Living Foods Tradmarked by Ann Wigmore Institute

[Guest guest]

To Whom It May Concern:

 

I am appalled to learn recently that the Ann Wigmore Institute has filed a lawsuit against Brenda Cobb for the alleged offense of using the phrases "living foods" and "living foods lifestyle" against a purported copyright possessed by the organization. These phrases are self-evidently in common and widespread use among the general public. Such terms have no unique intellectual property value unto themselves that would suggest creative license by any one person or institution to own these terms. They are not comparable to a product of artistic ingenuity such as a film, painting, play, TV program or work of literature. I believe in my understanding of intellectual property law that such a claim by the A.M. Institute bears no more merit than that of Fox News, subsidiary of News Corporation, recently filing suit against comedian Al Franken for his use of the phrase "fair and balanced" in the title of his book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right." Suffice to say that, as Mr. Franken reported, the judge in his case literally laughed the suit out of the courtroom.

 

The term "living foods" refers simply to a group of plant-derived food that has not been exposed to any temperature above 120 degrees Fahrenheit, though some would claim a cooler temperature, and therefore whose enzymes remain intact to render the food "alive" in a molecular sense and provide maximum available nutritional value. The logical conclusion from this definition is that a "living foods lifestyle" simply refers to a manner of revolving one's dietary habits around such foods with living enzymatic activity. These phrases may not be listed in any standard dictionary, but one need not be a dietician, medical doctor or nutritionist to define these terms by breaking them down to their most fundamental level. I imagine that the attorneys for the Ann Wigmore Institute filing this amazingly ludicrous litigation have a creative scheme in which to argue their case, but any judge worth her/his judicial merit will respond similarly to the court that heard Mr. Franken's case. I expect this case to eventually be laughed out of court as well. I am also confident that Ms. Wigmore, the founder of this otherwise reputable organization, would condemn this lawsuit prima facie if she was alive today. Not only does it have no legal or intellectual merit, but it undermines the fundamental purpose of promoting the practice of eating raw and living plant-derived food to reach one's personal peak of health. We cannot succeed in raising our society's dietary culture to a higher level without basic solidarity.

 

As for Ms. Cobb herself, I can personally attest to her academic, professional and personal integrity. She adheres to the highest standards in her promotion of this dietary approach with intellectually honest and well-informed arguments. The title of her book, "The Living Foods Lifestyle," for which the Institute has filed suit, relates directly to her personal struggle to turn her health around in a life-affirming direction to defeat her own breast cancer. A trademark is essentially analogous to a patent, a govenment-issued license to a person who creates a unique product or service for which a practical use exists among the general public. A generic phrase such as "living foods" or the "lifestyle" thereof has no such unique properties in and of itself. In fact, one need only listen to comedian George Carlin for a clever reminder of how mundane the word "lifestyle" truly is. I noticed that the Ann Wigmore Institute's website shows this phrase "Living Foods Lifestyle" with a trademark, entirely highlighted in green, suggesting a link. I expected this possible link, of which there is none, to specify why that phrase is allegedly trademarked. It behooves the Institute to at least explain on their website precisely why they claim this phrase to be trademarked for their own legal protection. Otherwise they make a mockery of the legal trademark process and waste taxpayers' hard-earned income to support this ludicrous tirade, not to mention clogging up the judicial docket with petty litigation. Please seriously consider these issues as you dissect the Ann Wigmore Institute's claim against Ms. Cobb. I look forward to a proper legal dismissal on her behalf on these grounds. Thank you for your consideration.

 

Sincerely,

David L. Fishman, M.A.

 

 

 

 

Try the New Netscape Mail Today!

Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact Listhttp://mail.netscape.com