Slashdot Mirror


Woman Trademarks Name and Threatens Sites Using It

An anonymous reader writes "Be careful mentioning Dr. Ann De Wees Allen. She's made it clear that she's trademarked her name and using it is 'illegal... without prior written permission.' She even lists out the names of offenders and shows you the cease-and-desist letter she sends them. And, especially don't copy any of the text on her website, because she's using a bit of javascript that will warn you 'Copyright Protect!' if you right click on a link."

37 of 273 comments (clear)

  1. Worthless Trademark by Sonny+Yatsen · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's a common misconception that a trademark registration gives you some sort of proprietary right over the mark. People think that it'll allow them to stop anyone from even mentioning the mark.

    But the problem for them is that a trademark is not designed to give them property rights, but designed to prevent the public from being mislead about the origins of a product. In order to infringe a trademark, the public must have a likelihood of confusion as to which product they're buying or using. So, if a company infringes claims to be Dr. Ann De Wees Allen's company and starts selling a competing product, then she'd have a case against them. She has absolutely no case against someone just mentioning her name off-hand. My post mentioning "Dr. Ann De Wees Allen" does not create any confusion in the person reading my post that somehow my post is actually from "Dr. Ann De Wees Allen". She's got a worthless trademark.

    The funny thing is that she's actually got a fairly well known IP firm to prosecute the trademark, so she must've spent at least several thousand dollars in getting this worthless trademark registration. I wonder if the firm warned her that the mark is useless and she persisted anyway, or if the firm omitted the worthless nature of the mark to her.

    On a sidenote, for hilarity's sake, let's refer to her as "She Who Cannot Be Named."

    --
    My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
    1. Re:Worthless Trademark by Sonny+Yatsen · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=76116199 ---- Here's a link to her trademark registration, by the way.

      --
      My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
    2. Re:Worthless Trademark by mooingyak · · Score: 2, Funny

      my post is actually from "Dr. Ann De Wees Allen"

      Just thought I'd point out you actually said that.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    3. Re:Worthless Trademark by julesh · · Score: 5, Informative

      But the problem for them is that a trademark is not designed to give them property rights, but designed to prevent the public from being mislead about the origins of a product

      Looking at the list of sites that have apparently been sent notices of infringement, it is worth noting that this is precisely what they were doing. These sites were basically all people who were selling supposed fitness-improving supplements (e.g. protein drinks, that kind of stuff), one of which She Who Must Not Be Named apparently invented, and seemed to be using her name to indicate that she was somehow involved with their businesses when (it appears) she wasn't.

      For instance, this site appears to sell a drink made with her formulation. However, according to her own site she has not licensed that formulation to them, and nor are they in any way associated with her.

      It seems to me that this is an entirely valid use of trademark law. Yes, some of the language on her site is a little strong, but it seems (at least as long as she isn't outright lying about this) that the people receiving the takedown notices are deserving of them.

    4. Re:Worthless Trademark by sortadan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Heh, the actual owner of the trademark is 'NUTRILAB CORPORATION, INC.'. I assume she is part or full owner, but since it's a corp she could be voted out at a board meeting or sell her stake, at which point (by their logic) she could no longer use her own name without violating the trademark.

    5. Re:Worthless Trademark by Fnkmaster · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, I mean, why let something like logic get in the way of some good Slashdot nerdrage?

      In any case, I think people here are worked up in part because they think she's a quack and there's no medical science behind what she's selling, which is almost surely true. But that's a failure of the FDA and FTC and the powers vested in them by Congress, not of trademark law.

      While this sounds like a somewhat aggressive use of trademark law, if she's really just preventing people from falsely creating the impression that they are selling endorsed or licensed products or otherwise making use of her name to compete against her own products, I don't see anything worth nerdraging about from a trademark perspective.

      I hate quacks as much as the next geek, but we should hate them because they reject science and mislead the public, rather than that they are enforcing trademarks aggressively.

    6. Re:Worthless Trademark by DrAnnDeWeesAllen · · Score: 3, Funny

      Me-Who-Cannot-Be-Named!

    7. Re:Worthless Trademark by gila_monster · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's modded funny, but it's 100% correct. That happened to Gary Fisher (of bicycling fame) some years ago. He's a bit annoyed that he can't get he company to quit putting his name on bikes he thinks aren't that good.

      --
      Ad luna, Alicia! Ad luna!
    8. Re:Worthless Trademark by uglyduckling · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nah, what they're doing is the equivalent of saying "Mono is based upon .net, which was developed by Microsoft (TM)". That's not the same as violating a trademark, it's just stating a fact.

    9. Re:Worthless Trademark by MikaelC · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I did a quick search for this Nutrilab Corp.

      Take a look at the following sites, that all link to each other, and revolves about dr. Ann:

      http://www.anndeweesallen.com/ [ip:64.106.155.30]
      http://www.nanoscienceinstitute.com/ [ip:64.106.155.30]
      http://www.glycemic.com/ [ip:64.106.155.30]
      http://www.nutrilabusa.com/ [ip:64.106.155.30]
      http://www.genefoundation.com/ [ip:64.106.155.30]
      http://www.ediblecomputerchips.com/ [ip:64.106.155.30]
      http://www.trutinadulcem.com/ [ip:64.106.155.30]


      Notice anything peculiar about the IP-number?

    10. Re:Worthless Trademark by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Informative

      You don't even need to look at the IP's, just look at the sites themselves. Same template used for all of them. Same grandiose claims with no actual evidence or data.

      I think it's safe to say that Dr. Ann de Wees Allen is a quack. On the other hand, I can't tell what it is, exactly, that she's selling .... so I can't honestly call Ann de Wees Allen a fraud. But I can say with absolute certainty say that Dr. Ann de Wees Allen is definitely a quack.

    11. Re:Worthless Trademark by InsaneProcessor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you do more digging, you will find that this is just a diet product scam operation that they are trying to mainstream to con more of the public.

      --

      Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
    12. Re:Worthless Trademark by Sique · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Another famous case once lead to the "Audi" brand.

      The founder of Audi, August Horch, was voted out of the board of his former company, Horch of Zwickau. So for his next company, he translated his name from German (Horch! = Hear!) to Latin, and thus Audi was born.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
  2. So, I guess now by Ecuador · · Score: 3, Funny

    we can't just type "Dr. Ann De Wees Allen is a hoot", we have to type "Dr. Ann De Wees Allen(TM) is a hoot" ?

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:So, I guess now by davmoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Dr. Ann De Wees Allen is a blathering idiot" would be more correct. She'll probably get her own talk show and then run for President in 2012.

      --
      I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
  3. hmm by Essequemodeia · · Score: 2, Informative

    My friend Sony Peterson told me this kind of thing is starting to gain traction.

  4. Skinny "Science" by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Informative

    She has two patents that appear to show both what is wrong with America's diet mentality and the patent system all at once.

    She's basically pimping out arginine as a panacea (from increased sexual performance to weight-loss). Just read about her wondrous achievements on Skinny Science Corporation: A Leading Biomedical Research Company. Never have I seen the word "science" so abused and raped by words around it. And it doesn't stop there. Google her name or "skinny science" and you're left with a plethora of bullshit sites with her vapid stare hawking complete medical farces designed to prey on the obese. Surprise surprise, she wants it to be illegal for you to talk about her and these sites.

    Does anybody know how she got the prefix of "Dr."?

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Skinny "Science" by julesh · · Score: 2, Informative

      Does anybody know how she got the prefix of "Dr."?

      According to the bio on her web site, she's a "Board Certified Doctor of Naturopathy". This appears to mean she has completed a level of education equivalent to a doctorate in most other fields, although she doesn't state where she received the qualification.

    2. Re:Skinny "Science" by Improv · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately, in the US we don't tend to protect terms very much - this is an area where we don't get the nuances of wanting political or personal expression to be relatively unconstrained versus the desire to ensure honesty in certain areas worked out correctly. Chances are somebody made up a board (maybe her?) and declared her to be a doctor - I suspect that using the title of doctor in that way is legal in most states.

      I think occasionally one finds the term "Engineer" protected by law.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    3. Re:Skinny "Science" by daveime · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, but he's a Doctor of Everything. She's a Doctor of Nothing.

      (Slashdot idly passing the time away. It's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment. Hah).

  5. Javascript "Copyright Protect" doesn't do much by pruss · · Score: 2, Funny

    I just typed ctrl-a, ctrl-c, and, poof!, all of the text of the page was in my clipboard. :-)

  6. This is nothing new by SpuriousLogic · · Score: 2, Informative

    All kinds of people have tried this in the past, almost always in order to control negative information from being published about them. However, the courts have ALWAYS ruled that a person's name is fair use. She (just like the thousands before her), won't get anywhere with this. Even if a proper name was not fair use, having a trademark does not prevent people from talking about the trademark. At the most, it would prevent someone form using her trademark to infringe on her IP (e.g. counterfeiting). Basically, she's an idiot.

  7. Who infringes: mother or child? by Palestrina · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Mother names new born daughter "Ann de Wees Allen". Is this trademark infringement? By mother? Child? Or does it require a "Dr."? If so, who infringes, the PhD student? Or the university?

    I think it is bad, as a matter of public policy, to allow trademarks on names. Otherwise I could be sued, since my name is Bob Weir.

    1. Re:Who infringes: mother or child? by vtcodger · · Score: 2, Informative

      ***I think it is bad, as a matter of public policy, to allow trademarks on names.***

      Not really. Where the name is a genuine product like, say Jenny Craig, trademarking offers some protection against folks marketing their own "Jenny Craig" weight loss products unrelated to the original. I don't see a public policy problem with that.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    2. Re:Who infringes: mother or child? by canajin56 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Being famous only affects whether or not it qualifies for trademark dilution law. Trademark dilution protects you from non-competing uses of your trademark, if your trademark is famous enough that the trademark is associated with your product and nothing else. eBay makes you think of the eBay auction site and nothing else. Pepsi makes you think of the drink, not of anything else. On the other hand, while Apple might make you think of computers, there are many other trademark holders who use Apple in their own markets. So, if some new company starts selling "Apple" stuff they are free as long as it is a different market than existing "Apple" companies. But, you can't make eBay apparel, as that "dilutes" the brand, because the brand would no longer identify one, and only one, product. This is pretty much global, most countries have basically the same law. While, even if your name was "George McDonald", you cannot open a McDonald's restaurant you can probably open a "McDonald's Plumbing". (Probably). Wouldn't protect you from being sued, but you would have the right! Same with if your name is, I don't know, Gerald Ford, you're allowed to call yourself Ford, you're allowed to sell things under the name Ford, you just couldn't sell cars.

      However, whether you're allowed to sell a product under a trademark name, has nothing to do with being able to use it. Even well-known brands that identify a unique source cannot prevent you from using their trademarked name as a name. It would be beyond absurd to have Ford say "You cannot use the name of our company or our car in your consumer reports magazine, unless the review is sufficiently positive" and just block all negative reviews unless they say "A certain car from some manufacturer". That's just stupid (doesn't mean nobody has tried though). So, the thought that a person could ever get in trouble for having the same name is just dumb. Only if they sell a competing product under their own name.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  8. Ellie K by Ellie+K · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'd noticed that Chris Messina, the Open ID advocate and recent or current Google employee, had also trademarked his name recently. He displays it that way on internet profile pages. So far it has mostly been an inconvenience to me, in using the correct mark-up to designate TM whenever I quote him for some OAuth or OpenID article. I'd wondered why he possibly would want to trademark his name. He runs it all together as "chrismessina" or the character decimal code: chrismessina&amp#8482; if I remembered the mark-up, of course!

    --
    tempus fugit
  9. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  10. My Name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't want to protect my name. She'll be screaming it later.

    1. Re:My Name... by monkeySauce · · Score: 2, Informative

      I would be incredibly turned off if a girl started screaming "Oh, Anonymous Coward!" while we were going at it.

  11. I think she's about to learn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...the meaning of the phrase "Streisand effect" :)

  12. NoScript just fucked Dr. Ann De Wees Allen by Montezumaa · · Score: 2, Funny

    Taken from www.anndeweesallen.com :

    "Known in the industry as the “Alpha Scientist,” Dr. Allen is in the forefront of scientific breakthroughs, including Nanotechnology, NanoMolecules, Quantum Chocolate, Genetic polymorphisms in Dysregulated Arginine Metabolism, Sickle Cell Polymorphisms, Thalassemia, Blind Amino Acid Riders, L-Arginine Isoform Pathways, and Edible Computer Chips."

    Feel free to sue me, bitch, as I have no money nor do I have any property of value. Slashdot is covered under Safe Harbor laws.

  13. Illegal? by Andy+Smith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    She says that using her name would be "illegal". That implies criminal. Isn't trademark infringement a civil matter?

    1. Re:Illegal? by julesh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      She says that using her name would be "illegal". That implies criminal. Isn't trademark infringement a civil matter?

      According to dictionary.com, the distinction between "illegal" and "criminal" is that something is illegal if it is in violation of any statute, but criminal if it is in violation of a penal statute.

      So, no, "illegal" does not imply "criminal": criminal is a strict subset of illegal.

  14. The C&D Letter by Dayofswords · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is the last sentence in the C&D letter she sends:

    Your anticipated cooperation is anticipated.

    --
    Someday we'll hit the human carrying capacity. And the band will just play on.
  15. Wrong Mark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The parent post raises a good point but identifies the wrong problem.
     
    Fair use is a defense to infringement, and the only uses I see on agesolutions.com appear to be truthful and factual, relating to Dr. Named's US Patent No. 6608109 expiring no later than 11/20/2011. Indeed, rather than considering this "an entirely valid use of trademark law," I'd see it as an egregious example of bad-faith, improper use of trademark law. Dr. Named's company doesn't appear to market the product with the mark as a brand as such- they seem to use ARGMATRIX- so there's little doubt they registered their mark to bully competitors.
     
    The problem for agesolutions.com is that they infringe an entirely different mark: L-ARGININE M2. At least according to Dr. Named, "M2" has no significance in the industry or with respect to the product, and as such, it's protectable.

  16. Re:Noscript? by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 2, Funny

    Jeff replied, "Then why can't you swallow?"

    Jeff, buddy, I've been asking my wife the same thing for years.

    --
    "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book