, in all his advertising, identified Spa'am as a character from a Muppet motion picture. This usage was not confusing under the Polaroid test and therefore was not a solid basis for a false advertising or trademark infringement claim. Henson's usage also satisfied the balancing test requirements set up by Cliffs Notes.

Remedies for False Advertising

Had Hormel won its claim against Henson, three remedies would have been available to it: injunctive relief, corrective advertising, and damages.

Injunctive Relief Injunctive relief is granted by the courts upon the satisfaction of two requirements. First, a plaintiff must demonstrate a "likelihood of deception or confusion on the part of the buying public caused by a product's false or misleading description or advertising" (Alpo). Second, a plaintiff must demonstrate that an "irreparable harm" has been inflicted, even if such harm is a decrease in sales that cannot be completely attributed to a defendant's false advertising. It is virtually impossible to prove that sales can or will be damaged; therefore, the plaintiff only has to establish that there exists a causal relationship between a decline in its sales and a competitor's false advertising. Furthermore, if a competitor specifically names the plaintiff's product in a false or misleading advertisement, the harm will be presumed (McNeilab, Inc. v. American Home Products Corp., 848 F.2d 34 [2nd. Cir. 1988]).

Corrective Advertising Corrective advertising can be ruled in two different ways. First, and most commonly, the court can require a defendant to launch a corrective advertising campaign and to make an affirmative, correcting statement in that campaign. For example, in Alpo, the court required Purina to distribute a corrective release to all of those who had received the initial, false information.

Second, the courts can award a plaintiff monetary damages so that the plaintiff can conduct a corrective advertising campaign to counter the defendant's false advertisements. For example, in U-Haul International v. Jartran, Inc., 793 F.2d 1034 (9th Cir. 1986), the plaintiff, U-Haul International, was awarded $13.6 million— the cost of its corrective advertising campaign.

Damages To collect damages, the plaintiff generally has to show either that some consumers were actually deceived or that the defendant used the false advertising in bad faith. Four types of damages are awarded for false advertising: profits the plaintiff loses when sales are diverted to the false advertiser; profits lost by the plaintiff on sales made at prices reduced as a demonstrated result of the false advertising; the cost of any advertising that actually and reasonably responds to the defendant's offending advertisements; and quantifiable harm to the plaintiff's good will to the extent that complete and corrective advertising has not repaired that harm (Alpo).

Consumer Protection

Although most false advertising claims brought against advertisers are by competitors, consumers can also file such claims. No hard-and-fast rules exist for all consumer-initiated cases; courts deal with claims brought by consumers on more of a case-by-case basis than they do with claims brought by competitors. The issues surrounding consumer rights were discussed during the drafting of the 1988 Trademark Law Revision Act, but were not resolved.

In cases where consumers have sued, they have most often been held to the same standards as competitors: they need to show that they have a reasonable interest in order to be protected. This standard was demonstrated by the Class Action lawsuit of Maguire v. Sandy Mac, 138F.R.D. 444 (D.N.J. 1991). In that case, the class included both resellers, who had purchased a ham product from the defendant, and consumers, who had ultimately bought the ham products. The lawsuit claimed that the defendant sold ham products falsely represented as meeting u.s. department of agriculture standards. The court ruled for the plaintiffs, saying that "the plaintiff and the proposed class, the consumers, have a reasonable interest in being protected from criminal misrepresentations."

Another way consumers are protected is by state laws on deceptive trade practices.

So just stop where u guys are look at that poor pups eyes u scammers what dog has eyes do green she must be wearing contacts.

Foolish, mrs. Sheila is a true breeder.

Anyone reading this needs to look at this story in depth tinyteacupworldworld bought a puppy from Sheila. If she supposibly sells sick dogs why would they spend 1500,00 on a dog from her

I PERSONALLY HATE THIS LADY SHE PRETENDS TO BE NICE BUT SHE IS AN OLD LADY THAT LIES TO SELL YOU A DOG , JUST RUN THE OPPOSITE WAY IF YOU WANT TO BUY A DOG , FIND IT ELSEWHERE , HER DOGS ARE VERY SICK

I AGREE WITH THIS POSTER , I personally bought a dog from this lady Sheila a while ago , and my dog died shortly after i bought it, DONT BUY FROM SHEILA ...SHE WILL STEAL YOUR MONEY AND RUN!!!!

dont trust her , she makes up lies about their health and their final weight and they are not tiny ...and unhealthy . IM OUT OF 1500$ AND OUT OF A DOG . SHE NEVER COOPERATED AND DIDNT WANT TO GIV ME MY MONEY BACK ..and refuses to answer my calls ...GOES TO SHOW WHO THIS PERSON IS.

BUYERS BEWARE !