Ruyan tackles copycats
- Thread starter TropicalBob
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
From whay I have been able to discern from the manufacturer / product comparison chart on the e-cig Wiki that was linked to by another member on some of his posts is that Joye (510/Dura/Titan/ Yeti/ ect. ) is licensed by Ruyan to incorporate the Ruyan designs in thier products. The Ruyan direct site (Heavenly-gifts) now markets some of the Joye line through thier e-store now also. The Ruyan direct site is also utilyzing PayPal transaction services as recently as 08/25/09 for orders with no qualms or apparent concern. My order (handfull of attys, some enpty carts, and a few charger components) went off without a hitch (so far), in fact it is in transport as you are reading.
A personalised reply to a message I sent asking for thier expertise concerning my product selection for non-standard uses -and- thier recent experiences with package delivery into the U.S.was answered in the affirmative, the Rep implied that packages containing e-juice were making it to the destinations without problem.
below is some excerpt from our correspondence:
So, even though a fair portion of my post is sort of off-topic, I thought some of you might appreciate some info about over-seas transactions occurring right now.
I guess I will just keep my fingers crossed and hope it arrives without problem.
A personalised reply to a message I sent asking for thier expertise concerning my product selection for non-standard uses -and- thier recent experiences with package delivery into the U.S.was answered in the affirmative, the Rep implied that packages containing e-juice were making it to the destinations without problem.
below is some excerpt from our correspondence:
So, even though a fair portion of my post is sort of off-topic, I thought some of you might appreciate some info about over-seas transactions occurring right now.
I guess I will just keep my fingers crossed and hope it arrives without problem.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, but according to their own website....they are going after Ruyan-Direct for trademark infringement:
"WWW.RUYANDIRECT.COM NOT AFFILIATED WITH RUYAN!
As the owner of the RUYAN trademark and the inventor of the electronic cigarette, RUYAN would like to warn businesses, consumers, government and media that RUYANDIRECT.COM is in no way related to RUYAN. RUYAN will continue to take actions against companies that violate its trademark rights, as we have in the past with some 12 websites that illegally used the RUYAN name. While such cases are proceeding, RUYAN would like to remind the public that only approved distribution channels are allowed to sell RUYAN products. RUYANDIRECT.COM is in no way related to RUYAN and will be shown to be in clear violation of RUYANS trademark rights."
BEIJING SBT RUYAN TECHNOLOGY & DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD.
August 26, 2009
And, evidently they are lining this up with a firm pharmaceutical slant...in their own words:
RUYAN GROUP (HOLDINGS) LIMITED
(Incorporated in the Cayman Islands with limited liability)
The Company was incorporated in the Cayman Islands as an exempted company with limited liability and its shares are
listed on The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (the "Stock Exchange")
The Company was renamed from Golden Dragon Group (Holdings) Limited to Ruyan Group (Holdings) Limited
effective from 20 November, 2007.
The Company acts as an investment holding company. Its subsidiaries are principally engaged in production and sales of
a series of health care products, pharmaceutical products and RUYAN atomizing cigarettes.
"I would like to express my sincere gratitude to our customers, suppliers and shareholders. My deep
appreciation and thankfulness goes to all members of our staff, in particular to my fellow directors and
the management for their continuous support to the Groups effort made in the past. This is the first year
since the merger of Golden Dragon Group (Holdings) Limited and Ruyan-SBTs operation. We have
full confidence that the merger of health care products, parametrical products and electronic cigarette
products will bring greater returns for our investors in the years ahead."
By order of the Board
Ruyan Group (Holdings) Limited
Wong Yin Sen
Chairman
Hong Kong,
Even the pre-sale publicity they are putting out about their new RAPP is worded with "health", "tonic", etc. Their message on tradekey now is smoking cessation, healthier alternative to smoking, etc. Could they be working with FDA in the background to settle this as an NRT?
"WWW.RUYANDIRECT.COM NOT AFFILIATED WITH RUYAN!
As the owner of the RUYAN trademark and the inventor of the electronic cigarette, RUYAN would like to warn businesses, consumers, government and media that RUYANDIRECT.COM is in no way related to RUYAN. RUYAN will continue to take actions against companies that violate its trademark rights, as we have in the past with some 12 websites that illegally used the RUYAN name. While such cases are proceeding, RUYAN would like to remind the public that only approved distribution channels are allowed to sell RUYAN products. RUYANDIRECT.COM is in no way related to RUYAN and will be shown to be in clear violation of RUYANS trademark rights."
BEIJING SBT RUYAN TECHNOLOGY & DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD.
August 26, 2009
And, evidently they are lining this up with a firm pharmaceutical slant...in their own words:
RUYAN GROUP (HOLDINGS) LIMITED
(Incorporated in the Cayman Islands with limited liability)
The Company was incorporated in the Cayman Islands as an exempted company with limited liability and its shares are
listed on The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (the "Stock Exchange")
The Company was renamed from Golden Dragon Group (Holdings) Limited to Ruyan Group (Holdings) Limited
effective from 20 November, 2007.
The Company acts as an investment holding company. Its subsidiaries are principally engaged in production and sales of
a series of health care products, pharmaceutical products and RUYAN atomizing cigarettes.
"I would like to express my sincere gratitude to our customers, suppliers and shareholders. My deep
appreciation and thankfulness goes to all members of our staff, in particular to my fellow directors and
the management for their continuous support to the Groups effort made in the past. This is the first year
since the merger of Golden Dragon Group (Holdings) Limited and Ruyan-SBTs operation. We have
full confidence that the merger of health care products, parametrical products and electronic cigarette
products will bring greater returns for our investors in the years ahead."
By order of the Board
Ruyan Group (Holdings) Limited
Wong Yin Sen
Chairman
Hong Kong,
Even the pre-sale publicity they are putting out about their new RAPP is worded with "health", "tonic", etc. Their message on tradekey now is smoking cessation, healthier alternative to smoking, etc. Could they be working with FDA in the background to settle this as an NRT?
Interesting. We've had posts in the past that said Ruyan had begun testing e-cigs as NRT products, which many here found curious. Ruyan, of course, commissioned the Health New Zealand tests for safety, and is now conducting tests for efficacy. When it is ready, it can present the entire package to the FDA and regulatory agencies in other countries. It is the only company known to be doing this thorough job.
If these are approved as NRT, there will not be an enforceable time limit on use. That, to me, is most important. I want to use these from now on! Ruyan pricing might become the norm, however.
If they are approved as tobacco products, I get to pay taxes through the nose and will have lost the joy of staying inside with friends when nic cravings hit. These do not use tobacco and that branding as a tobacco product should be fought, as it was in Suffolk County. We aren't smokers. We don't smoke these.
Ruyan seems to always have known what others will only learn later. It invested in the future when others rushed to cash in on today's bonanza. And when End Game is reached, Ruyan just might be the only e-cig maker still standing.
If these are approved as NRT, there will not be an enforceable time limit on use. That, to me, is most important. I want to use these from now on! Ruyan pricing might become the norm, however.
If they are approved as tobacco products, I get to pay taxes through the nose and will have lost the joy of staying inside with friends when nic cravings hit. These do not use tobacco and that branding as a tobacco product should be fought, as it was in Suffolk County. We aren't smokers. We don't smoke these.
Ruyan seems to always have known what others will only learn later. It invested in the future when others rushed to cash in on today's bonanza. And when End Game is reached, Ruyan just might be the only e-cig maker still standing.
One portion of NRT regulation is that there is an end-use date. But you are right, it is not enforceable.
And your days of ordering them over the internet are over!
Ahhh... both are all the more reason that reasonable regulation needs to be achieved and this new product NOT be lumped into an existing category. And that IS an option! It's a long shot... but it is totally worth a try... for everyone... consumer and supplier.
Bob, I thought the flavor of the Ruyan Jazz was the best I have ever tried. Unfortunately, I found it too expensive to use
T Bob, why keep perpetrating a myth and a logical fallacy? Why play into the hands of the enemies? You know that what happened in Suffolk County was not because ecigs were "branded" a "tobacco product". You know that "tobacco product" does not equal smoke and combustion, and thus does not equal fitting within the definiton of products banned for use inside public places.
Furthermore, the cost of NRT "drug products" is significantly, hugely more that the cost of alternative "tobacco products", even with taxes figured in! Have you checked out the price of the nicotine inhaler lately?
Indeed, one can only come to the conclusion that there is no real concern for people's health. Nicotine is actually pretty cheap and the NRT products grossly over-priced; Perhaps 10x cost.
Yvilla: I've been watching trends since anti-smoking laws became ubiquitous. These laws have already begun morphing into "anti-tobacco". Look around. Places that formerly had "no smoking" signs now have "no tobacco" or "tobacco-free" signs. Branding e-cigs as a tobacco product will be the death knell's first ...., to my thinking.
Snus, dissolvables, nasal snuff ... all are pure tobacco. Pure 100% tobacco with some flavoring. We are very different. We are akin only to Big Pharma's NRT products, with the chemical nicotine used in unique, non-smoking ways.
I hear you. I know how you feel. Understand only that I do not share that feeling. Either way, tobacco or drug, we get FDA-regulated. But I want the regulation to end with legal e-smoking in public places. Much will be lost if that is not the case.
If the country continues toward "anti-tobacco" (a step toward anti-nicotine), then e-smoking will be tossed out of sight just as cigarette, cigar and pipe smoking has been. It does not deserve that fate.
I really agree with Lacey. A new category for consideration needs to be created.
Snus, dissolvables, nasal snuff ... all are pure tobacco. Pure 100% tobacco with some flavoring. We are very different. We are akin only to Big Pharma's NRT products, with the chemical nicotine used in unique, non-smoking ways.
I hear you. I know how you feel. Understand only that I do not share that feeling. Either way, tobacco or drug, we get FDA-regulated. But I want the regulation to end with legal e-smoking in public places. Much will be lost if that is not the case.
If the country continues toward "anti-tobacco" (a step toward anti-nicotine), then e-smoking will be tossed out of sight just as cigarette, cigar and pipe smoking has been. It does not deserve that fate.
I really agree with Lacey. A new category for consideration needs to be created.
What makes it so difficult in choosing what best to argue for is that so much is uncertain, in all directions, each path is barely laid out and we can't be sure what will follow in any direction.
A unique classification would indeed seem ideal. Feeling like we'd be lucky to get that in the current climate - but then again why should we not try for that, it deserves that position, damn it!
A unique classification would indeed seem ideal. Feeling like we'd be lucky to get that in the current climate - but then again why should we not try for that, it deserves that position, damn it!
This is exactly what I had referenced in the thread I started several weeks ago(A Pharmacists View). It is still what I'm hoping will occur. If you logically think about(taking all the politics out of the equation) the situation, it's the only thing that makes sense. E-cigs aren't by definition tobacco products(although, I guess, some eliquid, does contain minimal tobacco alkaloids), and they're NOT NRT's. They are non-tobacco NAP's(Nicotine alternative products) and what really should happen is that a new category be defined to place them into. At least it would be a starting point.
Doubt anyone would not sign up to this - but it all depends what follows; what regulations etc are imposed on this new classification. At least, one would imagine, that not being classified with other unrealted products would give the possibility of more (rightly) favourable treatment.
Okay, T Bob, I hear you too. We both have the same goal. But we differ in our beliefs as to the more likely path toward attainability of that goal.
But how on earth does it serve that goal to continue to spread such a fallacious and pernicious concept - that somehow just by the label "tobacco product" ecigs would automagically be transformed into devices that emit "smoke", and therefore fall within the definitional sections of the clean air acts and bans in place all around the country?
We should be railing against such ignorance exemplified by what occurred in Suffolk County with all our might, yes, but we should not simply repeat falsehoods as if they were truth.
I do not consider my view in any way a falsehood. I consider it a realistic view, as you must yours.
To me, calling this a tobacco product is clever but untrue. That's the falsehood.
Enough opinion. I swear .. I'll stop now. A federal judge will soon tell one of us: You're just wrong.
To me, calling this a tobacco product is clever but untrue. That's the falsehood.
Enough opinion. I swear .. I'll stop now. A federal judge will soon tell one of us: You're just wrong.
Well, I guess you're not actually hearing me then.
I'm NOT coming down on you for your view that to classify ecigs as "tobacco products" is the wrong way to go. I can accept that we differ on that.
What I am harping on you about, what is false, is your spreading the notion that the use of anything, just because it's labeled a "tobacco product" would automatically constitute a violation of the smoking bans, without regard to whether that something emitted smoke.
You know that's false, so why use that rhetoric, and potentially increase the numbers of the ignorant who will go out and repeat it, to the detriment of our cause?
But there is definitely a trend towards "anti-tobacco" rather than "anti-smoking".
I happened to be looking at the ASH UK website (unrelated to Banzhaf's ASH in the USA) and noted that their mission statement is now "Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) is a campaigning public health charity that works to eliminate the harm caused by tobacco". Not the harm caused by smoking or even the harm caused by smoking tobacco. Just tobacco.
Similarly Delta Airlines in the USA claims to be a smoke-free airline and then goes on to say "Use of tobacco products is prohibited".
Since we now have the third-hand smoke scare, I can foresee that breath from smokeless tobacco users is next in line.
Whether the campaigns further morph from anti-tobacco to anti-nicotine remains to be seen because that would cut into NRTs unless we end up with the insane situation that recreational nicotine is not allowed, only nicotine for the short-term purpose of NRT.
I happened to be looking at the ASH UK website (unrelated to Banzhaf's ASH in the USA) and noted that their mission statement is now "Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) is a campaigning public health charity that works to eliminate the harm caused by tobacco". Not the harm caused by smoking or even the harm caused by smoking tobacco. Just tobacco.
Similarly Delta Airlines in the USA claims to be a smoke-free airline and then goes on to say "Use of tobacco products is prohibited".
Since we now have the third-hand smoke scare, I can foresee that breath from smokeless tobacco users is next in line.
Whether the campaigns further morph from anti-tobacco to anti-nicotine remains to be seen because that would cut into NRTs unless we end up with the insane situation that recreational nicotine is not allowed, only nicotine for the short-term purpose of NRT.
I agree that this is false, but TBob seems to be merely reacting to multiple cases of tobacco as opposed to smoking ban. There are already a number of places that ban *any use* of tobacco. Is that reasonable? No. Do they have the right to do it? Yes, just like they have the right to ban food, drinks etc. from their premises. They are clearly pushed by zealots that see that as a way to get tobacco out of their lives altogether. TBob would probably like to see ecigs kept out of that craze so that stupid tobacco bans wouldn't harm ecig usage, nor would the visible vapor from ecig affect the ability to use smokeless tobacco.
... Just kidding.But what I find interesting is that in the http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...s-keep-ecig-sales-away-minors.html#post538249, you comment that Ecigs are nothing to Congress.
However, in order for a new category to truly be considered, Congress urging the FDA to do so would be beneficial AND, if Congress finds that there needs to be a revisit to the legislation for tobacco products to include or create a new category for this obviously hot topic... it IS completely possible... so URGING Congress to see that we are here and willing to cooperate opens up doors for this "new category" which would really be best for us all..
When Burr, Hagan, and Buyer were ignored previously... things were very different on the ecig front. The FDA hadn't been sued... a small minority of the US population knew about them AND we certainly didn't have the support from many of the medical organizations/persons we have now.
Lobbying Congress is really one of the best ways to get the show on the road towards a new category.
Upfront, this is opinion:
NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
It's ludicrous to discuss Congress taking up e-cigs. Just .. fantasyville.
Remember: E-cigs were on Burr's charts! E-cigs were known and recognized. But special consideration went in the tank on his amendment for reduced-risk products, including ours. Congress spoke, and the vote wasn't close.
Well, we are no better off today than we were then. Worse, far worse, in fact. FDA "tests" and pronouncements. Attorneys general getting involved. New state laws proposed. Heavyweight opponents like Banzhaf spewing incorrect press releases.
If this glass is half-full, I have a bulletin: It's leaking.
NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
It's ludicrous to discuss Congress taking up e-cigs. Just .. fantasyville. Remember: E-cigs were on Burr's charts! E-cigs were known and recognized. But special consideration went in the tank on his amendment for reduced-risk products, including ours. Congress spoke, and the vote wasn't close.
Well, we are no better off today than we were then. Worse, far worse, in fact. FDA "tests" and pronouncements. Attorneys general getting involved. New state laws proposed. Heavyweight opponents like Banzhaf spewing incorrect press releases.
If this glass is half-full, I have a bulletin: It's leaking.
- Status
Similar threads
