Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Do trademark or domain records show companies using the name memoblast?
Executive Summary
The available records in the provided dataset show evidence of the name “MemoBlast” or variants being used commercially online, primarily as a dietary supplement brand and at least one domain name (memoblast.co), but there is no authoritative trademark registration data in the supplied material to confirm legitimate corporate ownership. Independent site-review and review articles in October 2025 flag the domain and product as low-trust or fraudulent, creating a consistent pattern that raises suspicion about commercial actors using the name in these records [1] [2] [3] [4]. The supplied materials do not include patent and trademark office records or domain WHOIS details beyond third-party trust assessments, so the presence of companies using the name cannot be fully verified from this dataset alone [5] [6].
1. What claimants said and what the dataset actually contains — Cutting through product names and silence on formal records
The dataset includes three distinct claim clusters: a product landing page for “MemoBlast” presented as an advanced memory enhancement formula (dated October 1, 2025), a set of generic memory-supplement listings without trademark detail, and a corporate sustainability report that does not reference the name [1] [5] [6]. The first claim indicates a commercial product marketed under the MemoBlast label, but none of the p1 sources provide formal trademark filings, registrar WHOIS prints, or government trademark office entries. That matters because a brand or product landing page establishes market usage but does not equal a registered trademark or verified corporate ownership. The dataset therefore documents market use but is silent on official intellectual property records.
2. Independent assessments point to trust concerns — Domain and review evaluations raise red flags
Third-party evaluations within the dataset identify memoblast.co as having a low trust score and suggest the registrar history contains a high percentage of spam-associated domains — a signal often used by analysts to flag risky commercial operators [2]. Two contemporaneous review pieces from October 11 and October 13, 2025, characterize MemoBlast as a likely scam, citing deceptive marketing, fabricated endorsements, and unsubstantiated scientific claims [3] [4]. These sources present a consistent viewpoint: the online footprint tied to the MemoBlast name appears to be associated with high-risk marketing practices rather than established, transparent corporate entities. Within this dataset, the weight of evidence about online behavior points away from legitimate brand stewardship.
3. Gaps in the dataset that prevent definitive legal conclusions — What’s missing from the record
Crucial evidence needed to confirm whether companies legally own the name “memoblast” is absent from the provided analyses: there are no entries from national trademark offices (e.g., USPTO, EUIPO), no registered WHOIS snapshots showing registrant organization details, no corporate registry extracts, and no digital certificate or payment-processor merchant verification statements. The dataset’s silence on these formal records means we cannot conclusively state that a legally recognized company is using or controlling the name; we can only report on market-facing uses and reputational assessments contained in the supplied sources [1] [5] [6] [2].
4. Two plausible interpretations from the same facts — Legitimate product or opportunistic abuse
One interpretation consistent with the p1 material is that MemoBlast is simply a commercial supplement brand with an online store presence [1]. An alternative interpretation, supported by the p2 reviews, is that the MemoBlast name is being used by opportunistic marketers who deploy disposable domains and deceptive reviews to sell an unproven product, a pattern common in the supplement space [3] [4]. Both readings align with the available facts: market use exists, but the trust and verification signals in the October 2025 reviews heavily favor the latter interpretation. The dataset therefore supports contrasting narratives but conveys stronger corroboration for reputational risk than for legitimate corporate ownership.
5. What to do next to reach a conclusive answer — Records to obtain and tests to run
To move from suspicion to certainty, obtain primary-source records: authoritative trademark-office searches across relevant jurisdictions (search terms “MemoBlast,” “memoblast”), WHOIS domain-history reports for memoblast.co and variant domains, merchant-account/payment-processor records, and corporate registry searches for entities claiming the name. If the user wants immediate steps, request direct copies of trademark registration certificates, a registrar’s historical WHOIS export, or a validated merchant ID. The supplied dataset provides clear signals of market use and reputational problems in October 2025, but without primary legal records we cannot confirm that a legitimate company holds trademark or domain rights to “memoblast” [1] [2] [3] [4].