Another Message from Someone Who Thinks We’re MK Inc.

It’s always entertaining when we receive messages from visitors who think they’ve reached the official Mary Kay site.  I thought this one was particularly fun.

For 28+ years I have been a faithful Mary Kay consumer. Placing my last order a couple of months ago enlightened me to the fact that I can longer purchase your products. I realize that the economy has affected us all and most products have taken on a “they won’t really notice” agenda.

Well, I’m not in that “stupid” category of consumers, after all the years of using your products, that I could not see that you have drastically reduced the size of most/some products (eye shadow pallets while also changing the compact so the old ones do not fit). I realize we all have to downsize but, come on, this is a little too much to bear. It’s a shame as I really did enjoy being able to order a product I liked and not having to go into a store, but… your prices/sizes in today’s market outweighs my option to stay at home and shop! Thanks for the good years.

I hate to tell this person, but I doubt MK Inc. cares.

Why Didn’t Mary Kay Inc. Warn Liquidators Before Suing?

Why is it that instead of issuing a “cease and desist” order or a similar warning to the people selling on eBay, that Mary Kay Inc. just went ahead and filed lawsuits against these sellers?

Why didn’t they give these people a chance to stop their selling if they wanted to?

Why didn’t Mary Kay Inc. use the VERO program set up by eBay to address the alleged violations of their trademark and copyright? If sellers were violating these guidelines, set up to protect companies, then Mary Kay Inc. can simply file notice with eBay and the offending listings are removed. Apparently what Mary Kay Inc. is alleging is beyond VERO. If sellers aren’t using copyrighted or trademarked material or images in their listings and not trying to sell counterfeit products, then there isn’t much to dispute with eBay.

But instead of giving these sellers a warning, Mary Kay Inc. brought down the hammer.

If Mary Kay Inc. discovers that their active consultants and directors are selling products to those who then sell it on eBay, then what? Do they terminate those consultants and directors? Do those people then become examples, used to scare future recruits into behaving?

And what responsibility do those buying excess inventory for resell have to check out the person selling it to them? If there were an underground counterfeit TimeWise factory, maybe that would be reasonable. But as it is, all they know is that it is someone who was probably at one time in Mary Kay. Why should those sellers be required to find out if that person is active? Mary Kay Inc. can claim that by purchasing inventory from their active consultants that resellers are interfering with their business. But actually…they may be helping MK’s business: after all, with more room on their shelves, these consultants can now buy more merchandise directly from the company and keep the inventory loading machine rolling.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out, no question.

Former Mary Kay Executives Sued CEO Richard Rogers

It’s true.

The case was filed in 2003.

A reader sent me a link regarding the suit:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-119468614.html

This lawsuit was settled. Rogers also filed a counterclaim.

MK Inc. Thinks Touch of Pink is Bad? This MK Reseller is Stealing All of Their Copyrighted Pictures!

I’ve been trying to get the word out to resellers of Mary Kay that MK Inc. is filing hundreds of lawsuits against liquidators.

In doing so, I stumbled across this Mary Kay reseller who is advertising on eBay:

http://www.pinkbargains.com/

They have a fancy store that’s much more professional looking than Touch of Pink.

And ALL the photos in their store appear to be Mary Kay Inc.’s copyrighted photos! It looks like they’re stealing them off the Mary Kay website!

Not only that, but ALL the descriptions of the products are copied verbatim from Mary Kay’s website!

Here’s someone who is REALLY violating Mary Kay’s trademark and copyright. Wonder if they’ve gotten slapped with a lawsuit yet?

Latest Documents Filed in the Touch of Pink Lawsuit

Mary Kay Inc. wants to depose (interogate) Amy Weber again, according to documents filed in the Mary Kay Inc. versus Touch of Pink Cosmetics lawsuit.

Amy Weber traveled to Dallas and gave her deposition to Mary Kay Inc. on August, 28, 2008. The main purpose of that interrogation was for Mary Kay Inc. to “learn more about Defendents’ document management practices, the location and storage of their electronic data, and their document collection and production procedures.”

Mary Kay Inc. claims that, “as expected,” they discovered numerous deficiencies in the Defendants’ document production during and after the deposition. They claim the Webers failed to look for and produce many significant documents that Mary Kay Inc. wanted. They also claim that the Webers continued to destroy documents and emails after Mary Kay filed the lawsuit.

Mary Kay Inc. asked the Webers to correct these supposed deficiencies, and the Webers did, providing Mary Kay Inc. with about 70,000 pages of emails and relevant documents.

But the deposition that Amy Weber gave in August was in her “corporate capacity.” Mary Kay Inc. now wants to depose Amy Weber in an individual capacity. The Webers’ attorneys are arguing that such a deposition would be a duplication of the previous deposition, among other things.

In fact, the Webers’ attorneys say in this latest filing, the Webers produced over 140,000 pages of documents after this August deposition and many of those documents are applicable to this second deposition request.

Mary Kay Inc’s lawyers flew to Illinois, where the Webers live, in October and deposed Scott Weber and four employees of the Webers, including Amy Webers mother. At that time, they could have, but didn’t, ask to depose Amy Weber while they were in Illinois.

Noooooooooo.

As the Webers’ attoneys say, coming to Illinois to take depositions, not interviewing Amy, then asking to talk to her a month later is simply Mary Kay Inc. trying to “create a cost burden on the Webers.”

If the court grants Mary Kay Inc’s request for the second deposition of Amy Weber, her lawyers are requesting that Mary Kay Inc. pay her expenses, wherever the deposition takes place.

Stay tuned….we’ll keep you updated on how this case proceeds, as we have done from the start.

Another Liquidator Sued by Mary Kay Inc.

I just received an email from yet another Mary Kay inventory liquidator that they were served with a lawsuit on Monday. This person has been selling on eBay and her own online store since 2000.

It’s apparent that Mary Kay Inc. is going after anyone who is selling Mary Kay products on eBay and in an online store.

If you sell Mary Kay products on eBay or online, beware! Mary Kay Inc. is on a mission to get rid of you.

PinkLighthouse will keep you informed on how this proceeds.

Mary Kay Inc. Sues Another Inventory Liquidator!

I received an email from a Mary Kay inventory liquidator that she was served with a notice that she was being sued by Mary Kay Inc.!  I guess Touch of Pink Cosmetics has some company now.

This liquidator is a power seller on eBay and has been selling there since 2002.

According to the document this liquidator received,

” Mary Kay seeks to obtain testimony from ***** (which the method of getting the testimony is a request for the court to get my computer!!!) to determine the identity of Independent beauty consultants in order to file suit against them for breach of contract.
Also they seek to obtain such testimony to investigate a potential claim for tortious interference with contractual and business relationships and Texas common law trademarks.”

Apparently MK has now decided to go after the major sellers of all their excess inventory flooding the market. All the products that their former consultants couldn’t sell. All the products that their directors are purchasing month after month to keep their directorship. All the limited-edition products that they promoted that didn’t sell.

I’m no lawyer, but I don’t understand how once a consultant has purchased inventory that Mary Kay can tell them what they can do with it forever.

Regular businesses have overstocks of merchandise all the time. It’s the reality of retail. Ever heard of Big Lots? That’s where all the stuff that didn’t sell in regular stores goes.

If you’re selling Mary Kay products on eBay or an online store…please be aware of what’s going on. If you receive any notices from Mary Kay Inc, please let me know.

You know I’ll keep you posted on this!

Touch of Pink Cosmetics Files Summary Judgment

On November 26th, 2008, defendants Amy and Scott Weber of Touch of Pink Cosmetics filed a Summary Judgment in their continuing proceedings of the lawsuit broungt against them by Mary Kay Inc.

A Summary Judgment is a motion made by one of the parties of a lawsuit before the case goes to trial. In it, the party filing the Summary Judgment puts forth the evidence in their favor and argues that this evidence is so clear that a jury faced with the case could only reach a decision in favor of the party filing the Summary Judgment.

In other words, Touch of Pink is saying that there isn’t a case against them, and the charges Mary Kay Inc. has alleged aren’t valid.

It’s very interesting reading, I think, and makes some interesting points. Now the judge will have to review the document and see whether he agrees. If he does, he will enter a judgment in Touch of Pink’s favor. Case closed.

The information outlined and points made in this summary judgment are critical to other similar Mary Kay inventory liquidators. If Mary Kay’s assertions are dismissed by the judge, Mary Kay Inc. will have to go back to the drawing board. And resellers doing business in a similar fashion as Touch of Pink could potentially be assured that they couldn’t be sued for the types of allegations contained in this lawsuit.

Here’s the entire document for your reading pleasure:

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

Don’t Confuse Sales Hype For Positive Thinking

If I had a dime for every time someone calls this site negative, I’d have quite a few dimes! 

One of the immediate indoctrinations new Mary Kay consultants are subjected to is the idea of “positive thinking”  They are encouraged to eliminate all “stinkin’ thinkin’” from their life to open the door to success in their Mary Kay “business.”

Now, I am a FIRM believer in the power of a good attitude. I’m especially convinced of the need to be able to “see” the outcome you desire, what many call visualization. If you can’t imagine an certain scenario or outcome, it’s doubtful you can experience it, as you have to be able to even see it as a possibility. So you won’t find me dismissing some of the tools that many who talk about positive thinking.

BUT…the rah rah sales hype of Mary Kay functions is really NOT the same thing as being positive.

It is, however, a good sales practice used by many companies, designed to get members revved up and excited, to overcome the discouragement that often accompanies sales. You see, as humans, we just don’t feel great when we put ourselves out there in the world and receive rejection. As a sales person, you have to keep knocking on doors and calling people, no matter how many “NOs” you receive.

The mistake that many in Mary Kay make is thinking that even speaking of these doubts or challenges is negative.

It’s NOT. It’s smart.

How effective do you think many of our businesses or even the government would be if they only talked about great something is, without acknowledging the obstacles or challenges that exist as well. If they never brought up the so-called negative stuff, how would anybody create strategies or plans? How could you anticipate things and create “Plan B”?

Being positive is not about letting only cute little motivational sayings cross your lips. It’s about being SMART. It’s about seeing the big picture and choosing to continue to move ahead. It’s about embracing your failures instead of coming up with euphemistic phrases to cover up your pain and need for collaboration, as in having a bad week, yet coming to a sales meeting saying that your week was “unbelieveable.”

The Mary Kay brand of “positive thinking” can make one feel truly depressed in a short amount of time. One can’t continue to lie to themselves and continue forging along and it isn’t wise either. What’s needed is a true, honest discussion of the challenges the salesperson faces and talking with others to find ideas. And NOT just sugar-coated ideas that don’t even translate to reality.

The “positive thinking” served up by Mary Kay is dangerous. It’s a kind of brainwashing that works well for the company, getting women to continue buying products they probably won’t be able to sell. It’s clouds the eyes of women to what’s really going on.

Did You Ever Give Mary Kay Products As Xmas Gifts?

I was just thinking about this the other day…

Did you, when you were a consultant, ever give MK products as gifts as Christmas?

This time of year, every Mary Kay consultant is being bombarded by ideas for packaging “gift sets” for the holidays to tempt their customers. And being encouraged to host an Open House, which, for most consultants, are a complete waste of time.

I certainly sold a few things around the holidays, but by no means as much as directors would have me think I should. From listening to them, it would seem everyone gives nothing but MK at Christmas.

And I never gave MK as a gift at Christmas.

« Previous Page — Next Page »