Woman Trademarks Name and Threatens Sites Using It 273
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."
Worthless Trademark (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."
Re:Worthless Trademark (Score:4, Informative)
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=76116199 [uspto.gov] ---- Here's a link to her trademark registration, by the way.
hmm (Score:2, Informative)
Re:So, I guess now (Score:5, 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.
Skinny "Science" (Score:5, Informative)
She's basically pimping out arginine [mayoclinic.com] 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 [skinnyscience.com]. 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 [skinnysciencecoffee.com] 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."?
This is nothing new (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Worthless Trademark (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 [agelsolution.com] 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.
Re:Who infringes: mother or child? (Score:3, 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.
Re:Skinny "Science" (Score:3, 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.
Re:Worthless Trademark (Score:4, 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.
Re:My Name... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Worthless Trademark (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.
Wrong Mark (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.
Re:Worthless Trademark (Score:3, 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.