Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Woman Trademarks Name and Threatens Sites Using It

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the keep-my-name-out-of-your-mouth dept.

The Internet 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."

cancel ×

273 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Worthless Trademark (5, Informative)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635526)

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 (3, Informative)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635558)

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

Re:Worthless Trademark (5, Interesting)

sortadan (786274) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636004)

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.

Re:Worthless Trademark (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636576)

It's appears she's a "...SUGAR REPLACEMENT..."
Isn't that sweet?

Re:Worthless Trademark (1)

Music2Eat (1878664) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635578)

Wait, are you Dr. Ann De Wees Allen?

Re:Worthless Trademark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33636724)


Did you see her site? She throws around the "Dr." title like confetti.

I'd swear she was a Chiropractor the way she uses it.

CRazy.

Re:Worthless Trademark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635730)

She Who Cannot Be Named claims she invented the Glycemic Index and nano technology. She Who Cannot Be Named is clearly a fraud. She Who Cannot Be Named is a mega dosing vitamin c woo practitioner.

Re:Worthless Trademark (1, Funny)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635818)

Dear Sir/Madam

We notice that you have used "Dr. Ann De Wees Allen" 3 times in the above comment. Dr. Ann De Wees Allen is a trademark held by Dr. Ann De Wees Allen.

Therefore we are suing you into oblivion.

Love

MoneyHungryLawers R Us

Infinite recursion! (0)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636120)

Dear Sir/Madam

We notice that you have used "Dr. Ann De Wees Allen" 3 times in the above comment. Dr. Ann De Wees Allen is a trademark held by Dr. Ann De Wees Allen.

Therefore we are suing you into oblivion.

Love

MoneyHungryLawers R Us

"This exact comment, blablabla, that's the joke /.!

Re:Worthless Trademark (2, Funny)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635882)

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

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

Re:Worthless Trademark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635898)

How about "The Dr. formerly known as Dr. Ann De Wees Allen"?

Re:Worthless Trademark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635908)

Re:Worthless Trademark (5, Informative)

julesh (229690) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635932)

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:Worthless Trademark (3, Informative)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636130)

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:Worthless Trademark (1)

Improv (2467) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636486)

I see nothing in that site that indicates approval. It appears to be simple facts about the history of the formula. Saying "This is FOO brand" is different than noting "We make X, which was originally concocted by FOO".

Re:Worthless Trademark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635936)

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."

Lawyers turning down free money? I do not think she was warned. For example the much respected owner of the Oakland Raiders took another team to court over a trademark infringement. Did the lawyers mention that it was taken to the wrong court? Did they mention that it was also baseless? (Whispers SCO)

Re:Worthless Trademark (3, Funny)

DrAnnDeWeesAllen (1905114) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636200)

Me-Who-Cannot-Be-Named!

Re:Worthless Trademark (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636366)

Informative AND funny first post, and on a Monday morning no less.

Has hell frozen over?

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

Re:Worthless Trademark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33636414)

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.

Imagine if that was actually how trademarks worked.....

Bartender: What can I get you?
Patron: A beer, please.
Bartender: What kind of beer?
Patron: I can't say.
Bartender: You mean you don't know what kind you want?
Patron: I know what I want, I just can't say it. It's trademarked.
Bartender: Well, can you point at it?
Patron: That one. In the silver can.
Bartender: Careful there, buddy. Saying "silver" was half way to saying "Silver Bullet", which is a trademarked slogan.
Patron: Hey, you can't say that!
Bartender: Yes I can. I'm licensed. It's just you who can't.
Patron: Ahh, screw this. Just get me a Coke.

Sirens go off and glass shatters as the SWAT Team comes flying in through the windows.

Re:Worthless Trademark (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636454)

Time to Google bomb "Dr. Ann De Wees Allen" and "stupid bitch" together. Kind of how we all did SCO with "litigious bastards".

Re:Worthless Trademark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33636478)

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

Sister of the guitarist from The Dwarves [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:Worthless Trademark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33636696)

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

I vote we go with "She Who is Worthless to Name"

Re:Worthless Trademark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33636742)

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

Don't you mean:

She Who Shall Not Be Named (SWSNBN, which is pronounced "swiss nibbin")

you're infringing on MY trademark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33636758)

"She Who Cannot Be Named." was trademarked by me in 1992.

Cease and desist!

Hilary Rodham Clinton

So, I guess now (3, Funny)

Ecuador (740021) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635582)

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" ?

Re:So, I guess now (4, Informative)

davmoo (63521) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635612)

"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.

Re:So, I guess now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635710)

you forgot the (TM)

Re:So, I guess now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635914)

There are already enough female idiots that are posturing for the 2012 election. We don't need another one.

I had a friend tell me that he liked Sarah Palin because she was so confident. When I was in my surgical residency, I saw an ER physician use filiforms and followers to try to pass a catheter into someone's bladder, and poked them through the urethra into the rectum. He was very confident in what he was doing. I want competence, not confidence. So, Sarah Palin is not for me.

Re:So, I guess now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33636384)

Ohhh, now I understand why the world ends....

Re:So, I guess now (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635654)

I believe you need to use the actual tm symbol not just (tm).

http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/2122/index.htm [fileformat.info]

Re:So, I guess now (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636072)

This code point is not in the subset of Unicode accepted by Slashdot's anti-crapflood filter [slashdot.org] .

Re:So, I guess now (1)

Ellie K (1804464) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636222)

This code point is not in the subset of Unicode accepted by Slashdot's anti-crapflood filter [slashdot.org] .

Confirmed by my best efforts in the first reply to this silly story way up top. Tried
HTML Entity (decimal) & # 8 4 8 2;
HTML Entity (hex) & # x 2 1 2 2;
HTML Entity (named) & trade;
and several others from the http://fileformat.info/ [fileformat.info] ... page, but none are

accepted by Slashdot's anti-crapflood filter

per tepples.

Re:So, I guess now (1)

.tekrox (858002) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635666)

You forgot a disclaimer,

"Dr. Ann Wees Allen" is a registered trademark of Dr. AW Allen

Re:So, I guess now (1)

Nikker (749551) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635678)

You would only get in trouble if you type "I am Dr. Ann De Wees Allen and I state that I am a hoot"

Re:So, I guess now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33636042)

She has to use the TM, not you. Just like if you want to mention Oreo's in a post, you can just say Oreo, but if Nabisco wants to mention Oreos they have to say Oreo(TM), although actually use the real trademark character which I don't know how to make on Slashdot. Also, I want an Oreo.

Re:So, I guess now (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636768)

I say we invalidate the trademark by making it common usage, like let's say "I ate a whole bunch of bran fiber cereal, now I gotta take a Dr. Ann De Wees Allen."

hmm (2, Informative)

Essequemodeia (1030028) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635604)

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

Skinny "Science" (4, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635620)

She has two [uspto.gov] patents [uspto.gov] 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 [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."?

Re:Skinny "Science" (1)

Nikker (749551) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635734)

I'm sure you can trademark pretty much anything since it's just a representation of an entity and not a literal meaning. I would guess I could trademark "Pope Nikker" and not have to actually be identified as such by the Vatican.

Re:Skinny "Science" (4, Funny)

PeterKraus (1244558) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635762)

Shorthand for Drunk.

Re:Skinny "Science" (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635896)

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

Maybe her parents named her "Dr. Ann" ?

Re:Skinny "Science" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33636026)

drann drann?

duran duran? - Is she hiding something?

Re:Skinny "Science" (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635942)

How about we refer to Dr. Ann De Wees Allen as "The quack who shall not be named"?

BTW, wonder how long before this article is the first hit when people google her?

Re:Skinny "Science" (1)

gatzke (2977) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635974)

There are plenty of places online selling Doctorates.

One classic claims to convert your "life experiences" into credit for a doctorate, no classes needed.

Heck, you can even become a pope online: http://jubal.westnet.com/hyperdiscordia/popecard.html [westnet.com]

Re:Skinny "Science" (1)

Kikuchi (1709032) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636094)

I went to this site [skinnysciencecoffee.com] and
"Oh my god, it's full of ®"

Re:Skinny "Science" (2, Informative)

julesh (229690) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636102)

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:Skinny "Science" (2, Insightful)

Improv (2467) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636548)

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.

Re:Skinny "Science" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33636718)

Are you saying Dr. Who isn't a real Dr either???

Re:Skinny "Science" (1)

Ambiguous Coward (205751) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636402)

Google her name

Can't, I'm not allowed. :(

Javascript "Copyright Protect" doesn't do much (2, Funny)

pruss (246395) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635638)

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

Re:Javascript "Copyright Protect" doesn't do much (1)

JasonRBlack (1905088) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635718)

^a ^c didn't work for me, maybe it's this lousy IE9 beta. But, I did print to Adobe PDF, and then I could right-click all I want without fear of reprisal! I've been copying and pasting various bits for the past 20 minutes now, just for fun. Guess I should get back to work.

Adobe PDF (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635812)

But, I did print to Adobe PDF,

Thank goodness you printed to Adobe(R) PDF. Heaven only knows what would happen if you'd used CutePDF or OS X's PDF service, or one of those lesser PDF generators.

Remember, always use Adobe(R) PDF, and always ask for it by name! Tell your friends, and tell everyone on Slashdot!

Re:Javascript "Copyright Protect" doesn't do much (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636050)

It does stop me from clicking on the scroll bar to scroll.

Re:Javascript "Copyright Protect" doesn't do much (1)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636610)

DRM in action.

Re:Javascript "Copyright Protect" doesn't do much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33636132)

Or you can just disable javascript in your browser settings ;)

What!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33636158)

You will hear from my lawyers!

Dr. Ann De Wees Allen (tm, all rights reserved)

Re:Javascript "Copyright Protect" doesn't do much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33636290)

Her javascript didn't stop me from right-clicking on Opera.

What the fuck does "Copyright Protect!" mean anyway? Might as well be "Hurr Durr!"

Dr. Ann De Wees Allen is a CUNT!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635642)

Dr. Ann De Wees Allen is a CUNT!!
Dr. Ann De Wees Allen is a CUNT!!
Dr. Ann De Wees Allen is a CUNT!!
Dr. Ann De Wees Allen is a CUNT!!
Dr. Ann De Wees Allen is a CUNT!!
Dr. Ann De Wees Allen is a CUNT!!
Dr. Ann De Wees Allen is a CUNT!!
Dr. Ann De Wees Allen is a CUNT!!

How ya like THEM apples, bitch?

Re:Dr. Ann De Wees Allen is a CUNT!! (1)

vtcodger (957785) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635838)

Isn't that slander (or libel -- I never could keep the two straight)?

Of course truth is a viable defense (in the US), so maybe you are OK.

Re:Dr. Ann De Wees Allen is a CUNT!! (1)

LocalH (28506) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636466)

But she does, presumably, have a cunt.

So, if she claimed libel, wouldn't that mean that she's admitting to being MTF transgender?

Re:Dr. Ann De Wees Allen is a CUNT!! (1)

sleeping143 (1523137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636494)

This would basically be a written and broadcast media, so it's libel. Slander is for spoken word.

Recommendations (1)

BoRegardless (721219) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635670)

Hence, even recommending the doctor by name in an email could be considered infringing.

So I won't recommend her to any other potential clients.

But, as others note, I can put her name down and put the (TM) trademark symbol up and that is OK, just like when I refer to Sony or 3M.

Ill thought out in my estimation, though I understand what she is trying to do.

This is nothing new (2, Informative)

SpuriousLogic (1183411) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635700)

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.

Who infringes: mother or child? (2, Interesting)

Palestrina (715471) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635720)

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.

Re:Who infringes: mother or child? (2, Informative)

vtcodger (957785) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635998)

***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:Who infringes: mother or child? (1)

locallyunscene (1000523) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636284)

It probably depends if it is considered a famous trademark or not. I was talking to an IP lawyer conversationally this weekend about a similar subject (past slashdot article: a person trying to sell 3rd party software that leverages Ebay advertising their product online.)

Re:Who infringes: mother or child? (1)

Palestrina (715471) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636726)

But that is a trademark on weight loss products. It isn't a trademark on a person's name.

Re:Who infringes: mother or child? (1)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636128)

Nobody infringes. None of the uses are commercial and create a likelihood of confusion as to the source of goods.

Just use: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635740)

She Who Shall not be Named!

Ellie K (2, Interesting)

Ellie K (1804464) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635748)

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!

in the end.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635750)

she just sounds bitchy

Mhmmm (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635766)

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."

mmm nope, it doesn't... OH you mean I have to disable my NoScript protection...
*enables javascript in the infomercial page*

Aaaah, now I see... that kind of reminds me of Snopes... back before I discovered Firefox ;)

Totally unfair ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635774)

Well, I too am an unscrupulous lying asshole in the business of selling fake diet aids, and my name just happens to also be Dr. Ann De Wees Allen, so now you're telling me I can't do business under my own name? That's totally unfair!

-- Dr. Ann De Wees Allen

My Name... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635798)

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

Re:My Name... (2, Informative)

monkeySauce (562927) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636698)

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

I think she's about to learn... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635828)

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

Re:I think she's about to learn... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33635900)

Her marketing firm is counting on that.

Re:I think she's about to learn... (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635952)

I think that was the intention - apparently she's selling a load of crap.

Control-A Control-C (1)

drolli (522659) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635874)

Funny how (even if you have javacript turned on, which i usually dont have) easily you can get around seeing these funny messages generated by an incompetent web designer and still copy the text.

Did i now violate laws? will somebody sue me because i help people to circumvent anything?

Moreover if not all appearances of a trademark carry a (tm) symbol and it is not mentioned that all appearances of the name relate to the trademark (i dont believe you would find this sentence in every manual if it would not be needed), does this affect the validity of using the term as a trademark?

Another interesting question is if is a legal difference if i make a insulting remark in relation a trademark or a name.

Quackometer rating for this site (1)

AbbeyRoad (198852) | more than 3 years ago | (#33635920)

http://www.quackometer.net/ [quackometer.net]

gives it a zero cannard rating. This means her site is not quack.

I've already complained to the quackometer.net admin about this.

-paul

Re:Quackometer rating for this site (1)

eth1 (94901) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636268)

Yes, but it also rates Slashdot at zero Canards, so it's obviously full of crap...

Re:Quackometer rating for this site (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33636672)

The canards are a canard. (Which means canard is probably a singleton.)

you're all missing the point... (1)

smalljobbigcheck (1321529) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636058)

her bogus trademark attempt is getting her more attention than anything she's done previously... had any of us heard of her before this 'news' item? not a bad return on an investment of a few thousand dollars. thanks, dr. ann van what's her name

She blew it (1)

OhHellWithIt (756826) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636090)

She could at least have gone for the name Jehovah.

I suppose these are diet-related??? (1)

Kiralan (765796) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636136)

Aside from the confusion of Trademark / Copyright, I find some of her meta-tags interesting:
'Edible Computer Chips', 'Quantum Chocolate'

MASH humor (1)

dasherjan (1485895) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636170)

On the patent for her name. "Current Status: Section 8 and 15 affidavits have been accepted and acknowledged" At least the Section 8 is accurate. Hehe

Old news (1)

brusk (135896) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636176)

Dr. Pepper did the same thing in the 19th century.

NoScript just fucked Dr. Ann De Wees Allen (2, Funny)

Montezumaa (1674080) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636212)

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.

Re:NoScript just fucked Dr. Ann De Wees Allen (1)

Shadyman (939863) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636256)

NoScript? What about Control+C? :)

Re:NoScript just fucked Dr. Ann De Wees Allen (1)

Montezumaa (1674080) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636282)

You can do that as well, but I am too lazy to take my hand of my mouse.

From her website (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33636218)

"Known in the industry as the Alpha Scientist..."

That says it all, really.

I am changing my Name to Bill Smith. (1)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636320)

And then hiring a lawyer and letting the money roll on in.

Illegal? (2, Insightful)

Andy Smith (55346) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636340)

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

Re:Illegal? (1)

bk2204 (310841) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636656)

Yes. Furthermore, the purpose of a trademark is to prevent confusion in a certain field of endeavor. It's completely acceptable to use a trademark to refer to the entity in question. So if I trademarked "bk2204", it's entirely within your rights to use it in pretty much any context as long as you're actually referring to me, whether or not those references are flattering.

If you use "bk2204" to say untrue and defamatory things about me, that's libel (or slander), but that's because they're untrue and defamatory. Whether I have a trademark on that name is irrelevant.

The C&D Letter (3, Funny)

Dayofswords (1548243) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636362)

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

Your anticipated cooperation is anticipated.

Re:The C&D Letter (1)

webbiedave (1631473) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636754)

That line was written by the Department of the Redundancy Department.

Edible Computer Chips (1)

AdamsGuitar (1171413) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636394)

Has anyone else noticed that at the end of the meta keywords for her page is "Edible Computer Chips"?

Bad for Business. (1)

cormander (1273812) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636578)

I say let her send her cease-and-desist letters. It will only make for less networking on her part, and less business for her as a direct result. She's digging her own grave. The fair use clause in US copywrite law would prevent her from winning most (if not all) lawsuits she files. You can talk about a trademark as long as you don't infringe upon it.

Hypothetically... (1)

Zorque (894011) | more than 3 years ago | (#33636692)

Would it be libel to say "Dr. Ann De Wees Allen has been raping and killing children for the last 20 years"?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>