Post #11: RO FILING: “The Opportunity for Good” from the Named Social Media Accounts

 (Original post in Lipstick Alley) 

The RO Hearing is tomorrow so I thought I would write about one of the posts at issue that Grant included as her evidence of being harassed to the point of feeling threatened and afraid.

The ability to get a Restraining Order against someone relies on how California defines harassment. The part of the code that appeals to me is where it says “and serves no legitimate purpose.” Essentially, for the online posts, you are making them for no other reason than to threaten, intimidate and harass the person who is targeted.

In looking at the RO filing, I read the posts at issue that were included as Exhibits to Grant’s Declaration – these were the posts that Grant personally chose, those that served no legitimate purpose except to threaten and make her afraid.

(Note: SISS also included posts at issue as Exhibits but they were a only a subset of Grant’s, nothing new or different.)

The post at issue below caught my attention when I read it because it involved an innocent child.

(Note: whitewitch2019 has 9 posts in total that Grant included in her Exhibits – some are reposts where the original account is not named in the filing or posts that do not have any mention of Grant in them. I will show each of them in a later post.)

A stolen tombstone? Kept for 11 years? Put on t-shirts to make money?

I dismissed these claims as being false, or at least taken out of context. It’s common to see inflammatory statements on the Internet. People post them to begin dialogue, find answers, and follow threads to what else is out there worth looking into. It’s a way we learn and grow using our thoughts and our emotions.

Frankly, I could not wrap my mind around why Grant would choose this post to define how she feels threatened and afraid. I assumed the claims were patently false and that is why she included this post.

The phrase, “Desecration of the resting place of the dead in many religions means the dead are not at peace,” struck me as poignant and deserving of attention because our world today is so divided by religion.

So I gave this post my attention.

To me, the purpose of this post was to touch a chord in people to be disturbed by the lack of compassion displayed by Grant towards baby Lena and anyone who has ever suffered the death of a child. Perhaps the person making the post had a tragedy in their life and was deeply offended at the mere thought of these events.

And I found the judgments of Grant’s actions in this post are accurate. My feelings are more mild but nonetheless affected and my morals affronted.

I am not going to split hairs on details – anyone can listen to Grant in, “Taking Lena Home” where Grant provides the proof that the tombstone was stolen and she kept it for 11 years -- Taking Lena Home.

This post at issue thanked rosescented1 for the photo so I checked out that Instagram account for more material on the veracity of the claim about the t-shirts to make money.

(Note: I found rosescented1 to have diverse and useful/sometimes not-useful information layered with spurts of emotion and peppered with pithy insults and dark humor. I will write a post on her account as it applies to the RO filing soon.)

The rosecented1 account led me to look to the United States Patent and Trademark Office for Serial number 77753946, which is Grant’s file for her stylized LOVE symbol –

Trademark Status & Document Retrieval

I looked in the public trademark file to get a general idea of how Grant conducts business since she appears to funnel everything through her private for-profit grantLove project.

GrantLOVE project is a private business so there is no money trail. I have no idea how much money Grant made from selling t-shirts with baby Lena’s tombstone on it or what she did with the money. This is not illegal or fraud on Grant’s part.

I do find it tasteless and insincere to lack transparency for funds that were generated using Grant’s own PR where she posed herself as the benevolent caretaker of baby Lena’s tombstone.

I did NOT think I was going to find baby Lena’s t-shirt information in a trademark file.

Trademarks are for commerce – they increase value and allow a company or person to charge more money for their product – and explicitly guard an investment by preventing anyone else from making money off of the “trademarked product.” It’s the business equivalent of a dog marking their territory.


Below is from Grant's file showing dates she used her trademarked merchandise in commerce.

When I clicked on the specimen file links, expecting to see a t-shirt with Grant’s love mark, I was upset and offended to see a t-shirt with baby Lena’s tombstone on it. Both files had baby Lena’s t-shirt as a representation of how the trademark was being used in commerce. This gives the impression that Grant, not a family member of Lena, holds a trademark on her tombstone.

This prompted me to write an email inquiry to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to get clarification and some semblance of an explanation as to how and why this occurred. All consumers have a right to know what business practices are being used or exploited to sell products and how the USPTO may be contributing to any issues.

Grant's trademark file did not contain any commerce use of the actual trademark – the stylized love logo – except as a hangtag to put on merchandise.

The hangtag is confusing; shouldn’t it only be used in conjunction with merchandise that is trademarked – in this example a t-shirt with the love logo on it?

The other category that Grant has the trademarked love logo for is shopping bags. The specimen file links for the shopping bags were also not for the love logo -- but for Born to Love Not to Hate.

Thus, I also included a paragraph regarding Antigone as a commerce use for the stylized love logo. Again, because this is in the trademark file, it gives the impression that Grant, not a descendent of Sophocles, holds a trademark on a famous line in his Greek play.

It has been almost 60 days and I have not received a response back but find this understandable with Covid-19 and the U.S. election. I will check back in 90 days.

In the meantime, any consumer is deserving of clarification on policies and procedures of a federal agency that registers trademarks based on the commerce clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3).

I invite anyone to write an email to the USPTO and question them in regard to this file and any other file you deem relevant to ensure their policies are not so ambiguous or flawed as to lead to consumer ethics questions and/or possible consumer fraud. 

Not all countries allow public or private criticism of their governmental agencies and institutions.

I know this to be true from being a veteran of the US Navy and the Iraq war.

It is a right we have in the US that we should not take for granted.


I consider exercising this right to question a federal agency and demand answers to possible questionable polices and practices to be “the opportunity for good” that came about from this post at issue by whitewitch2019.


For Grant, "the opportunity for good" here may be to understand that criticism is a perception that others hold about us and it can be valuable for monitoring self-awareness and for cultivating empathy.