Craig wrote:
> I was talking to people that use Shaklee products and asking for them
to write me a review about the product and posting it on my web site.
Shaklee said I can't do that and shut down my Shaklee web site (within
the hour) and didn't tell me it was shut down. They still haven't told
me anything...
If your review was either factual, or presented as your opinion, then
they don't have the legal right to take down your site, _if_ you are not
a Shaklee distributor.
If you are a Shaklee distributor, then they have the right to take down
the site if, and only if, the distributor contract prohibits
advertising. [It probably does. I have yet to see a distributor
contract that allows the distributor to do either retail marketing,or
effective advertising.
The sole function of distributor contracts is to legalise their
swindling operations.
Mary wrote:
>The real issue that seems to be overlooked in this thread is that
intellectual property rights HAVE to be protected and defended or
they can be legally overturned.
Trademarks have to be defended for "trademark dilution". When the
context of the usage of the trademark is "obvious", then trademark
dilution can not occur. [I'll grant that what is "obvious" to a lawyer
depends upon how much s/he is being paid,or not paid. Only an attorney
will consider that steel drums are a breakfast cereal,]
Copyright infringement does not have to be defended,to remain in force.
[There are several industries in which copyright suits are brought in
extremely unusual situations. When they are brought, the defendant has
a lost lawsuit, if they don't' do an out of court settlement.]
Patent infringement does not have to be defended, to remain in force.
The _current_ reasons to file for a patent are:
* Add another revenue stream to your business;
* Force the competition out of business;
The original reason for obtaining a patent, was to recoup the investment
required to discover the invention. This reason fell by the wayside the
first time the USPTO issued a patent that was an obvious application of
technology that was 10,000 years old.
Francis wrote:
> Does not using the name Shaklee, etc. mean you as a distributor cannot
use the name in a way they would consider negative or they will pull
your distributorship? It must have something to do with the agreement
you signed with them?
It has everything to do with what is in the distributor contract, _if_
Craig signed one.
>Otherwise, we would not be able to use the name of any companies here
either, right?
Right.
Hal wrote:
>That's because they can't control your own site. If Shaklee or
Quackstar or any other MLM let people create their own sites and set
them up as they wanted, then they'd have thousands or tens of thousands
of sites, all different, all making claims that each person thought
were proper and it would be too easy for the company itself to get sued
for the inaccurate or inappropriate or illegal claims made by someone
who just thought they were doing a good job. By requiring people to
stick with their sites, they don't have to police an unmanageable
number of sites.
a) That is hardly a justification to prohibit retail marketing.
b) There are organizations, and individuals who do track Internet sites
for entire fields, or subjects. Once the trackers are set up, it is
trivial to pick up violations in more or less real time. [All you need
is an internet connection, and a Linux box(Pentium or better preferred,
but not required.)]
> police them, so you can only use their logo and trademarks in the ways
The only control they have over their trademark is that it is correctly
used.
The only lawsuits that can be filed in regards to trademarks are those
which are aimed at preventing "trademark dilution".
IOW, if your website has Shaklee on it, because you sell Shaklee
products, there is _nothing_ that the company can legally do to you, in
respect of trademark usage. Likewise, if your website reviews Shaklee
products, there is nothing that the company can do, in respect to
trademark usage. [Any trademark related lawsuit will have to be
rejected as being either a SLAP, or frivolous, or both.]
> In my mind, that is yet another reason to NOT do business with them or
> depend on them and their product for income. As a business owner, I
> just can't see why people would put up with with all the silly
> restrictions MLMs have.
MLMs present the illusion that the major issues in setting up a business
have been solved, and if you follow this route, your success in ensured.
The illusion is that they offer the advantages of a franchise, without
the cost of a franchise. The reality is that they have the costs of a
franchise, but not the advantages of one.
xan
jonathon
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment