Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Woman Trademarks Name and Threatens Sites Using It

Posted by samzenpus on from the keep-my-name-out-of-your-mouth dept.

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."

15 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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

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

      Me-Who-Cannot-Be-Named!

    6. 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!
    7. 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.

    8. 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.
  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. 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.
  4. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

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

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

  6. 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.