DrugBuyers.Com: Legality of OP Websites

First if all, yes, it is technically illegal to use a brand name in that way. In fact, it is technically illgal to use any registered trademark, without at least a disclaimer saying that it a trademark of the owner.

But it happens all over the place not just just in the OP world and is rarely inforced as it is pretty much up to the owner of the trademark to sue for enforcement. Since it is all over the place, most companies have tolerance levels. Basically, if it costs them money, they will first threathen with a C&D (cease and desist) letter and then, sue.

Otherwise, they will probably let it slide as it not worth the time, money or effort. And thankfully, our federal government isn't spending our tax dollars making sure generic and not brand names are used where the brand name is not being sold. Especially since it really makes no difference to the consumer when it comes to dugs as FDA regulations state, once again, that generic must be of the same quality as the brand name.

Any perceived differences is simply a result of the marketing and advertising dudes doing their to convince you so. Brand loyalty is very desirable for obvious reasons.

It's those same people who pay $5 for Bayer aspirin instead of the $1.99 generic equivalent. Big business loves you guys. Aspirin is aspirin no matter who makes it. But, obvioulsy, thanks to advertising, many people believe otherwise.

And the people who jump up and down because they got send Mallincourt instead of Watson.

When it comes to medication, over the counter or prescription, in the U.S. it is all controlled by the FDA and THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE between the brand and any generics, no matter who makes them.

Especially once drug companyies loose patents, their interest in the drug wanes as its profits and sales do due to generics. Drug companies basically survive for the seven year patent and are mainly driven toward new product development.

Second, as you and others mention, the internet is kind of like the "wild west" where anything goes and it will take time and be difficult to "tame" through laws, etc.

The "world at your finger tips" nature of the internet (the U.S. has no legal jusidiction over web sites you visit and/or in Russia for example) and the relative ease of setting up a basic internet operation kind of guarantees this.

Which, in my mind, is a good thing. One thing the government can't totally control with a million laws, ratings requirements, warning labels all over the place, family hours and the like where you can see people shoot other people (okay, I guess) but not use dirty words that they kids hear in school. Rediculous.

The U.S. seems to have this obsession with labels, ratings, warnings etc., instead of helping people, saving people from themselves and having to get educated enough to make informed decisions or have parents around to make sure their kids aren't watching something they shouldn't be.

Let's concentrate on the big things, like producing jobs, not going into dangerous and unneccessary places where we are not welcome.

Or when it comes to regulations, making sure that companies protect the environment and produce safe, reliable products that do what they say they do without (in the case of meds) casuing dangerous side effects (lest we forget Vioxx, and the others pulled due to "post-marketing issues" that probably could have been avoided had more testing been done.

Again, no offence intended, but to me, that's the important stuff. Not whether the picture of the doctor on the web site matches the actual doctor they use or whether they say Xanax but actually sell the generic equivelent only.

Man, I wish that was all I had to worry about.