ALL POSTSKids FranchisesLEGACY ACADEMY Franchise

UNHAPPYFRANCHISEE.COM Response to Legacy Academy 2nd Cease and Desist Letter

UnhappyFranchisee.Com responds to a nasty legal demand by Legacy Academy attorney M. Kathleen Hart of Andersen, Tate & Carr PC to remove a Legacy Academy logo and a supposed replacement logo from a 2 1/2 year old post.  We aren’t sure how to comply, since no logo has appeared on that page for 21 months. #bullying #harrassment

(UnhappyFranchisee.Com) On September 24, 2015 attorney M. Kathleen Hart sent us a our 2nd cease and desist letter demanding that we remove the Legacy Academy logo from a 2013 blog post.

She claims that she had made the same demand 21 months ago and we refused to comply.

Legacy Academy(See LEGACY ACADEMY 2nd Cease & Desist Letter to UnhappyFranchisee.Com)

Then she went off on how we had added disclaimer copy to the logo, but that wasn’t enough to qualify for “nominative fair use” because it didn’t meet the “minimum necessary test.”

M. Kathleen’s letter was delightfully condescending and snarky, in that arrogant attorney style we’ve come to enjoy so well:

Since you claim to be just a “simple blogger,” I’ll try to be simple…

…I don’t want to repeat myself, so let’s just keep this simple…

… you presumably know how to use email…

I was just about to start Googling “nominative fair use” and “minimum necessary test” when it occurred to me to check the web page.

Lo and behold, there isn’t a single Legacy Academy logo (or replacement logo) on that page, and there hasn’t been since I removed it in January, 2014.

Now I must inform the fiery and irascible Ms. M. that I cannot remove what no longer exists.

Unhappy Franchisee.





M . Kathleen Hart, Esq.

Attorney for Legacy Academy, Inc.

Andersen, Tate & Carr , P . C .

1960 Satellite Boulevard , Suite  4000

Duluth, Georgia 30097

September 29, 2015

Dear M.:

Thank you for your letter of September 24, 2015.


However, your representation that we have continued to use the logo (or replaced it with one with a disclaimer) on the page that you first objected to in your letter of January 28, 2014 is incorrect.


You state “On January 24, 2014, we issued a written demand on behalf Legacy [sic] that you cease and desist violating Legacy’s protected rights in the Mark by removing the logo displayed on the webpage   Despite this demand, you have chosen to continue using and displaying the Mark on your webpage…”


Your original letter (attached) contained a scan of a printed post published December 18, 2013 titled “ICHTER THOMAS Another Win Against Legacy Academy Franchise.” The logo was removed from that post shortly after we received your January 24, 2014 letter and was not replaced. There has not been a Legacy Academy logo on that page for the 21 months since you last communicated with us.


If you would like us to be able to accurately respond to objections in the future, please indicate the specific text or graphics you object to by providing a screen capture or printed/scanned page, as you did with your original letter.


Also, when providing web addresses to designate specific online content you find objectionable, it would be advisable for you to refer to static web pages rather than dynamic web pages that contain changing indexes of category contents (as you did in both your letters when you referenced the dynamic web page Referring to a dynamic category index of blog posts will inevitably cause confusion, as the content of that web page changes every time a post in that category is added, updated or recategorized.


Learning the difference between the two types of web pages should help you communicate more effectively in the future not only with us, but with other blogging miscreants, infringers and roustabouts.


Please let me know if there’s anything else I can do to address your concerns and put your clients’ minds at ease. But please don’t wait 21 months to respond this time! My memory span is not what it used to be!


Cheers… ADMIN (UnhappyFranchisee.Com)


CC via email Mr. Frank Turner, Mrs. Melissa Veal Turner, Legacy Academy

Attachment: Legacy Academy 1st cease and desist letter



LEGACY ACADEMY 2nd Cease & Desist Letter to UnhappyFranchisee.Com



LEGACY ACADEMY Franchise Complaints

LEGACY ACADEMY Ichter Thomas Wins Suit for Legacy Academy Franchise Owners

ICHTER THOMAS Another Win Against Legacy Academy Franchise

LEGACY ACADEMY Franchise Marketing Representations

We have also had our own issues with Legacy Academy and its attorneys:

LEGACY ACADEMY Issues Cease & Desist Letter to UnhappyFranchisee.Com

LEGACY ACADEMY Are Frank & Melissa Turner “Disreputable”?

LEGACY ACADEMY UnhappyFranchisee.Com Complies With Legal Request/Threat

LEGACY ACADEMY Invited to Respond to Franchise Complaints





TAGS: Cease and Desist letter, takedown demand, nominative fair use,  Legacy Academy,  Legacy Academy franchise, Early Learning franchise opportunity, Legacy Academy franchise complaints, Andersen, Tate & Carr PC, Frank Turner, Melissa Turner, M. Kathleen Hart, cease and desist, takedown demand letter

2 thoughts on “UNHAPPYFRANCHISEE.COM Response to Legacy Academy 2nd Cease and Desist Letter


    My cover letter/email to M. Kathleen Hart


    My response to your 2nd Cease & Desist letter:

    UNHAPPYFRANCHISEE.COM Response to Legacy Academy 2nd Cease and Desist Letter

    I’m asking for some clarification because the logo you are objecting was removed from that page 21 months ago, back when I asked for your input on a proposed replacement and you never responded. To tell you the truth, I would have posted the disclaimer logo back on the page but I forgot about it for the last 21 months!

    I will post the pdf about the reversal of the franchisee’s award as you requested. Ichter Thomas (They’re now Ichter something or other now) provided me with press release copy in a word document which makes it very easy to post quickly with minimal editing. Is that something you can provide too or does your firm just try to get negative stuff removed?

    You asked that I change a headline that said Legacy Academy was guilty of fraud. You were not specific as to which headline or page. You’ve got to be specific M., you silly goose!

    I found one subhead that said “Legacy Academy Guilty of Fraud; Franchisees Awarded $1.1M ” which I changed to “Jury Finds Legacy Academy Guilty of Fraud; Franchisees Awarded $1.1M”

    Are there others? Let me know. Here’s that page:

    On a serious note, M., I am eager to address your concerns and try to get to a mutually acceptable place on this IP situation. I always respond within a few days, tops. If these are matters of urgency to your client, should you really take 21 months to return communication that you initiated?

    If they’re NOT matters of urgency, couldn’t your client’s money be better spent on things like supporting franchisees rather than takedown letters for logos that already been took down long, long ago?

    It’s not that I don’t enjoy dialoguing with you, I’m just saying…


    M. Kathleen Hart responds to my response, and I respond back to her response.

    Dear Admin:

    I’ve received the below linked response. Per your request that I be specific, I’ll direct you to the last line of my most recent letter, in which I indicated that you need to stop ALL use of Legacy’s protected trademark/logo. The reference to the webpage on which the logo previously appeared was included only to give context to our earlier demand, not to limit the scope of our demand. “All” is pretty specific – it means “all.” As in each and every instance it appears anywhere on (or any other blog or website you might operate). If Google Images (or similar search engine) returns an image for a “Legacy Academy” search that links back to your website, take the image/logo down.

    I look forward to seeing your post of the Georgia Supreme Court’s opinion; as you already have that in Word, I assume you will have it posted quickly and will make appropriate adjustments to all of your previous posts (and headlines) regarding that case to clarify that the jury verdict and lower court decisions were overturned.


    Kathleen Hart, Esq.

    Andersen, Tate & Carr, P.C.

    Dear M.:

    Thank you for your quick response!

    Actually, you did not send the decision in Word. You sent me a PDF that also contained your letter. I was able to convert your letter but the decision with all its columns and weird legal symbols is all jumbley. If you can send be a word version it will help expedite posting. Congratulations on that reversal, by the way!

    You wrote ” ‘All’ is pretty specific – it means ‘all.'”

    With all due respect, M., “all” is actually the opposite of specific. In fact, the Merriam Webster definition of “All” includes the word “General” (All, pronoun; Used to refer to surroundings or a situation in general, everything)

    Last year a franchisor sued me for $35,000,000 alleging defamation. That was an education – for both of us! He thought I would be intimidated and would immediately take down “all” the content he didn’t like. (Why do people think that? Don’t they read the site?) I learned litigation like that is VERY specific. We went through each instance and he had to build a case for every single statement that he said was defamatory. We won every one of those little battles. I not only won, the judge ruled that it was a SLAPP suit and made the guy pay my attorneys fees. How about that?! Best yet, I can publicize my allegations til the cows come home cuz it’s court record.

    So I’m used to analyzing things in the “Specific” mode, using the commonly accepted understanding of “specific” which would mean that we need to go analyze every particular graphic that you object to as well as the context that it’s used in. Please tell me which specific graphics on which pages you object to, and your rationale for why each one doesn’t meet the “minimum necessary test.” I will keep an open mind and promise to take action when your contention seems to be valid. I’m sure we can find some common ground if we take this on in the spirit of mutual respect and cooperation.

    M., I’ve worked with hundreds of franchisors over the years. While I don’t know Mr. Taylor or Mrs. Veal Taylor, I know that franchisors can have control issues (comes with the territory) and would rather catch flies with a bazooka rather than honey.(It doesn’t work… and that’s my point!). So now that you know that the big tough bully “Take it all down cuz I said so!” doesn’t really work with the crazy kid on the playground, why don’t you propose that we either go forward either with more civil requests, or you tell them “it was worth a shot” and you just go away?

    I don’t propose the latter lightly, M., because I really do enjoy your letters and admire your moxie!




    Posted now, as requested.

    LEGACY ACADEMY, INC. v. Mamilove LLC Franchisee Award Reversed (Court Ruling)

    Please let me know if my informal summary is accurate.

    Also note that I find your statement that “the Court found that Legacy did not commit fraud” misleading, as it implies they were cleared of wrongdoing.

    The court did not find that the Turners did not provide fraudulent earnings claims, did not knowingly violate FTC Franchise Rule disclosure requirements, and did not coerce them to sign the agreement with a probably-bogus threat that they’d give the location to someone else if they took time to think about it.

    Seems to me the Turners were still guilty of fraud, but the judge ruled that the franchisee’s stupidity in blindly trusting them nullified their right to a legal remedy.

    If that’s not true, feel free to clarify.


    I await your decision on whether you would like to review the Legacy-related graphics on UnhappyFranchisee.Com with me on a case-by-case basis, or whether the Turnips have decided to stop wasting their time and money on what, in my humble opinion, is a futile exercise in petty harassment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *