Tag: manufacturers

LOreal Misleading Again!

The Real Hair TruthSo Many hairdressers in my industry use LOreal hair color and there products. And so many don’t take the time to really find out that they are in competition with there manufacturer. Who will pledge allegiance too you and will send the “Best Snake Oil Salesman”, too you to inform you on the usage of there color and products that you can buy on the internet. You don’t really understand the how good these company’s are doing you wrong and also to the beauty industry.

Here is a good tidbit to chew on and to really think about how these company’s work behind the scenes to squeeze out every nickel and dime from there products. Advertising can be very misleading to the professional and to the consumer.  Go ahead and click on the link first for the complaint and read about the case filed in court.

November 2013: A federal judge denied final approval of a class-action lawsuit against L’Oréal USA, Inc. The complaint, originally filed in April 2013, alleged that the company misleadingly markets professional hair care products as only available for purchase in salons when the products are actually available for purchase in major retail outlets. According to the settlement terms, the company agreed to remove the misleading labels from the product packages for a period of five years. The Court rejected the settlement because (1) the salon-only purchasers and the retail outlet purchasers had different interests and so the class certification, a requirement for settlement, was inappropriate; and (2) the settlement was not fair, reasonable, and adequate because the company only agreed to stop the misleading labeling for a limited time and the class received no monetary award. (Richardson et al v. L’Oreal, Case No. 13-cv-00508, District of D. C.).

Misleading Information

 You the professional LEGALLY HAS the full liability of the products you use in the salon. You purchase them, you bought them, there yours. Once a product is purchased you have hold full liability. Take the time to know your salon products, color line, hair care line.  Know everything about the distributor, and also the manufacturer.  And of course in my Beauty Industry there are organizations such as the (PBA.com – Who says they are the legal eagle of the industry). (Behind The Chair – This is the Sears & Roebucks of the Beauty Industry), (Hair brained.com – Which basically is what it says it is Hair brained), (Salon Galaxy.com – Which is a copy cat of all the others mentioned). These sites could take the time to influence and to teach there subscribers but have taken the course of self advertising and stimulating there own agenda. So sad! there will come a day when the whole industry is controlled by one or two manufacturers and then don’t say I did not warn you!  Wake up sheeple!

Salon only products!

Don’t be hood winked.!!!!!!!

Joseph Kellner

Popular shampoos contain toxic chemicals linked to nerve damage

real hair truthResearchers at the National Institutes of Health have found a correlation between an ingredient found in shampoos and nervous system damage. The experiments were conducted with the brain cells of rats and they show that contact with this ingredient called methylisothiazoline, or MIT, causes neurological damage.

Which products contain this chemical compound MIT? Head and Shoulders, Suave, Clairol and Pantene Hair Conditioner all contain this ingredient. Researchers are concerned that exposure to this chemical by pregnant women could put their fetus at risk for abnormal brain development. In other people, exposure could also be a factor in the development of Alzheimer’s disease and other nervous system disorders.

The chemical causes these effects by preventing communication between neurons. Essentially, it slows the networking of neurons, and since the nervous system and brain function on a system of neural networks, the slowing of this network will suppress and impair the normal function of the brain and nervous system.

These finding were presented December 5th at the American Society for Cell Biology annual meeting.

I have frequently warned readers about the dangers of using brand-name personal care products. The vast majority of these products contain toxic chemical compounds like MIT that contribute to cancer, liver disorders and neurological diseases. In fact, this chemical, MIT, is just one of dozens of such chemicals that are found in personal care products.

Why are these dangerous products allowed to remain on the market? Because the FDA, which is responsible for regulating these products, spends almost no time, money or effort actually investigating the safety of such products. Instead, the FDA spends the vast majority of its time approving new prescription drugs rather than protecting the public against the dangers from such drugs or personal care products like cleansers, shampoo’s, soaps, deodorants and fragrance products.

In fact, it may surprise you to learn that manufacturers can put practically any chemical they want into shampoos, even if it is a hazardous chemical listed in the RTECS database of toxicity and even if it is considered a toxic waste chemical by the EPA. The FDA allows all sorts of chemicals to be used in these products including chemicals that are known carcinogens and that contribute to liver failure and nervous system disorders. How’s that for protecting public health?

If you thought prescription drugs were dangerous, just take a look at the toxic chemicals found in personal care products used by virtually all Americans every single day. Americans bathe themselves in toxic chemicals and they do it by buying and using products made by brand name companies that have premier shelf positioning at convenience stores, grocery stores and discount clubs.

One of the more curious personal care products on the market is Herbal Essences Shampoo by Clairol. Personally, I think this product is a joke because it’s trying to exploit the word “herbal” to imply that the shampoo is healthy, even though it is primarily made with the same ingredients as other popular shampoos. The first three ingredients, for example, are: water, sodium laureth, and sodium laurel sulfate. Big deal, huh? You can find the same three ingredients in 99-cent shampoo at Wall-Mart. Plus, the product contains all sorts of other ingredients that I personally would never allow to touch my skin (like methylchloroisothiazolinone, if you can believe there’s actually a chemical with a name that long). Think the color of the shampoo is from the herbs? Think again. Three other ingredients in the shampoo are Yellow #5, Orange #4 and Violet #2.

In other words, this is a shampoo product purchased by naive consumers, in my opinion. People who really know herbs and natural products can only laugh at a product like this. Want a real shampoo? Buy Olive Oil Shampoo from Heritage Products, available at most natural health stores.

The bottom line to all of this, though, is that every week, it seems like we see a new announcement about some toxic chemical found in personal care products that is related to either cancer or neurological disorders. And yet week after week these products are being sold by retailers and consumed in large quantities by the American people who remain oblivious to the real damage these products are causing to their health.

Once again, the solution here is to protect yourself by learning the truth about these products and switching to products made with safe ingredients. There are safe shampoos, safe soaps, safe laundry detergents, dish washing liquids and even deodorant products. You don’t have to expose yourself to toxic chemicals to take care of personal hygiene, because whether you agree with it or not, these disease-causing chemicals are going to remain quite legal in the use of personal care products for many years to come. Why? You can bet that the manufacturers of these products will fight against any attempt to regulate or outlaw these toxic chemicals. That’s because the chemicals are convenient for such manufacturers. It’s much the same way in which food manufacturers use sodium nitrate in bacon and other packaged meats. It’s all about their convenience rather than protecting your health.

So, here’s the idiot test for today: if I was standing on a street corner with a bottle of colored liquid, and I told you that liquid contained a toxic chemical that caused neurological disorders, Alzheimer’s disease and birth defects, would you buy that product from me and scrub it into your scalp under warm water?

Of course not. But if you’re buying these popular shampoo products, that’s exactly what you’re doing right now. Such is the power of brand marketing in America.

Short Clip from the Film, “The Beautiful Lies” Release Date November 2014!

“The Beautiful Lies” is a documentary that shines a revealing light on the cosmetic and beauty industry. It showcases the passion of entrepreneurs in this business and brings transparency to product perception, health hazards, organic vs. natural ingredients, and cosmetic mislabeling. While it highlights the professionals who have achieved success through innovation, ambition, and perseverance, it also recognizes that this business is dominated by manufacturer greed and control and…

Jotovi Designs exposes “The Beautiful Lies.”

 

What Quality King Distributors Does is Perfectly Legal!

quality-king-distributors_200x200

What quality King does is legal they sell beauty products to the consumer, although I will meet individuals in my industry who work and represent large manufacturers and they will say, “Quality King is one of the biggest diverters in the United States”. That comment I quote directly from Bill Peplow who in my first film, The Real Hair Truth describes how these company’s will “So-Call Divert” there professional products. Which in all reality what Quality King does is totally legal. If I buy a jar of your “Jam or Jelly” I can legally resale the product anywhere and for any price. But the major manufacturers in my so called professional industry will get upset because they are not getting there “EXTRA” bit of the resale. They will claim it is copyright infringement, or they will call it “Gray, black market, reproduced product. Why?  To keep the consumer from purchasing the product from the retail outlets i.e., Target, Costco, etc. They want you the consumer to buy it at , the salons, or beauty outlets.  Also in reality they are selling the product to these chain outlets and saying it is diverted from the beauty industry salons. Basically they cannot blame ‘Quality King for the sales because it is legal. So they will blame the so called professional beauty industry salons for the diverted product they sell to the chains. If Quality King can make a killing off of selling and reselling these professionals bottles of soap, well the manufacturers will also get into the deal and sell it on there own. Its all about money, money, money. They claim to have loyalty to you as a professional but that is a ploy to camouflage there endeavors and get you to believe they are for you. In the whole circle of it, they will blame you to cover there greed and lack of loyalty to you!. Follow the money everyone, that’s THE REAL HAIR TRUTH. Read the law below on first-sale doctrine this will enlighten you!  Also I would like to mention the interview with BILL PEPLOW was recorded with his permission and several phone calls were made to me from PEPLOW asking and informing me not to keep it in the first documentary, The Real Hair Truth. I was informed Paul Mitchell’s attorneys would be giving me legal problems. But in regard to honesty and truth we have placed it in my next film The Beautiful Lies!

thrtlog excellent

Quality King Distributors has grown from a small shop in Queens, New York to a large distributor of pharmaceuticals and health and beauty care products. The company re-imports exported U.S.-branded over-the-counter pharmaceuticals and personal care products and sells them at deep discounts. Clients include drugstore and supermarket chains, grocery distributors, wholesale clubs and mass-merchant discounters. Glenn Nussdorf and his wife started Quality King in 1961, and the Nussdorf family still owns the company.

  • Industry: Health Care Equipment & Svcs
  • Founded: 1961
  • Country: United States
  • CEO: Glenn Nussdorf
  • CFO: Michael Katz
  • Website: www.qkd.com
  • Employees: 900 e
  • Fiscal Year End: Oct 31, 2013
  • Sales: $3.2 B e
  • Headquarters: Ronkonkoma, NY

The first-sale doctrine plays an important role in U.S. copyright and trademark law by limiting certain rights of a copyright or trademark owner. The doctrine enables the distribution chain of copyrighted products, library lending, giving, video rentals and secondary markets for copyrighted works (for example, enabling individuals to sell their legally purchased books or CDs to others). In trademark law, this same doctrine enables reselling of trademarked products after the trademark holder put the products on the market. The doctrine is also referred to as the “right of first sale,” “first sale rule,” or “exhaustion rule.”

Copyright law grants a copyright owner an exclusive right “to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.” 17 U.S.C. 106(3). This is called “distribution right” and differs from the copyright owner’s “reproduction right” which involves making copies of the copyrighted works. Rather than the right to copy, the distribution right involves the right to transfer physical copies or phonorecords (i.e., recorded music) of the copyrighted work. For example, the distribution right could be infringed when a retailer acquires and sells to public unlawfully made audio or video tapes. Although the retailer may not have copied the work in any way and may not have known that the tapes were made unlawfully, he nevertheless infringes the distribution right by the sale. The distribution right allows the copyright owner to seek redress from any member in the chain of distribution.

The first-sale doctrine creates a basic exception to the copyright holder’s distribution right. Once the work is lawfully sold or even transferred gratuitously, the copyright owner’s interest in the material object in which the copyrighted work is embodied is exhausted. The owner of the material object can then dispose of it as he sees fit. Thus, one who buys a copy of a book is entitled to resell it, rent it, give it away, or destroy it. However, the owner of the copy of the book will not be able to make new copies of the book because the first-sale doctrine does not limit copyright owner’s reproduction right. The rationale of the doctrine is to prevent the copyright owner from restraining the free alienability of goods. Without the doctrine, a possessor of a copy of a copyrighted work would have to negotiate with the copyright owner every time he wished to dispose of his copy. After the initial transfer of ownership of a legal copy of a copyrighted work, the first-sale doctrine exhausts copyright holder’s right to control how ownership of that copy can be disposed of. For this reason, this doctrine is also referred to as “exhaustion rule.”

The doctrine was first recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1908 (see Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus) and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 109. In the Bobbs-Merrill case, the publisher, Bobbs-Merrill, had inserted a notice in its books that any retail sale at a price under $1.00 would constitute an infringement of its copyright. The defendants, who owned Macy’s department store, disregarded the notice and sold the books at a lower price without Bobbs-Merrill’s consent. The Supreme Court held that the exclusive statutory right to “vend” applied only to the first sale of the copyrighted work.

Section 109(a) provides: “Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.” The elements of the first sale doctrine can be summarized as follows: (1) the copy was lawfully made with the authorization of the copyright owner; (2) ownership of the copy was initially transferred under the copyright owner’s authority; (3) the defendant is a lawful owner of the copy in question; and (4) the defendant’s use implicates the distribution right only; not the reproduction or some other right given to the copyright owner.

Application to public display right

17 U.S.C. §109(c) creates a limited exception to a copyright owner’s public display right. Owner of a lawful copy of a copyrighted work can, without permission from the copyright owner, display that copy to viewers present at the place where the copy is located. For example, an owner of copy of a computer program (and only a computer program under §109(c)) cannot display the copy publicly on a website under this provision.[citation needed]

An amicus brief in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. argued that Section 109 was a key provision for US art museums:

Most U.S. art museums have permanent collections that were acquired through purchases, gifts, and bequests, and on which they draw for exhibitions to the public. Museums also present special exhibitions, largely made up of works not in their collections, through loans from private collectors, galleries, and other institutions. For all these activities museums depend on the protections afforded by Section 109. Section 109(c) provides that the owner of a particular copy “lawfully made under this title” is entitled to display that copy publicly without the copyright owner’s permission. Section 109(a) similarly allows museums to buy, borrow, loan, and sell such “lawfully made” artworks.[1]

 

 

Mixed Chicks Product Line Wins Lawsuit Against Sally Beauty

Jurors awarded over 8,000,000 to the small company of the Mixed Chicks product line who claimed that the …

MixedChicks wins big!!!!

For the past two years well-known natural hair company Mixed Chicks has been in an ongoing legal battle with Sally Beauty company. Mixed Chicks had filed a lawsuit against the national beauty supply chain in March 2011, for selling a product called “Mixed Silk” at their over 2,000 locations. The plaintiffs felt that the overall appearance of the Mixed Silk product line  infringed on their trademarked labeling due to similarities.

On November 2, the jury found that Sally Beauty had not only infringed on the Mixed Chicks trademark, but had acted “willfully with malice and oppression.” The jury verdict awarded Mixed Chicks LLC $8,114,535 ($839,535 in actual damages and $7,275,000 in punitive damages). In a press release to JET, co-founders Kim Etherege, Wendi Levy and Bradley Kaya spoke on their massive win, ” We invested our hearts and souls into this company and have built the reputation of the Mixed Chicks products as one of distinction and high quality.  It was an expensive case, but we believe in our brand and will fight to protect it.  We are pleased the jury has found Sally Beauty willfully infringed and awarded an amount that will make them think twice about doing so in the future. You can’t just bully little companies.”

Mixed Chicks

 

 

Mixed Chicks Hair Care Products (Good Guys)

sallys rip off

 

 

 

Sally Beauty Supply Mixed Version (Scum Guys)

The trio will also be seeking additional funds for attorney’s fees, a portion of Sally Beauty’s profits of Mixed Silk products and an order to ban the selling of Mixed Silk products. Sally’s beauty supply no longer has a link to there product and when we called they would not answer any questions about the Victory lawsuit Mixed Chicks had with them.

Mixed Silk’s packaging is strikingly similar to that of Mixed Chicks. The pump top on the shampoo & leave-in conditioner is quite convenient for shower use. Silk Elements should have adopted the same design for the deep conditioner; opening and closing it while in the shower is a little time consuming. All of the products have the same strong manufactured fragrant smell. So lady’s and gentlemen you have read it all. Another scum bag company playing and stealing off a entrepreneurs idea. And who needs manufacturers like that in our beauty industry. Of course you will see them at the hair shows and think twice of the hard work a entrepreneur within our industry has to go through to get there product out to the consumer.

The Real Hair Truth!