FACTS OF THE CASE
1.) Owner of Artmix, Jacqueline Kenneally appropriated six of my registered copyrighted images, without my prior authorization, for inclusion in a Michel Keck Art To-Go kit. Despite my repeated requests to my attorneys, I was not provided with any information regarding the contents of the Michel Keck "Cat" and "Other Animal" kits.
2.) Ms. Kenneally used an unauthorized derivative of my original work, and to date, I have not been informed as to the identity of the individual responsible for creating said derivative, which was utilized for the purpose of advertising the sale of the Michel Keck Art To-Go kits. I did ask my attorneys to obtain this information, to my best knowledge they did not obtain this information for me.
3.) Ms. Kenneally used my registered trademark, "Michel Keck®," without my consent to promote the aforementioned Art To-Go kit, a product with which I have no affiliation and would not wish my brand name to be associated.
4.) There is clear and unambiguous evidence that I have been pursuing two separate claims: one for copyright infringement and another for trademark infringement. It has been proven unequivocally that my attorneys told the court they were defending my Michel Keck® as well as my registered copyrights.
5.) According to screen captures obtained from the Wayback Machine, Artmix was represented as both an adult art studio and a children's art studio. Additionally, at one point, Michel Keck Art Kits were also listed under the 'Adult Paint and Sip' category on Artmix's website.
6.) Artmix engaged in the sale of various other Art To-Go kits as early as 2013, well before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. I believe this fact is pertinent and should be clarified to ensure the accurate and truthful presentation of the case.
7.) I consented to settle this matter out of court for the offered sum of $20,000. At no point did I demand an amount remotely approaching $900,000. The court record unequivocally reflects that my attorneys initially submitted a settlement demand in the amount of $45,000. Any journalist or reporter who persists in misrepresenting these facts is engaging in the defamation of my character and the disparagement of my name.
8.) I emailed my attorney and asked him why he wrote the complaint without coming out and asking for a stated amount (provided below). I was assured this was their procedure and why they are written the way they are. I put good faith reliance in my counsel.
9.) Garcia admitted in court record that it was his client Kenneally who 'backed out' of settling, and Judge Ellison intervened in court and stated that settlement discussions did not need to be discussed.
10.) My attorney, without my knowledge or authorization, agreed with the judge and informed him that the trademark issue did not need to be addressed separately. This decision was made entirely without my knowledge or consent. It is my opinion that this error or omission cost me the initial case, and I did not even discover that it had occurred until June of 2024, when I was able to read the transcripts for the first time. What happened to me—by my attorney failing to properly defend my interests and allowing such a crucial issue to be waived—can only be described as a severe breach of professional duty and a failure to uphold my legal rights.
11.) I decided to appeal the case based on the very strong encouragement of three different attorneys and accepted the offer from The Digital Justice Foundation to handle the appeal. It is important to note that, at the time I consented to their involvement, I was unaware that Mr. Higbee had informed the court that my trademark issue need not be addressed separately.
12.) Higbee and Associates introduced me to The Digital Justice Foundation, the foundation that offered to appeal the case for me.
I do not shy away from asserting my rights, particularly when acting on the informed and repeated legal advice of counsel who have consistently maintained that the court erred in its ruling. My pursuit of justice is not impulsive—it is grounded in sound legal judgment and supported by experienced attorneys who encouraged me to seek appellate review based on the merits of the case. I will not be deterred by the burdens of litigation when advised that the law and facts are on my side. My resolve to defend my intellectual property rights remains firm, regardless of how inconvenient or uncomfortable that truth may be for others.
I believe the crux of this matter lies in my unwavering commitment as an artist to steadfastly defend my intellectual property rights, as well as the rights of my fellow creators. I do not take kindly to mischaracterizations designed to cast a negative light where none should exist. Should such misrepresentations persist, I will not hesitate to defend myself and take necessary steps to protect my reputation and integrity. I am not one to be intimidated or bullied, nor will I tolerate those who fail to uphold their commitments on my behalf from evading accountability.
This stance, though it may ruffle feathers, is based on an undeniable truth: a small artist from Indiana, seeking justice, found herself in opposition to the daughter of a powerful politician. Whether it is liked or not, that is the reality of this situation.
