Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won
Hall Of Shame Member
Added May 14, 2010
Last Updated - July 18, 2012
As of July 2012, the village creeps at Isagenix International are still sending out phony threats to resellers of their over-priced swill.
Do not be fooled by their claims. The re-selling of unaltered genuine product is allowed under federal trademark law. And they do not have the nerve
to sign a name but rather use "Isagenix Compliance" as the gutless sender name. PATHETIC is whar we call Isagenix.
What can you say about a company that not only lies about who can and cannot resell their products, but they outright lie about lawsuits they claim support their position. Especially a company that is running a pyramid scheme disguised as a marketing plan? Amway does it and has been doing it for years but Amway markets a variety of products. Isagenix markets over-priced "health" products.
This message is to inform you that offering Isagenix products or memberships on the Internet through online auctions, such as eBay, is a violation of the use of Isagenix Trademarks and the Internet/ Web Site Policy of the Isagenix Policies and Procedures. If you are an Isagenix Independent Associate, or sales of product through online auctions injure the credibility and prestigious image our products and Company enjoy. It is our responsibility to preserve and protect the Isagenix Opportunity for all of our Associates. We request that you remove your Isagenix product offerings from eBay and invite you to take advantage of your Isagenix replicated web site. It is an invaluable tool that can be used to promote your Isagenix business. We thank you in advance for your cooperation. It is our desire to bring an end to the unauthorized sales of Isagenix product on eBay as such, please see the following URL, http://www.isagenixlitigation.com/
|The infamous URL listed above, which is owned by Isagenix International, located at 2225 S. Price Rd., Chandler, Arizona 85286, seems to have disappeared since May of 2010. Why is that Penny dear? Did you tell them to remove it? Or did Jim and Kathy get cold feet?|
However, simply offering genuine products for sale is
not a violation of federal trademark law. As for Isagenix Policies and Procedures, they are legally unenforceable unless Isagenix can show that
a contract exists binding the seller to the Isagenix Policies and Procedures. From the tone of the above email, the apple-brained morons at Isagenix
Compliance [firstname.lastname@example.org] have no clue who the recipient really is. Tell us Penny, did you suggest to those morons to stay anonymous
by using the cover name of "Compliance"? Clever move there, Penny. You corporate lawyers
really earn those big bucks.
What Isagenix is attempting to do is to protect their multi-level marketing scheme ("MLM"), also called a pyramid scheme by many, and their many suckers who Isagenix calls "Associates".
Now to Big Lie #2. At the URL given in the email, are a number of lawsuits in which Isagenix has been involved. Their wording gives one the impression
that Isagenix International is fanatical about going into court to protect the so-called rights.
The "Spurling" complaint deals with a domain name dispute. It was filed March 28, 2007 by
attorney Jay Calhoun for Isagenix International against one Aron Spurling and Sublime Technology, et al, alleging that Spurling, as an "Associate",
created a number of domain names using the word "Isagenix", and so forth and so forth and who know and further, who really cares who owns that
shovel in that sand box?
Ebenezer T Quaye v Isagenix Worldwide, LLC, 10 cv 0667, is a complaint based upon discrimination of race and national origin.
The only lawsuit of any real note for us is the one called by Isagenix International, "Ebay Complaint", or more correctly, Isagenix International, LLC v. Jacques C. Dupuis, filed March 4, 2006, in the Superior Court for Maricopa County, in the State of Arizona. Let us go into the many things that we see wrong with this complaint, and we see that there are many in our un-lawyerly opinion.
The name of the attorney for Isagenix International is blacked out. Why? Did Penny Higginbottom, Esquire, demand they remove her name for the internet posting? If so, why? According to http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/, Penny Higginbottom was the attorney of record for the complaint. We can guess why Penny Higginbottom did not want her name on the complaint. Peggy works (or worked) for Doyle McDowell, P.C., 5010 E. Shea Blvd., #A-106, Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Tel: (602) 494-0556. Doyle McDowell, P.C. does not have a web site that we could locate. What sort of Mickey Mouse law firm does not have a web site in 2010?
The lawsuit was filed on March 4, 2008 and was dismissed by the court for failure to serve on September 3, 2008, six months later. So Isagenix has on their web site a complaint they failed to prosecute but they give you the impression they did. Why would they do that? So they can bully people.
Page 1, paragraph 2, makes a vague reference to the defendant and a more vague reference to how the Superior Court for Maricopa County has jurisdiction. A first year law student can do better than this.
Pages 2 through 4 quote from the Associate Agreement. Isagenix then alleges a variety of so-called bad acts by the defendant. But nowhere in the complaint does Isagenix state the address of the defendant. Isagenix shipped him product so they must have had some idea where he lived. eBay would give up that information in a heart beat. So, we ask, where is the address? Is Isagenix, and Peggy, that inept that they cannot follow through with a task that simple? Even a first-year law student knows you establish jurisdiction through stating residency and tying that residency to the court. While Jacques C. Dupuis could very well be a resident of Arizona, why not state that he is? Jurisdiction 101.
We think Peggy lied in the court papers because to state the defendant's address would very likely move jurisdiction out of the Arizona court into federal court near the defendant. So why bother filing? Our assumption is that they are idiots. Also, there are many references to the written Policies and Procedures ("P&P's") and how the dastardly defendant has violated them time and time again, the cad, but there is absolutely NO MENTION of a signed copy of this P&P being attached as an exhibit to prove its existence and to prove that the defendant signed it and is bound by the provisions of the P&P. Surely they saved a copy of the electronically signed document they claimed the defendant signed? Submit it! That is a basic step in a complaint of this nature. What simple-minded attorney would omit this step? Someone who slept through Litigation 101?
We are more familiar with the federal statutes than with state statutes but we are not impressed with Penny Dearest.
|Isagenix International, with and through their pathetic corporate lawyer Penny Higginbottom, becomes a Tabberone "Because We Say So" company with double dodo clusters.|
|UPDATE - March 23, 2011 - It appears that one Penny Higginbottom wants her name removed from these pages. Why? She no longer works for Isagenix International, among other things.|
I am requesting that you remove the derogatroy information about me, Penny Higginbottom, on your website.
|Curious, we asked her to tell us exactly what we said about her was untrue. Her claim is curious because her facebook page still shows her as in-house counsel at Isagenix International as of March 23, 2011 and she likes "Chasing Squirrels", which we also find curious. Her web site, http://www.higginbottomlaw.com, carries the message, "This web site is coming soon". Her reply to our question was:|
I have no argument with your intent to "watchdog" copyright issues. But please remove my name from your website.
|"The right thing to do"? We consider lawyers to be parasites, prostitutes and prevaricators. They lie for a living. They suck the life out of the living. And they do not care who their client is. And she talks about doing the right thing? Our reply to her:|
We repeat, what specifically is false about what we posted? Beyond "the right thing to do"? That issue did not concern you before. Your name is on a court document. That is a public record. Please tell us how that nominates you to be removed from the web site?
|We have not heard back from her.|
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.
Articles | Cease and Desist Letters | Federal Court Cases | FAQs & Whines | Glossary | Hall Of Shame | Contributions
Initial Interest Confusion |
Likelihood Of Confusion |
Material Difference Standard
Parallel Imports | Post-sale Confusion | Puffery | Secondary Meaning | Subsequent Confusion | Trademark Abuse
Unauthorized Use | Unfair Competition | What is a Trademark?
Angel Policies |
Contributory Infringement |
Copyright Extortion |
Copyright Misuse Doctrine |
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act
EULA | Fair Use | First Sale Doctrine | Product Description | Registration | Registration Denied | What is a Copyright? | What is not Copyrightable?
Embroidery Designs |
FAQs & Whines |
Image and Text Theft |
Licensed Fabric |
Licensing & Licenses |
Patterns Index |
Selvage | Stanford School of Law Case Outline | Tabberone Disclaimer | Trademark Extortion | Urban Myths | What To Do If You Are Veroed
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