The following blog post originated as a direct response to the public press release issued by the law firm Greenberg Traurig concerning the federal litigation titled Michel Keck v. Mix Creative Learning Center, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-0430, presided over by the Honorable U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison.
This case centered on the unauthorized commercial exploitation of my copyrighted artwork and the unlawful use of my federally registered trademark, "Michel Keck," through the creation and sale of derivative, low-quality art kits. These kits featured altered versions of my original Boston Terrier artwork and made unauthorized use of my trademarked name—constituting what attorneys at Higbee & Associates confirmed to me were clear violations of federal copyright and trademark laws, and conduct that may potentially be deemed willful infringement under applicable legal standards.
What began as a matter of intellectual property infringement evolved into a deeply troubling issue of legal ethics and professional accountability. The very law firm retained to zealously defend my rights—including most importantly my federally registered trademark—proceeded, without my knowledge, authorization, or informed consent, to waive or relinquish those trademark protections in court filings. That same firm then vigorously encouraged me to pursue an appeal, repeatedly affirming their confidence in the strength of my legal position. Yet, when the opposing party filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and sought to hold my counsel jointly liable for costs associated with the failed appeal, the firm abruptly altered course. In an apparent effort to insulate themselves from financial liability, they turned inward—seeking to distance themselves from the consequences of their own strategic guidance by redirecting responsibility squarely onto me, their client. This series of actions raises serious concerns regarding breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, and the ethical obligations attorneys are bound to uphold under the law.
Willful Infringement or Fair Use?
Let me be very clear: Before Higbee & Associates proceeded with this case on my behalf, my husband and I were told that this was indeed a case of trademark and copyright infringement and perhaps would be seen willful in the court's eyes. My copyrighted works were used without my permission. My trademarked name was attached to commercial products I had no involvement in and never authorized. This was done for someone else’s profit — at the expense of my brand and reputation. The court record proves that Higbee and Associates provided ample documentation to the court that they were defending not only my registered copyrights by my registered trademark Michel Keck. (screen captures of court documents provided below).
What Really Happened
In 2020, I discovered that a website was selling “Michel Keck” art kits for dogs, cats, and other animals — each priced at $40. While most references online only mention the “dog art kits,” the truth is that there were also “cat” and “other animal” kits being sold under my name — none of which I ever authorized.
At the time, I believed this broader scope of infringement, besides just the infringement of my dog images would be addressed through legal channels, but to the best of my knowledge, I do not believe the full extent of the unauthorized use — especially regarding the cat and other animal kits — was ever properly brought to light. We were told they would be.
The Disgraceful Reality Behind the Michel Keck Art Kits Being Sold
My nephew visited the Artmix website intending to purchase one dog kit and one cat kit for us to review. Due to a mix-up, he accidentally ordered two dog kits instead. Before we could rectify the error or examine the cat and other animal kits, the website was taken offline. Although we requested that our legal team obtain records of these kits, to our knowledge, no such information was ever provided.
When the dog kits finally arrived, the contents were shockingly substandard. The art supplies included were of extremely poor quality—cheap materials wholly inadequate to replicate, let alone honor, the vibrant, intricate derivative of my original dog artwork that had been deceptively shown as the “sample” used to market the Michel Keck dog art kits.
This was not a product I would ever create, endorse, or associate with my brand. Instead, what was being distributed under my name was a shoddy, misleading imitation, utterly devoid of the craftsmanship, integrity, or artistic value that define my brand. Quite frankly, it was an embarrassment and a blatant affront to my trademark's reputation.
The two photographs below reveal the entire contents of the cardboard box sent as Michel Keck dog art kits—an undeniable testament to the low-quality and misrepresentation perpetrated under the guise of my name.
The above images are exactly what someone received if they purchased two Michel Keck dog art kits. Cost: $80.00.
It Wasn’t Just Dog Kits…
Below this post, I’ve included screenshots taken from the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, which show that “Michel Keck” art kits were offered not just for dogs, but also for cats and other animals. I create original artwork across all of these categories, and no one had permission to sell these works under my name in any form.
Could it be that additional copyrights of mine were infringed? Perhaps. I should have been able to get the answer to this question. I did not. I had the legal right to obtain information as to whether or not the cat and other animal art kits were infringing upon other works of mine but to the best of my knowledge this information was not obtained on my behalf or if it was, it was not presented to me.
The Legal Reality: Trademark Rights and the Fight to Protect Michel Keck®
The six artworks featured in the kits are registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. While copyright protection exists from the moment a work is created, registration grants artists enhanced legal rights — including the ability to seek statutory damages and attorneys' fees in infringement cases.
Additionally, the name “Michel Keck” is a federally registered trademark. The unauthorized use of my name in connection with these art kits violates trademark law by creating confusion about the origin and sponsorship of the product. These were facts told to us by Higbee and Associates and, by court record, you can see that same information they told my husband and I that they believed to be fact, they also shared with the court. (all court documents below).
As an artist and business owner, I made the deliberate and necessary decision to secure my intellectual property by registering two trademarks: Michel Keck® and KECK. These are not just names; they represent years of creative labor, brand recognition, and a standard of quality that I have built through my original works.
Why I Registered My Trademarks
The Michel Keck® trademark was registered specifically to protect my brand name from being used without my permission. Over time, individuals and businesses had begun exploiting my trademark—using it in keyword advertising and unauthorized product listings to drive traffic to their own websites. That kind of unauthorized use not only misleads the public, but it directly undermines the trust I’ve cultivated with collectors, clients, and fans of my work. My trademark was my shield against that. Well, I was told by the USPTO that it would be.
Separately, I also registered KECK, my signature mark used in signing my artwork. This second trademark protects against counterfeit works falsely attributed to me. Both trademarks are legally distinct and serve different but equally important protective purposes. You can see my trademark registrations below, and you can see that they have their own unique registration numbers to each. This is important because Higbee & Associates clearly provided the court with clear documentation, in court record, that I was in that court to defend my Michel Keck trademark. (court documents provided below).
Trademark Integrity Matters: The Seriousness of Misuse and Misrepresentation
As the sole owner of the federally registered trademark Michel Keck®, I hold the exclusive legal right to control how my registered mark is used in commerce. I did not, and would never, authorize my trademark to be attached to any product that does not meet the standards I’ve established for my brand. Trademark law exists to protect creators like myself from precisely this kind of unauthorized and misleading use.
Under U.S. trademark law, owners have both the right and responsibility to ensure their mark is not used in connection with goods or services that could damage the brand’s reputation, create consumer confusion, or imply endorsement where none exists. That obligation is not just legal—it is fundamental to protecting the distinctiveness and value of a trademark.
From the outset of this case, Higbee & Associates made it abundantly clear, with documents filed in court, that they were defending the Michel Keck® trademark. This is supported by court filings and transcript excerpts, all of which reference my active enforcement of my rights under U.S. Trademark Registration No. 5280022. (see all court documents directly below).
Even more troubling, court records reveal a deeply disturbing and ethically questionable contradiction: despite having previously asserted—both to me, my husband, and the court—that my trademark infringement claim was not only valid but willful in nature, my own attorneys later represented to the presiding judge that no separate ruling on the trademark claim was necessary. This waiver was not made proactively, but only after the judge directly inquired whether he was required to issue a ruling on the trademark issue—at which point my counsel affirmatively stated that no such ruling was needed. This unilateral concession was made without my knowledge, without my informed consent, and in direct contradiction to the legal position they had previously advanced. This abrupt reversal not only nullified the protections of my federally registered trademark but also calls into question the integrity of the legal representation I received. The implications of this action are profound, raising substantial concerns regarding professional responsibility, fiduciary duty, and whether my counsel prioritized their own exposure over their obligation to zealously defend the rights of their client. The record, in all its clarity, speaks for itself.
Moreover, I must state—without hesitation and with absolute clarity—my outrage at how my federally registered trademark, Michel Keck®, was deliberately mischaracterized during court proceedings.
The facts were clear. The documents were in the record. My trademark claim was never about the stylized signature within the artwork. It was about the unauthorized commercial use of my registered name-brand, Michel Keck®, used to market and sell art kits without my consent. That is the claim my own attorneys brought. That is what was in the pleadings. That is what was supported by federal law and the USPTO.
And yet—opposing counsel, in an aggressive and misleading attempt to protect his client, fabricated a false narrative, one that had no basis in the actual filings or facts. He pretended the issue was my signature embedded in the images—something entirely different and legally distinct from the trademark at issue. He intentionally diverted the court’s attention away from the actual infringement, and the court went along with it, despite the fact that the truth was already clearly established in the record.
But what is most appalling—and I say this with every bit of the gravity it deserves—is that my own attorney abandoned my trademark claim entirely. Without my knowledge. Without my consent. He didn’t defend it. He didn’t correct the false narrative. He didn’t just drop the ball—he handed the opposing side a win by default, by adopting their false framing and allowing my valid federal trademark claim to be wiped off the table without a fight.
Let’s be honest about what that is: it is not a mistake. It is betrayal. And it allowed the opposing side’s misrepresentations to become the framework the court relied on—even though they were 100% false and directly contradicted by the court’s own documents.
This isn’t just a matter of legal strategy. It’s not a close call. It is a failure of representation, a distortion of the truth, and a collapse of justice at the most fundamental level.
The facts, the filings, and the transcripts are not in dispute. I will continue to present these black-and-white truths, because the integrity of a trademark—and the legal protections it provides—must be respected, not ignored.
another section of a portion of the transcript that makes it clear my trademark was being used in the title of the products sold on Kenneally's site was, "Michel Keck".
Any assertions made by Garcia or Judge Ellison suggesting that this case deviates from the clear and unequivocal information submitted to the court is deeply concerning to me. Further, another section of the transcript raises significant doubts as to why my attorney would inform the judge that there was no need to issue a separate ruling on my trademark issue. This statement is directly contradicted by another attorney from his firm, as evidenced in the transcript below, where it is clearly stated that they have a distinct claim for trademark infringement, separate from the claim for copyright infringement. This presents indisputable, black-and-white proof. The question remains: what transpired here?
It is well established in the court record of this case that there was a claim for both the unauthorized use of my registered copyrights and the unauthorized use of my registered trademark, Michel Keck.
Let me state this as plainly and as strongly as possible:
I was never told—at any point during the litigation or after the judgment—that my attorney had informed the court that it did not need to rule on my trademark claim.
The sole reason I became aware of this critical development was due to a subsequent review of the official court transcripts, which were provided to me months after the conclusion of the trial proceedings by my newly retained appellate counsel during preparation for the appeal, upon my demand to see them. Higbee and Associates never provided me with this information. It was only upon reading the verbatim transcript of the proceedings that I discovered—for the first time in June of 2024—that my former trial attorney had unilaterally waived my trademark infringement claim in open court. This waiver was made entirely without my knowledge, authorization, or informed consent, and it stood in direct conflict with the legal strategy I had been led to believe was actively being pursued on my behalf. The revelation was not only shocking but indicative of a profound breakdown in attorney-client communication and duty.
This was not a mistake I was consulted on. It was not a judgment call I agreed to. It was a material, unauthorized act that stripped me of my right to have my trademark claim heard and ruled upon in a court of law.
In the court transcript, the judge asked, “So I don’t need to deal with something for the trademark?” To which my attorney, Mr. Higbee, responded: “Correct.”
That single word—“Correct”—effectively erased my active, federally registered trademark claim from the case without my knowledge, permission, or informed consent.
The legal and ethical breach here is not minor. Trademark rights are enforceable federal property rights, and the abandonment of such rights without a client's knowledge is a serious breach of professional duty. The role of legal counsel is to advocate, to protect, and to act with fidelity to the client’s express interests and objectives. My attorney did the opposite.
This was a fundamental betrayal of the attorney-client relationship. It left my trademark unprotected, my name exposed to unauthorized commercial use, and denied me my day in court on a core issue I hired counsel to defend, and that they promised they would be defending.
I was given legal opinions from other attorneys, all of whom agree that this never should have happened. A client cannot waive a legal claim they weren’t even told was being waived. It is now up to me to bring this truth to light—and to ensure the full, accurate, and indisputable record of what occurred is made public.
It is important to note that the Honorable Judge Keith Ellison expressly declined to impose legal responsibility upon Higbee and Associates for the motion seeking attorney’s fees, notwithstanding the fact that opposing counsel expressly requested that such liability be extended to them in connection with their alleged role in the underlying litigation.
Unauthorized Derivative Works And Counsel's Failure To Address
The screen captures below unequivocally demonstrate an unauthorized derivative work based on my original Boston Terrier artwork. This derivative was used without my permission to promote and commercially distribute the unauthorized Michel Keck art kits.
Such use constitutes a clear violation of my exclusive rights under copyright law, specifically my right to control derivative works created from my original, protected expression.
The derivative work depicted below was created and utilized without my knowledge, consent, or authorization. This derivative was used to sell the Michel Keck Dog-to-Go Kit on the Artmix website, thereby constituting an unauthorized commercial exploitation of my original artistic expression.
Despite my repeated requests, my legal counsel, to the best of my knowledge, failed to adequately address or pursue the issue of this unauthorized derivative work on my behalf, even though this was an issue we discussed with attorney from Higbee & Associates before we agreed to let them take the case. Moreover, I have been unable to ascertain the identity of the individual or entity responsible for creating this infringing derivative, despite specifically instructing my attorney to obtain such information. To this date May 27th 2025 we have not been told who the artist is that created the derivative that was used to market the "Michel Keck dog art kits" that were sold on the Artmix website.
Presented here is a side-by-side comparison: my original Boston Terrier artwork on the left, juxtaposed with the unauthorized derivative on the right, which was employed in the promotion and sale of the infringing art kits.
The unauthorized use of my registered trademark, Michel Keck®, in conjunction with derivative works that closely emulate the distinctive elements of my artistic style, constitutes a clear violation of both trademark and copyright law. Such conduct undermines the core function of a trademark—to identify the source of goods and assure consistent quality—by misleading consumers into believing I endorsed or created these unauthorized kits. This not only erodes brand integrity and dilutes the mark’s distinctiveness, but also causes irreparable harm through consumer confusion, loss of control over quality, and reputational damage. The failure to adequately enforce and protect these rights compromises the legal protections afforded to trademark holders and jeopardizes the very foundation upon which intellectual property ownership rests.
Repeated Mischaracterization of Facts: Omission of facts distorts the full scope of the Artmix's operations.
As evidenced by archived screenshots and court filings shown below, Artmix—operated by Jacqueline Kenneally—repeatedly misrepresented the nature and scope of its commercial activities, materially impacting the integrity of the judicial proceedings involving my intellectual property.
Contrary to the defendant’s courtroom characterizations, Artmix was not an exclusively children’s art studio. Archival evidence, preserved through The Wayback Machine after the studio's online store was deactivated, clearly demonstrates that Artmix offered adult-focused programs, including "Paint and Wine Sip" events, adult art memberships, and adult classes. Critically, the infringing Michel Keck Art Kits To Go were marketed within these adult-targeted categories, including prominently within the “Adult Paint and Wine Sip” section of their Shopify storefront.
This evidence directly contradicts the narrative presented in court, revealing a calculated misrepresentation designed to downplay the studio’s commercial reach and shift judicial perception. Such omissions are not only misleading—they undermine the factual basis upon which legal decisions were made and conceal the true extent of the unauthorized exploitation of my intellectual property.
Facts matter.
Misstating the Timeline: Art Kits to Go Pre-Date the Pandemic
Substantial evidence establishes that Artmix had been commercially selling “art kits to go” as early as 2013—well before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. This fact is clearly documented through archived website records. Nevertheless, the court proceedings repeatedly emphasized the pandemic as the catalyst for these commercial activities.
This assertion is not only factually incorrect, but it also misrepresents the longstanding and for-profit nature of these offerings. The narrative advanced in court suggested that these art to go kits were an emergency measure during a global crisis. But there is internet archived record that there were sales of art to go kits as a commercial practice that had existed for nearly a decade.
By omitting these critical facts, the record submitted to the court failed to accurately represent the full scope of Artmix’s business operations. This misrepresentation materially impacts the legal and factual context in which my copyrighted and trademarked work was used—without my knowledge or consent.
This is not a minor discrepancy. It is a serious distortion with broad implications for how courts and legal systems interpret and enforce intellectual property rights. When the truth is obscured, the ability of creators to protect their work under the law is fundamentally undermined.
-------------------------------------------------
and again....
The internet archives of websites show that as far back as 2013 Artmix has sold art kits to go.
the close-up is a better shot of the year, 2013.
and the following screen capture shows further information regarding adult art classes using the artwork of other artists from back to 2018, also pre Covid/pandemic.
Clear documentary evidence shows Artmix was a commercial enterprise—serving both adults and children—engaged in unauthorized use of my trademarked and copyrighted works years before the pandemic. The court’s reliance on an incomplete narrative constitutes a serious distortion with direct consequences for the enforcement of intellectual property rights.
Facts matter.
Clarification of Settlement Negotiations
The court record inaccurately attributes the failure to settle this case to my actions. Contrary to these assertions, opposing counsel, Mr. Garcia, acknowledged that his client, Ms. Kenneally, withdrew from settlement discussions. Specifically, during proceedings, Mr. Garcia stated:
GARCIA: "We've never been able to work a settlement. And whenever we did that one time early in the case, Ms. Kenneally, you know, backed out. We wanted a non-disparagement -- and Judge Ellison (THE COURT) intervened and said..
THE COURT: "Let's not get into settlement discussions."
Despite this admission, the court record repeatedly suggests that I was the impediment to settlement, creating a misleading narrative.
Furthermore, after agreeing to an initial settlement offer of $20,000, I awaited the terms for six weeks. Upon receipt, I requested a minor modification to the disparagement clause. In response, I was presented with a revised offer of $10,000, contingent upon my acceptance by 4 p.m. that day. This ultimatum was accompanied by a threat to withdraw the offer entirely if not accepted.
Additionally, I was undergoing a personal crisis, with my father in the final stages of dementia, a fact known to all my attorneys. Despite this, I was pressured to make a decision under duress, further complicating the settlement process.
Despite the clear evidence above, the court record paints a very different picture. It was stated repeatedly that I, as the defendant, was the one being unreasonable—suggesting that I could have avoided legal fees by simply settling, when in fact, I never acted unreasonably.
Contrary to assertions made in court records, the failure to settle this matter out of court was not due to any refusal or unreasonableness on my part. A $20,000 settlement was initially agreed upon. I waited six weeks for formal terms, and upon receipt, I requested a single, reasonable modification: to limit the non-disparagement clause to two years.
In response, opposing counsel unilaterally reduced the offer by 50%, of the already agreed upon amount of $20,000.00, down to only $10,000.00 payment if they were to have to drop the disparagement clause down the small ask of 2 years. I received an issued an ultimatum demanding acceptance by 4 p.m. that same day—under threat that all offers would be withdrawn.
This occurred while I was managing a documented and severe family crisis—my father's terminal illness—which was known to all my attorneys involved.
Despite this, the court record mischaracterizes the breakdown of negotiations as my fault. This is demonstrably false. The decision to abandon settlement discussions originated from the opposing party.
Facts matter.
Post-Judgment Notice and Impending Motion for Attorney’s Fees
At the conclusion of the litigation, I was notified via email—sent to an outdated account not used by my attorneys with me for over two years—that the presiding judge ruled against my willful infringement claim asserted against Jacqueline Kenneally and Artmix. The court dismissed the claim on the basis of “fair use.” It was at this time Higbee and Associates first started convincing me to appeal the case.
Additionally, I was informed that the opposing party had filed a request for leave to pursue a motion for attorney’s fees, which the court has authorized. Should this motion succeed, Jacqueline Kenneally may seek to recover attorney’s fees from me, totaling approximately $150,000. This potential financial liability imposes a significant and severe burden.
(UPDATE: Judge Ellison ordered that I pay $102,000.00 to Ms. Kenneally for attorney fees for Higbee and Associates loss of my initial case, a case in which my trademark rights were thrown out of court without my knowledge or authorization, and there is a motion against me, to pay over $110,000.00 for the loss of the appeal case).
(UPDATE: 5-27-2025 - Opposing counsel actually asked the federal court to hold the attorneys I had in the initial case, and my appeal attorney also jointly responsible for attorney fees incurred from The Digital Justice Foundation's loss of the appeal. I will detail everything that has happened to me as a result of this in another blog post).
Unpacking the Controversial Fair Use Ruling: Attorneys & Artists Speak Out
To review the full factual account of how and why multiple attorneys strongly advised and encouraged the filing of an appeal in this matter—and to examine firsthand the powerful commentary from professional artists regarding the court’s controversial fair use ruling—please continue reading here.
Intellectual Property Infringement Is Not Frivolous — It's Ongoing Harm
To those who question the seriousness with which I regard intellectual property infringement, let the record reflect: within mere hours of conducting my own search, I identified multiple instances, ongoing instances of unauthorized use of my copyrighted works.
The notion that such infringements are trivial or that enforcement actions are somehow unworthy of adjudication in the federal court system is categorically false. Artists who rely on their intellectual property for their livelihood understand that copyright and trademark violations are not abstract legal concepts—they are real and ongoing harms with tangible economic and reputational consequences. Assertions to the contrary reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the gravity and scope of intellectual property law.
Michel Keck Art In The Teacher's Classroom
For over a decade, I have consistently expressed—both publicly and privately—my deep appreciation for educators who contact me to ask if they can use my work to inspire students in non-commercial, classroom settings. Such use aligns with the core values of educational fair use. {read more here / students photos}.
However, there is a critical legal distinction between this form of educational engagement and the unauthorized commercial exploitation of my registered trademark. The former is lawful and commendable; the latter constitutes trademark infringement, as it involves the unauthorized use of my mark in connection with the sale of goods for profit, without my consent.
©Michel Keck. All Rights Reserved. Michel Keck® is a registered trademark.
Comments
I am proud of you for saying something to defend yourself because I know alot of people are trying to make you afraid to speak up for yourself right now. You have every right to defend yourself and don’t forget it! The law isn’t for innocent people anymore it is for the people who have the most power. I raised you right and to do the right things too bad other mothers didn’t do the same.
While I have no problem with teaching a style. There is so much overlap today. It’s difficult to believe that using and profiting off of your name and prints isn’t illegal. It certainly should be challenged. I teach kids art and we will often do projects on other artists styles. I could never imagine how this would be okay. I’m sorry this happened to you. I’m not surprised someone did this. I am surprised how it played out.
There is so much evidence here! The outrage is the lack of justice. What becomes of citizens when they do not have the protection of the court? This story is so much bigger than stolen artwork – this is about the means by which the system controls our actions and punishes dissent.
Reading this, I feel the outrage. Having met you, I also understand the wounds that you have suffered in this fight.