Complaint Review: THE LAW OFFICE OF CHARLENA THORPE, INC - DULUTH Georgia
- THE LAW OFFICE OF CHARLENA THORPE, INC 2180 SATELLITE BLVD STE 400 DULUTH, Georgia USA
- Phone:
- Web: http://www.charlenathorpe.com/
- Category: Attorneys & Legal Services
THE LAW OFFICE OF CHARLENA THORPE, INC CHARLENA THORPE, ESQ. Stole my money. DULUTH Georgia
*Consumer Comment: My experience with the THORPE!
*Author of original report: Charlena Thorpe
*REBUTTAL Owner of company: LAW FIRM RESPONSE TO CLEARLY FALSE ACCUSATION
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
content.
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
Ripoff Report
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..
This young women Charlena Thorpe in Duluth Georgia, says she could help me with my project and do some trademark services for me. I went in for a consultation which was $200. I decided to hire her for tradermark services because she seemed like he knew what she was doing. She seemed very smart with all her degrees and plaques on the wall. She charged me $500 to do this. Tried to get another $500 out of me but i wasnt having it. A couple month later i realize i havent heard anything from this lady. I called it was like she forgot about me. Didnt know who i was. So she filed for my trademark finally. Several month later I hear from her saying we might need to change one thing and she ould charge me $ 5oo to do it. I said ok. Its is now 10/4/2015 and she did not fix or change anything for my trademark. It has been abandoned according to USPTO. I have been waiting for a year for this lady to get me my trademark. She has been paid and will not pick up my calls. She will not return my calls. She stole my money. PLEASE DO NOT HIRE THIS LADY FOR ANY PATENT OR TRADEMARK SERVICES. I SHOULD OF READ THE OTHER REVIEWS.
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 10/04/2015 12:08 PM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/the-law-office-of-charlena-thorpe-inc/duluth-georgia-30097/the-law-office-of-charlena-thorpe-inc-charlena-thorpe-esq-stole-my-money-duluth-georg-1259052. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:
#3 Consumer Comment
My experience with the THORPE!
AUTHOR: CEO Easycolorexpress - (USA)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, August 04, 2016
True story! Will file a new complaint later. Missy charlenee also took my money for a so-called patent filing. Yes, charlenee, I have phone and email records. She said patent would be filed in about a month..Nope! 9 months or so later (December 2013) Charleenee finally got around to it! Yeah you! I will say this. No answer of emails or phone calls. No return calls or emails. Nothing. Nada. If she does this to others, please file a grievance. Its legal to do so.Anyway, the patent she filed for me was denied on all 13 claims.(process and method for ordering paint) She sent an email to me 6 weeks after she received notice from the uspto office.
This next part is a hoot.So after a $4500 loss (she said she was the cheapest around) nope! A lie. (Found one $500 more) I finally read her email stating "I Quote" , Mr. Cassidy, I told you when we met, 99% of the time we get denied on the first round.Really? (I have this email if anyone would like a copy), so 99% of the time was NEVER MENTIONED TO ME. She is so slick , with those awards hanging on the walls behind her. So, let's bring this up to date. She wanted more money for a patent response that patent attorney Matt Grell stated to me was mostly "copy and pasted", and hard to understand. Last 15 pages or so). It is my personal belief that this so_called attorney charges CHEAP to draw in a client, then continually charges fees for legal that should have be done the first place and in a timely fashion,
#2 Author of original report
Charlena Thorpe
AUTHOR: - ()
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, February 03, 2016
listen I'm not going to play with you with all this back and forth. Stop emailing me. Fix my trademark. That's all I ask. You are not telling the truth. That's why I'm not the only one complaining. You have several complaints. I say nothing false. You are unresponsive and practice bad business. You threaten me to go to court and I can't wait to show them all the proof is have and witnesses that experienced me dealing with you and your firm. Please just stop with the legal mumbo jumbo. Why would I pay you $700 for something to go abandoned. STOP IT!
Makes no sense
#1 REBUTTAL Owner of company
LAW FIRM RESPONSE TO CLEARLY FALSE ACCUSATION
AUTHOR: Law Firm's Response to False Accusation - (USA)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, February 02, 2016
Mr. Raynor's complaint is completely false. Mr. Raynor paid $250 for an initial consultation, which he had on June 30, 2014. Mr. Raynor then hired The Law Office office of Charlena Thorpe to prepare and file a trademark application. Mr. Raynor paid $325 for the filing fee and $175 for the legal fee for the trademark application. The engagement letter (see Ex. A) and the invoice (see Ex. B) clearly state that these fees were to prepare and file a trademark application only.
The Law Office of Charlena Thorpe prepared and filed the trademark application on October 1, 2014. (See Ex. C, Filed Trademark Application) Thus, The Law Office of Charlena Thorpe performed the services for which Mr. Raynor retained the firm, and Mr. Raynor's statement that the firm "stole my money" is clearly false.
In January 2015, The United States Patent and Trademark Office called The Law Office of Charlena Thorpe to get Mr. Raynor's consent to disclaim a portion of its trademark. This is a common practice of The United States Patent and Trademark Office; however, this requirement can be challenged and The United States Patent and Trademark Office often withdraws this requirement when it is challenged and Charlena Thorpe has successfully challenged numerous disclaimer requirements in the past. A response from the The United States Patent and Trademark Office requesting a disclaimer is no indication that the initial application was wrong; in fact, The United States Patent and Trademark Office is often wrong in requiring a disclaimer.
The Law Office of Charlena Thorpe contacted Mr. Raynor (see Ex. D, phone record showing call to Mr. Raynor) to discuss the disclaimer requirement with Mr. Raynor's. Mr. Raynor did not want to consent to disclaim a portion of his trademark and wanted to challenge the disclaimer requirement. Accordingly, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued an office action requiring a response by July 28, 2015.
On May 12, 2015, Charlena Thorpe sent a follow-up email to Mr. Raynor (see Ex. E) informing Mr. Raynor of the outstanding office action and warning Mr. Raynor that if he did not respond to the office action by July 28, 2015, his trademark application would go abandoned. Charlena Thorpe also informed Mr. Raynor that the legal fee for Charlena Thorpe to review the office action and consult with Mr. Raynor regarding a course of action would be $250. Charlena Thorpe also called Mr. Raynor on June 2 and June 10 (see Ex. F, phone records showing call to Mr. Raynor) to remind Mr. Raynor of the due date and requirement of a retainer before legal services commence.
Mr. Raynor refused to retain Charlena Thorpe to review and respond to the office action (see Ex. F, statement from Mr. Raynor admitting that he refused to pay additional money). Thus, Mr. Raynor's trademark application went abandoned because of his own inaction.
The phone records clearly show that Mr. Raynor's statement that Charlena Thorpe "[n]ever return my calls" is completely false. Furthermore, as shown in Ex. E, Mr. Raynor would never leave a message if he called the office.
The above evidence clearly show that Mr. Raynor let his application go by abandoned by refusing to retain Charlena Thorpe to respond to the office action. Mr. Raynor also admits (see Ex. H) that he made these false statements because he was "angry at the time [he] wrote the Report and were simply venting".
Charlena Thorpe considers Mr. Raynor's statement to be libelous and is considering her options against Mr. Raynor for his clearly false and defamatory statements.
Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.