Tabberone's Hall of Shame

Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won
not tay ber own

Tabbers Temptations www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/ Home | Site Index | Disclaimer | Email Me!

Tabberone Logo

The latest Hartsel weather.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
Edmund Burke

L'Oreal
Hall Of Shame Member
Added February 4, 2009

It appears L'Oreal employs some whack job named Nancy Mullins who trolls the internet looking for people who are "diverting" L'Oreal products. In an email she sent on November 11, 2007, she falsely claims someone is violating the "United States diversion and sub-distribution act", specifically, "article #9 subsection #569121 paragraph 3".
While this might sound impressive, there is no such federal act on the books. It is a total fabrication just like any plea of sanity by Nancy Mullins. So, you ask, what does that make Nancy Mullins? Not a L'Oreal Investigator as her email claims but rather a L'Oreal Liar.
Our first impression was this was some sort of joke. But, alas, it appears it is not. A look at the PureOlogy.com web site shows it is not. L'Oreal goes on and on about "diversion" on the web site under "diversion". From the web site:
"Diversion is when products are sold in 'unauthorized' places."
What exactly is an "unauthorized" place? Anywhere L'Oreal doesn't want their products sold. L'Oreal, like many of the over-priced glop manufacturers, wants to control its products by channeling them only through "authorized" beauty salons. This keeps the price up and maintains the mystique of the line.
"Diverted products can be counterfeit, diluted formulas, or old, expired formulas that may not be safe to use."
Notice the choices? All bad. Isn't there some chance the "diverted" product is actually a genuine product that hasn't been diluted or expired? Not according to L'Oreal.
"Products are diverted by unauthorized distributors and salons or their employees, plus other dishonest individuals who see profit in piracy."
Notice the "other dishonest individuals" part. By implication L'Oreal is say all persons who "divert" their products are dishonest. But "piracy"? If you received a gift box of L'Oreal products and decided you didn't want them, for whatever reason, you legally have the right to sell them on eBay, or anywhere else. But not according to L'Oreal Selling genuine product isn't "piracy". And selling it because you don't want it isn't "dishonest". But not according to L'Oreal They make no exceptions to their rule.
"If you see a PureOlogy product for sale outside a salon, please send us an e-mail to NoDivert@aol.com with the city, state and name of the location where you saw the products. You can also call 800-503-3997 to report diverters."
Wow! They have a snitch program just like eBay does. L'Oreal wants you to report people who are lawfully selling their "diverted" products so they can conduct a full investigation. And, L'Oreal is using an email account with an AOL address? How cheap and low quality does that sound? We consider AOL to be one of the worst providers out there.
"A former FBI agent developed the strategies and oversees the implementation of PureOlogy's anti-diversion program."
And just why is he/she a "former FBI agent"? Too stupid to stay on the job? Must be based upon the strategy L'Oreal has implemented. Notice how they don't name the "former FBI agent"? That certainly lacks credibility.
David Craggs, President of the Professional Products Division of L’Oreal appears to be their main promoter. We wonder if he and Nancy share the same padded room.

Matrix Essentials v Quality King, , 522 F.Supp.2d 470 (2007). Matrix (L'Oreal) sued to stop "diversion" of its products. Matrix products sold by Quality King and/or Pro's Choice to retail sales outlets were neither expired, adulterated or anything other than genuine Matrix products. The court ruled that diversion, per se, was not illegal. Additionally, the court criticized L'Oreal for its conduct in the case because L'Oreal had attempted to get federal authorities involved using false accusations of criminal conduct by the defendants. L'Oreal/Matrix lost on all counts.
It appears that L'Oreal has no qualms about lying to federal authorities so why should L'Oreal or any of its employees have qualms about lying to you?

Rebuttals
In an effort to provide a balanced view, we make the following offer to anyone who feels they have been wrongly accused on this web site.
If you, or your company, have been referenced on these pages, and you would like the chance to post a rebuttal, we will post your rebuttal (provided it is in good taste) so others can read it. The rebuttal must be submitted in a format that can easily be converted into HTML. We reserve the right to alter the rebuttal to make it more readable. However, we will not alter the content (unless there is offensive material to be removed). We also reserve the right to comment on any rebuttal received. Emails protesting the content of this web site may be treated as rebuttals by us at our discretion.

Federal Court Cases
Alphabetically | by Federal Circuit | by Subject | by Court Quotations

Federal Statutes
Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 5 | Digital Millenium Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 12 | Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. 22
<