Grand Deceit by Theos Medical Systems and Chummie – A Judge's Order! (Part 1)

Part 1

For the past two years we have been pointing out the deceit (some may call it fraud) indulged in and perpetuated by Theos Medical Systems, Inc. with respect to their Chummie products and also disparaging the reputation and facts about Theos's competitors and their products. This has been confirmed by an order/decree from a U.S. Federal Judge for the Northern District of California which validates and confirms (through Theos's consent to the order/decree) much of what we have written about with respect to Theos/Chummie and imposes controls on them. This further confirms our claims of excessive hype and false claims by Theos about their Chummie products, and their abuse of Amazon Reviews to hype their products and degrade their competition, and the general lack of good ethics on the part of Theos Medical Systems. We continue to wonder why any moral, ethical and sensible buyer would want to conduct any business with Theos or purchase their Chummie products.

Now let us examine Theos/Chummie’s motives and methods further.

From the very beginning Theos/Chummie, through its owner Saket Bhatia (“Bhatia"), who is also a defendant and to whom the afore-mentioned order applies, were intent on disrupting the bed-wetting alarm industry for their personal gain. Why the bed-wetting alarm industry? We can only surmise that Bhatia was looking for an opportunity where the industry and competitors were small and dispersed, and it might be relatively easy to become a “big fish in a small pond.” Bhatia had identified a Chinese manufacturer Qingdao Bercon Medical Device Co. who made several inexpensive medical products some of which appealed to Bhatia. One was a bed-wetting alarm, the Model M300 , which Quingdao Bercon had been attempting to sell, together with some other medical devices (such as an inexpensive ultrasound device) for which Bhatia thought that there would be some demand. He established Theos Medical Systems in Mumbai, India, and opened a sales office in Santa Clara, California. The M300 alarm used standard technology and was a typical alarm with nothing innovative and obsolete technology. But it was cheap. Nothing unique about its old-fashioned technology and no development costs or related mental acumen!

Bhatia’s modus operandi was to run a “no frills” business, focused on building sales at a minimum cost. There is nothing wrong with this approach, and it is legitimately used by many small start-up businesses. So Bhatia had a web site developed, which would be his primary means of sales. On it he attempted to sell the M300 bed-wetting alarm (now called Chummie) and also mentioned some other devices including the ultrasound device. His initial efforts were not successful. So he obtained the services of a marketing “consultant” who put a “smile” on the face of the Chummie alarm box, made the packaging more attractive, and helped in promoting the item(s). Again, not an issue in and of itself, if everything Bhatia said and did, whether on the website or elsewhere, was ethical and “above board.” However Bhatia’s approach to developing his business was extremely unethical.

In this post (and the following one) we shall only examine the specific orders from the Federal Judge towards Theos Medical Systems and Bhatia (Defendants):

1.         Bhatia obtained the U.S. trademark for "Malem," a bedwetting alarm that has been on the market since the last century. Bhatia also attempted to prevent the trademark for "Bedwetting Store," a name that has been used by a competitor of Bhatia for many years. We can only attribute this behavior of Bhatia to mischief intended to harass a competitor. This mischievous attitude is further validated by the fact that Bhatia got an insurer to pay any legal fees if his trademark claim to Malem was legally challenged. The Judge ordered that the Defendants cannot oppose the "Bedwetting Store" application of the Plaintiff, and must also not use or attempt to trademark "Malem," "Bedwetting Store," and other names and trademarks, and remove such items and copyrighted materials and meta materials from their website, and not use such materials in the future. 

Continued in the next blog entry ...