May It Please the Mozzers,
I was working on trademarking some SEOmoz marks the other day, when I noticed that someone is trying to register "SEO" as a service mark.
I was shocked. Apparently, the guy who's doing this has managaged to get all the way to the publication stage of the registration process. That means he has passed the preliminary review by the Trademark Office's ("TMO") reviewing attorney. Currently, the registration is in a sort of waiting period during which people who would be harmed by the registration can file an objection with the Trademark Office.
In short, it appears that the applicant, Jason Gambert, managed to convince the TMO's reviewing attorney that SEO is a "process" involving manipulation of keywords, and not a "marketing service." The reviewing attorney basically bought his incoherent argument that while "SEO" can't be trademarked when it refers to a generic process of manipulated keywords, it can be a service mark for providing "marketing services...in the field of computers."
The only thing left to do is to object and explain that "SEO" is more than a process to manipulate search engines using keywords. Further, someone needs to explain to the TMO that virtually every SEO could be said to provide "marketing services...in the field of computers."
If you want to review the relevant documents, they are all available to the public in the Trademark Application and Registration Retrieval system, TARRs. Simply plug in the application's serial number, 77171330, into the TARRs database, and you can view all of the documents by date. Note: I would deep link to the individual documents, but I'm not sophisticated enough to get around the session id timeout issues. Perhaps someday I'll be clever like Rebecca.
In order to make sense of what's going on here, remember that in order to qualify as a trademark, it must be distinctive and you must be the first to use it in your industry/area. The TMO often rejects marks that are merely descriptive. They also reject marks when you're not the first to use it in your industry/are. I'm using "Industry/Area" because the concept includes both the goods and services you provide (do you sell kitchen products? Do you help people with your taxes? Do you provide internet marketing? etc etc) AND the geographic reach of your industry. (Is your market limited to your city? Your Region? Your Nation? The Globe?) When there are trademark contests, the TMO looks at both the kind of goods and services you provide as well as the market you serve.
I review these things here so that you can understand why so much emphasis is placed on describing your "goods and services" in the trademark application. The TMO actually has a large list of pre-defined classes of goods and services to assist in describing and searching for conflicting marks. As you can see below, the TMO really struggles to define the appropriate description of "goods and services" for "SEO."
Let's take a look at the key dates and issues in the life of this absurd trademark application:
Original Filing on May 2, 2007
Jason Gambert applied for registration of the mark "SEO." He described the relevant goods and services as: "Search Engine Optimization, Hosting, Webdesign, Software, Hosting, Domain Name, Software Development, All Computer Related Development and Marketing plus what is listed; Computer Software, Computer Hardware, "SEO" Letters to be trademarked in "All" Computer related areas."
Does this sound like something you or anyone you know does for a living? Let's just come right out and say it. It's pretty clear what this man's intention was. He was trying to own SEO and he was trying to own it for search engine optimization and other related internet marketing strategies. Theoretically, if he had successfully registered SEO for this expansive area, he probably could have sent Cease and Desist letters to just about everyone who's likely to read this blog. (Now would he have successfully been able to defend this mark in a Court of law? Probably not. But can you imagine the panic, stress, lawyers, and nastygrams that would have been issued? <shudder>)
It gets funnier. The application asks when the first use of the term ocurred anywhere. What does he say? "At least as early as 02/14/2007." Ha!
The Trademark Office Rejects the Application on August 15, 2007
At first, it appears that the fine folks at the Trademark Office are going to get this right. The reviewing attorney politely and firmly responds to Gambert with a long list of reasons for refusal and problems with the application.
- Likelihood of Confusion with Prior Pending Application. The TMO identifies two other trademark applications which were filed prior to Gambert's that may bar his registration. Those applications are for "Titan SEO" and "Reno SEO." (Note: there are other combinations of SEO registered, I'm not sure why these aren't listed as a bar to Gambert's application.)
- Mark is Merely Descriptive. The TMO points out the obvious objection that the proposed mark merely describes a feature or characteristic of Gambert's Services. The reviewing attorney even attaches sample SERPS listing "SEO" in connection with computers and search engine optimization. She argues,
"The applicant's proposed mark, SEO, is merely descriptive of its computer related services. The acronym SEO stands for "Search Engine Optimization." See attached evidence. The applicant's proposed mark is for "search engine optimization" services, among other computer related services. See application....In addition to being merely descriptive, the proposed mark appears to be generic in connection with the identified services and, therefore, incapable of functioning as a source-identifier for applicant’s services.
- The Identification of Goods and Services Is Overbroad. Gambert's application attempts to define the relevant Goods and Services with the broadest terms imaginable to that he can claim trademark on "all computer related areas." The reviewing attorney counseled him to choose one of the pre-defined areas or classes of goods and services. Alternatively, if he wants the mark to apply for more than one of the pre-defined classes, then he needs to pay the multi-class fee.
After reviewing the TMO's objections, Gambert amends his application. He writes, "I have now removed any and all acronym qualities for the term "SEO" for search engine optimization." In addition, he attempts to narrow the scope of the relevant Goods and Services from "all computer related areas" to "Direct marketing services for others in the field of computers. Search engine marketing. Domain name." Again, how is this different from the generic and widespread use of "SEO" in commerce?
Notably, Gambert attempts to explain the mark's significance so that it doesn't look like the generic acronym for search engine optimization. He writes, "SEO appearing in the mark means or signifies System Efficient Optimization in the relevant trade or industry or as applied to the goods/services listed in the application." Full points for creativity. But does that really get around the fact that people in the internet marketing industry use the term SEO widely and generically?
Between September 22, 2007 and January, Gambert uses various online dictionaries to argue that the generic use of "SEO" refers to a process, and is therefore completely different from his unique use of the term "SEO" for direct marketing services.
On September 22, 2007, Gambert sends a pdf of the Dictionary.com definition of SEO to the TMO. It states that search engine optimization is a noun that means "the process of choosing targeted keywords and keyword phrases related to a Web site so the site will rank high when those terms are part of a Web search; abbr. SEO." He sends the TMO other online dictionary and encyclopedia sources that narrowly define SEO as a "process" involving "keywords."
It's not entirely clear what Gambert is getting at, but it appears that he is trying to convince the TMO that "SEO" in the specific context of search engine optimization is merely a process, and not a service. Therefore, he seems to argue, since he is using "SEO" to describe general marketing services, his use is unique from the common generic use of SEO as a process. He concludes "The proposed mark, SEO, is for a service not a process."
On January 2, 2008, the TMO again rejects the proposed Application.
On January 2, 2008, the reviewing attorney follows up to Gambert's September and December communication. She informs him that the prior applications are no longer a bar because they were abandoned. However, she maintains that Gambert's application cannot be accepted because the proposed mark is merely descriptive:
The applicant's proposed mark, SEO, is merely descriptive of its computer related services. The acronym SEO stands for "Search Engine Optimization." See attached evidence. The applicant's amended services are "Direct marketing services for others in the field of computers." See application. The proposed mark SEO is descriptive of the applicant's amended services because the subject matter of the applicant's marketing services is computer serach [sic] engine optimization....Therefore, the proposed mark, SEO, is refused because it is merely descriptive of a feature or characteristic of the applicant's services under Section 2(e)(1).Here again, it looks like the TMO is going to get this right. The reviewing attorney states the obvious that SEO stands for search engine optimization and that the applicant's "direct marketing services" seem to include SEO. Therefore, it cannot be used as a service mark.
Not only did she nail him again, she gave him an additional reason for refusal. When applying for a trademark on the first-use-in-commerce basis, you need to give an example, or "specimen," showing your use. This shows that you are in fact using the mark and helps to identify the context in which you are using it. The specimen Gambert submitted with his application didn't even have the expression "SEO" on it. Instead it was certification by the State of Arizona that he was using the trade name "Modern Consulting Solutions." Note to would-be mark-holders: You have to show that you use the mark. Send them something that actually contains your mark in it. (Duh, right?)
On January 3, 2008, Gambert shoots off a bitter and confusing response to the TMO's Refusal.
Finally, Gambert does more than quote a sentence from a dictionary. You can see he loses his temper in the quote below. I realize that the quote is awfully long. But I wanted to include it so that you people who know your jobs better than I do can try to make sense of why this internet marketer thinks he should be able to hold the service mark for "SEO." Also, rather than litter the quote with a "[sic]" after "[sic]," consider this a blanket [sic] for the whole thing. Gambert responds to the reviewing attorney's refusal thus:
Mark is undeniably not merely descriptive--MAINTAINED and CONTINUEDOkay. I'll be honest. I have no idea what Gambert is talking about here. Whatever it is, he is clearly passionate about it. And he again appears to be arguing that the generic term "SEO" refers only to a process, and that his special use of "SEO" refers to a service??? And this in his mind is why he should be able to trademark SEO. But I'm not entirely certain. If you have special insight into this man's mind, please let me know. I get thrown off by phrases like "congruent value," and "realistic official English linguistic value," and "SEO is a knowledgeable process really having nothing to do with computer services at all given the fact that it is a process and not a service." Huh. <scratches head>
Registration should not be refused for the forgoing reason; the proposed mark does not merely describe a feature or characteristic of applicant's services. SEO is undeniably not a service; it is a process that is not a part of applicant's services.
The applicant has considered attorneys arguments for refusal carefully and found the arguments are not congruent to the arguments of registration. The applicant has provided substantive evidence with simply the lack of it. There is no evidence that has any realistic credible value as “SEO” having anything to do with a service. SEO is the known acronym for “Search Engine Optimization and after a careful break down of the root words that SEO consist of, they do have realistic official English linguistic value. What they do not have however is any definition describing “Search Engine Optimization” as having anything to do with a service.” All previous arguments and evidence submitted of the official English linguistic value of “SEO” are maintained. Attached is the evidence of “Net lingo” to be discredited as having any “Official English linguistic value.” As you can see with the attached evidence Net lingo is hearsay, or modern day definitions of slang. Their opinions have no official English linguistic credibility. The benefit of the doubt is with the applicant therefore if proof of SEO having any realistic official English linguistic value of being a service is not found, registration should not be refused.
The applicant’s proposed mark, SEO, is not descriptive of its computer related services because it is simply a process, not a service. SEO would lean more toward "a process performed with a computer as a tool to perform the process" "SEO" is a knowledgeable process really having nothing to do with computer services at all given the fact it is a process not a service. That is like calling a screwdriver a hammer! The acronym SEO stands for “Search Engine Optimization.” The applicant’s amended services are “Direct marketing services for others in the field of computers.” See application. The proposed mark SEO is not descriptive of the applicant’s amended services because the subject matter of the applicant’s marketing services undeniably is not a process. Search engine optimization is a process not a service. All attached evidence illustrating that SEO, is the known acronym for search engine optimization has no congruent value that should bar registration given the official definition. Therefore, the proposed mark, SEO, should not be refused because it is not merely descriptive of a feature or characteristic of the applicant’s services. “SEO” is a “process” not a service.
In addition to being not merely descriptive, the proposed mark is exclusive because of the absence of any connection with being a service. Therefore it is wonderfully capable of functioning as a source identifier of applicants’ services. “SEO” is a process not a service.
Specimen will be submitted when the term “Generic” is no longer used after reconsideration!
In addition to the above mentioned “SEO” has been in use and affiliated with applicant for over 5 years acting for additional grounds for registration.
Pity the over-worked TMO attorney who has to deal with this response.
The reviewing attorney AGAIN refuses the application on January 8, 2008.
After considering Gambert's response, the examining attorney AGAIN found them unpersuasive because he has not supplied any evidence that SEO is not descriptive of his services. So here's this internet marketer who wants to use SEO in commerce to identify his business, but he has to state that the process of search engine optimization has nothing to do with his business.
Gambert's application is so convoluted and unclear that the reviewing attorney has no clue what he really does. She basically responds that she is willing to allow the registration so long as Gambert is providing the services for someone other than himself and that the service he is providing is not search engine optimization.
She states,
[I]t appears from the arguments submitted by the applicant that [the applicant] is providing direct marketing of its own goods and services. In other words, if the applicant is providing direct marketing services for the benefit of others such that it is compiling advertising campaigns for its customers, then the applicant is providing a service. However, if the applicant is mailing advertising about computers that discuss its own search engine optimization (SEO) services, then the applicant is not providing a servcie thataht [sic] is distinct from its larger business."
The reviewing attorney then asks Gambert to submit samples of advertisements or promotional materials so that it can determine whether the applicant's services are truly "services" as intended by the Trademark Act.
Gambert's January 9th and 10th Responses
Gambert follows the formula presented to him by the TMO attorney and refines his description of Goods and Services to read: "Marketing services in the field of providing marketing services for the benifit [sic] of others in compiling advertising campaigns and promotional services for it customers."
Doesn't this sound like an inarticulate way to say, "I create link-bait"?Gambert follows the formula presented to him by the TMO attorney and refines his description of Goods and Services to read: "Marketing services in the field of providing marketing services for the benifit [sic] of others in compiling advertising campaigns and promotional services for it customers."
As further "evidence" to support his theory that the generic form of SEO refers to a process and not a service, he provides only the first two lines of a Wikipedia entry on SEO that describes SEO as "the process of improving the volume and quality of traffic to a web site from search engines via "natural" ("organic" or "algorithmic") search results for targeted keywords." Well, if Wikipedia says it, it must be true!
The TMO Accedes that "SEO" is a service mark on January 14, 2008.
Apparently, the reviewing attorney's concerns that "SEO" can't function as a service mark were put to rest when Gambert clarified that he is providing advertising services to and for the benefit of others. Thus, she withdraws her objection to registration based on the mark's failure to act as a service mark. Apparently, she was also sufficiently convinced that SEO was a process about keywords and not a marketing service because she withdrew her objection that SEO was too generic and merely descriptive.
I'm just speculating, but I think she basically gave up and said, "Hey. If he says he's doing direct marketing and not SEO, then who am I to say otherwise?"
She does renew her request for an adequate specimen to demonstrate how the mark is actually used. Perhaps she was hoping the specimen would talk about search engine optimization or provide some other reason why the application should be refused.
Oh yeah. She also requires him to add something about computers back into his description of Goods and Services because his original application related entirely to computer services. You can narrow your definition of Goods and Services in the application process, but you can't broaden it. Thus, she awkwardly recommends that Gambert amend his application (for the third or fourth time) to read "Marketing services in the field of computer [sic] in the nature of providing marketing services for the benefit of others by compiling advertising campaigns and promotional services for it [sic] customers."
January 15, 2008, Gambert Supplies an Alleged Specimen
Things start looking up for Gambert, and he finally supplies an alleged specimen of his use of "SEO."
That basically looks like someone offering generic SEO services to me. What do you think?
In addition to providing the above specimen, Gambert takes the reviewing attorney's advice and amends his description of the relevant goods and services to include something about computers: "Marketing services in the field of computers in the nature of providing marketing servcies [sic] for the benefit of others by compiling advertising campaigns, promotional services, and consulting for its customers."
Remember, when he began his application process, he was trying to claim the mark for "Search Engine Optimization, Hosting, Webdesign, Software, Hosting, Domain Name, Software Development, All Computer Related Development and Marketing plus what is listed; Computer Software, Computer Hardware, "SEO" Letters to be trademarked in "All" Computer related areas." But apparently he "misspoke" since he later claims not to be involved in search engine optimization ("the process").
January 17, 2008, the Mark is Approved for Publication
As of January 17, 2008, the TMO is apparently satisfied with the specimen and the description of the mark. Thus, the reviewing attorney approved the application to go to the next level, publication.
March 5, 2008, Publication is Scheduled to Begin March 25, 2008.
The TMO sends Gambert notice of publication.
The mark of the application identified appears to be entitled to registration. The mark will, in accordance with Section 12(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946, as amended, be published in the Official Gazette on the date indicated above for the purpose of opposition by any person who believes he will be damaged by the registration of the mark. If no opposition is filed within the time specified by Section 13(a) of the Statute or by rules 2.101 or 2.102 of the Trademark Rules, the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks may issue a certificate of registration.
Where Are We Now?
Well the only thing to do now is for those of us who use SEO in marketing for computers to explain to the TMO how we will be harmed if this service mark is granted. I suppose it's possible that Gambert wouldn't do something as foolish as send out Cease and Desist letters to all internet marketers using SEO in their titles... But if that were true then why would he try to register the mark in the first place? His first broad description of the goods and services he was trying to protect clearly indicates his intention to exclude others from using SEO for "all computer related areas."
I don't know about you, but I'll be filing a notice of objection to explain to the TMO that there's more to SEO than keywords. News flash! It's not just a process. It's a service, and I'm sure we all know someone who used SEO in connection with "marketing services in the field of Computers" prior to February 2007.
On a final note, I could not find any trace of "Jason Gambert" on the web. Now, I didn't do an exhaustive search, but I tried some basic things like "Jason Gambert," "Gambert SEO," "Gambert Arizona," and "Gambert California." I think it's odd that the man claiming he was the first to use "SEO" in commerce for "marketing services in the field of computers" has virtually zero web visibility. His alleged specimen is devoid of a URL. His contact information is included in his application so one can find him that way, but you cannot find him on the web. I would be interested to go to his site and read how he is describing his services. Maybe someone knows of his company and would be willing to forward the link?
Just goes to show you that people try and do the darndest things and that just because a company gets a mark registered doesn't mean that it's a valid mark. The potential for widespread grief if this guy registers "SEO" for "marketing services in the field of computers" is mind boggling. It's not too late to stop it, but people are going to have to speak up about it and let the TMO know they object. As always, I look forward to your comments and questions. If anyone has a better idea of who this guy is and what he's trying to say in his application, please share.
Very truly yours,
Sarah
P.S. You can't open the entire case file on this page, but you can get a quick look at the status of the application for SEO here.
REALLY LONG UPDATE ABOUT FILING A NOTICE OF OPPOSITION
Before I describe the Notice of Opposition process, I would like to thank everyone who has taken an interest in this situation and who has helped to spread the word. It’s not too late to stop this proposed mark from being registered. If you are going to be harmed by registration of this proposed mark, please consider filing a Notice of Opposition. The $300 filing fee is a small price to pay to avoid the hassle this trademark could cause down the road.
Important Disclaimer: This should not be construed as legal advice. I want to provide general information about filing a Notice of Opposition. Trademark law is complicated and each case has unique issues. There is no substitute for having a qualified trademark attorney review the specific facts of your case and assist you with the relevant legal issues. I encourage you to consult an attorney when filing a Notice of Opposition. It is possible and people do file Notices of Opposition without an attorney, but an attorney would make sure it gets done right.
Like in a civil lawsuit, sometimes all you need to do is file a Complaint and if the other party fails to respond, you win by default. Alternatively, if the other party decides to fight and actually Answers your Complaint, then you have to go through more stages, (like investigations, depositions, motions) and eventually a hearing on the merits.
SEOmoz filed a Notice of Opposition today. You can review those filings here. You can download SEOmoz's complete Notice of Opposition and the TTAB's standard form letter regarding service and scheduling issues.
1. Filing a Request for Time Extension
If you don’t have time to work on a Notice of Opposition, or if you want to buy some time to consult a trademark attorney, it may be a good idea to file a Request for Extension. The Request for Extension is filed online with the ESTTA. It’s a fairly simple process. It buys you 30 additional days to put your thoughts together, and it sends the message that you’re not going to let the registration go down without a fight.
2. Filing a Notice of Opposition Has Online and Offline Components
It’s useful to think of filing process for the Notice of Opposition as having two parts. The first part is all done online through the ESTTA. The online portion is mostly fill-in-the-blank. You’ll need to answer questions about who you are, the serial number of the application you are objecting to, and basic reasons why you are objecting. I suspect that most people will probably object based on the fact that the mark is “merely descriptive.” Some of you will also object because you believe that the proposed mark conflicts with your registered or common law mark. If you’re claiming that it conflicts with one of your current marks, you will also need to describe your current mark. Don’t forget, you can object on more than one basis. Most people do. The website provides a list of possible objections and you basically check some boxes.
The offline part of the process requires you to create and upload “a short and plain statement” indicating why you would be harmed if the registration went through. You can see an example of the written NOO (Notice of Opposition) by looking at what I filed on behalf of SEOmoz, Inc. Please don’t be intimidated by the fancy-schmancy numbered paper and reference to specific laws in my NOO. It doesn’t have to be that fancy. Most people use a business letter format. Let’s take a closer look at what your NOO must include.
A Notice of Opposition should include the following:
Once you’ve paid and everything is filed, you’ll get email confirmation that links to your complete Notice of Opposition (the online portion and the written portion). Go online and print out two copies. One for your records, and one to serve the Applicant.
Again, I hope that this encourages you to protect your branding and your industry by filing a Notice of Opposition.
Best of luck!
P.S. I'd like to thank Venkat Balasubramani, a Seattle Trademark attorney, for his help an insight on the Notice of Opposition.
UPDATE: Jason Gambert responds at JasonGambert.com. (Sorry. I'm not going to link to it.) Read for yourself what his stated intentions were in attempting to register the proposed mark.
Important Disclaimer: This should not be construed as legal advice. I want to provide general information about filing a Notice of Opposition. Trademark law is complicated and each case has unique issues. There is no substitute for having a qualified trademark attorney review the specific facts of your case and assist you with the relevant legal issues. I encourage you to consult an attorney when filing a Notice of Opposition. It is possible and people do file Notices of Opposition without an attorney, but an attorney would make sure it gets done right.
Opposition Proceedings Generally
It is important to understand that by filing a Notice of Opposition, you are beginning a formal proceeding with the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO). It is a contested proceeding, sort of like a lawsuit, but you’re not in a court of law. Instead, you’re bringing the proceeding before the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board. Filing a Notice of Opposition is a little bit like filing a Complaint in a civil lawsuit. It gets the proceeding started. Like in a civil lawsuit, sometimes all you need to do is file a Complaint and if the other party fails to respond, you win by default. Alternatively, if the other party decides to fight and actually Answers your Complaint, then you have to go through more stages, (like investigations, depositions, motions) and eventually a hearing on the merits.
SEOmoz filed a Notice of Opposition today. You can review those filings here. You can download SEOmoz's complete Notice of Opposition and the TTAB's standard form letter regarding service and scheduling issues.
Tips on Filing a Notice of Opposition
Notices of Opposition must be filed within 30 days of publication. Thus, you should either file a Request for Extension or a Notice of Opposition by April 25, 2008. 1. Filing a Request for Time Extension
If you don’t have time to work on a Notice of Opposition, or if you want to buy some time to consult a trademark attorney, it may be a good idea to file a Request for Extension. The Request for Extension is filed online with the ESTTA. It’s a fairly simple process. It buys you 30 additional days to put your thoughts together, and it sends the message that you’re not going to let the registration go down without a fight.
2. Filing a Notice of Opposition Has Online and Offline Components
It’s useful to think of filing process for the Notice of Opposition as having two parts. The first part is all done online through the ESTTA. The online portion is mostly fill-in-the-blank. You’ll need to answer questions about who you are, the serial number of the application you are objecting to, and basic reasons why you are objecting. I suspect that most people will probably object based on the fact that the mark is “merely descriptive.” Some of you will also object because you believe that the proposed mark conflicts with your registered or common law mark. If you’re claiming that it conflicts with one of your current marks, you will also need to describe your current mark. Don’t forget, you can object on more than one basis. Most people do. The website provides a list of possible objections and you basically check some boxes.
The offline part of the process requires you to create and upload “a short and plain statement” indicating why you would be harmed if the registration went through. You can see an example of the written NOO (Notice of Opposition) by looking at what I filed on behalf of SEOmoz, Inc. Please don’t be intimidated by the fancy-schmancy numbered paper and reference to specific laws in my NOO. It doesn’t have to be that fancy. Most people use a business letter format. Let’s take a closer look at what your NOO must include.
A Notice of Opposition should include the following:
- The NOO should identify who you are and why you have a genuine interest in the proposed registration. Many of you would probably be filing on behalf of your business. You probably have an interest in the proposed registration because you commonly use “SEO” to describe your marketing services. In the legal world, you have must establish “standing” to start a formal proceeding, like an Opposition or a lawsuit. By explaining that you have something at stake in the matter, you are establishing “Standing.”
- A "short and plain statement of the claim showing that you are entitled to relief." This basically means you have to explain, briefly, why a certificate of registration should not be granted. Tell the USPTO what your grounds are for objecting. Many of you would probably argue that the mark is merely descriptive, but there could be other grounds as well. You don’t have to reference the specific statute or case law. Here's a tip: when you're doing the online portion of the filing, you are presented a list of possible grounds and the statutory basis for them; whatever grounds you check on the list should also be included in your statement.
- The NOO must identify how you would be injured if the registration were granted. For many of you, the harm will be that you will be virtually gagged from talking about the marketing services you provide. The harm may also be the likelihood of customer confusion that would result from registration. Some of you may also have registered or common law trademarks that would be diluted by registration of “SEO.”
- You don’t have to prove the allegations at this time (that comes later), but you must have a good faith belief in their truth. Thus, you don’t need to stuff your Notice of Opposition with documents and proof. The purpose of the document is to give notice of what your allegations and arguments are; you do not have to provide evidence at this time. I included a few documents and websites in my NOO, but you don't have to provide your proof at this stage.
- The letter needs to include basic identifying information so that the USPTO can easily identify the case and who you are. The letter/statement should clearly reference the Serial Number of the challenged Application, the name of the parties (you and the Applicant), and label the document as a Notice of Opposition. The paragraphs should be numbered. Also, be sure and sign your document. As you can see, my example is very formal. However, you don’t need fancy pleading paper or headings. Conveying the information is more important than making it look lawyerly.
Once you’ve paid and everything is filed, you’ll get email confirmation that links to your complete Notice of Opposition (the online portion and the written portion). Go online and print out two copies. One for your records, and one to serve the Applicant.
Mail a Copy of the Complete Notice of Opposition to the Applicant
In addition to filing your paperwork online, you must “serve” a copy of the Notice of Opposition on the Applicant by mailing it to him. Use first class mail, and I highly recommend requesting a return receipt so that you have proof when he received it. Use the address provided by the Applicant in the application process. You can find this easily online. You're mailing what I call the "Complete" NOO because it includes the online printout and the pdf of your written statement. Don't just mail your written statement. The Applicant has 40 days to file an Answer to your Notice of Opposition.
If he doesn’t Answer or file for a time extension, then the registration will most likely be denied by default. If he does file an Answer, then the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board will issue a schedule for further investigations, motions, and an eventual determination on the merits. Hopefully he’ll come to his senses and voluntarily withdraw the application. Again, I hope that this encourages you to protect your branding and your industry by filing a Notice of Opposition.
Best of luck!
P.S. I'd like to thank Venkat Balasubramani, a Seattle Trademark attorney, for his help an insight on the Notice of Opposition.
UPDATE: Jason Gambert responds at JasonGambert.com. (Sorry. I'm not going to link to it.) Read for yourself what his stated intentions were in attempting to register the proposed mark.
He ought to register "ballsy" and "audacious" as service marks while he's at it. Those would certainly be more accurate.
wearewsre
Hmmm,
I think I'll TM the following:
I assure you that none of these have anything to do with the search industry or any sort of a service. It's a process, damit! But if any of you use them, I'll sue your ass off...
Ian ;)
:) Good one.
"SEOMoz = "Sexy, Exciting, Orgasmic Marketing - Open Zipper""
HILARIOUS!!!
Perhaps it is my cynical nature, but it occurred to me that "Gambert" might be a pseudonym or a front man for a much larger, savvier company deliberately trying to keep a low profile.
Who would benefit if SEO were trademarked?
Follow the money.
edited to add: sometimes people file trademarks with the intention of never using it themselves but rather to prevent others from using it.
This is unbelievable. I've heard of having a competitive advantage, but isn't this guy taking it a bit too far?
I think he's saying that SEO is a process, not a service. :)
It's just that he seems to be saying it in every way imaginable under the pretense:
Oh well !!!
Oh well !!!
What I love is that he didn't give up. It's like he truly believed he could push it through. Brilliant, yet somehow completely ridiculous.
Laura
Wtf??! Holy maniacal genius batman! Thank you Sarah for bringing all this out in the open. I can't BELIEVE he thought he'd get away with this.
Boy did HE pick the wrong crowd to put one over on ;)
@rjonesx: Nice work!
Edited because I can't spell.
I totally think he should get the trademark and I propose we all start using the term "Search Engine Results Management".
Oh and did I forget to mention I own SearchEngineResultsManagement [dot] com oops must have slipped my mind ;-)
Unfortunately, I am in the process of register the trademark for Search Engine Results Management.
LOL nice ;)
After a careful breakdown of this brutalization of English linguistic value, the SEO team at Blue Moon Works, Inc. concludes that Jason Gambert is providing a "service" by cracking us up. Seriously. huh?
Official notice of opposition filed. Booya bitches.
More details here.
Great job Sarah! Please keep us posted.
It would be cool if he had no intention of success with the trademark, and the flash site was just a temporary dummy ... and he did it all just for the linklove as the outrage spread through the SEO community ...
Wow, that would pretty much put him in the category of evil genius, but he just seems like to much of a schmuck to even be that.
OK, now let me make a real quick prediction here:Google and Microhoo will contact that guy and offer him legal and financial support in the matter. They will ask him to sign certain agreements and try to gain control over the SEO world or rather a big part of it. Then a few high-profile SEOs are going to come on board as well.Can you see it happening?
Wew! Good thing for Pixel, now Sarah can breathe! ; )
You can find information on <a href=”https://www.jasongambert.com/” Jason Gambert here at his site. I agree on the fact that the industry has a lot of people that “Think” they know what the search engines are doing exactly, and end up following practices that become outdated soon after their realized. There really cannot be strict guidelines for an industry that is shaped on “Factor Manipulation”, when the factors are always changing. I think best practice guidelines and trending data are the only things that can give “comfort” when the search engines deal the deck of change. Heck even then if Google and the other search engines decide on different factors to watch all past SEO will be obsolete. In the long run it would be nice to have some sort of certification with sites registered as “search engine compliant”. Thereby having these sites pulled to the top of the results with uncompliant sites following as possibilities, or even compliant and non compliant search engine results . The search engines could tell you what they want for compliance and any site that is compliant, would be free of deceptive techniques because they are human checked and monitored. You really could have a legit industry where people certified in the art of search engine compliance could make sure all the factors that hurt the robots ability to crawl, “dark” techniques are not employed, and the site is an overall business that will help people, not scam them, because they are optimized exactly to algorithim specs because they are deemed compliant. Just my two cents……
Do you realise how many people it would take to have a search engine show manually reviewed and test sites for various factors?
Its borderline impossible.
I disagree - it is not quite as huge a job as you make out - the greatest proportion of searches are for the same terms, so that a team of a few thousand could do a passable job and a company the size (in employee numbers) of Yahoo! could have a stab at providing half decent long tail SERPs as well.
It would be stupid, but far from impossible.
Errrr. For Google, didn't they say something like every day 50% of all searches are new searches that have never been made before.
20%-25% of search terms each day are new search terms. The individual searches on the repeat terms are far higher than on the new terms.
As an illustration, let us imagine that only 4 terms are searched for in a day:
One of those is a new search, but the others are repeat searches (that is, terms which have been searched for on previous days), so that, whilst 25% of search terms are new, the vast majority of actual searches is still for the minority of search terms, i.e. of several thousand searches, only 1 or two persons searched the new term [myspace.com].
[EDIT: Why have the option set in the TinyMCE editor to have ordered lists at all when they are not allowed for in the CSS?]
Ah, got it.
I couldn't quite remember the quote, and I couldn't find an authorative enough mention of it in the limited time I had that day.
I see you're located in Brick Lane, London. I'll take it that you didn't have too much trouble getting to the last LondonSEO drinks night then (the only one I have missed in ages).
Actually, whilst we have our Account Managers and so on based in Brick Lane, at the LBi UK head office, our Organic Search team is entirely based in Exeter, where we have comparatively low infrastructure costs and access to the technical and human resources of one of the UK’s best universities.
Also, I moved out of London back in 2000 and I am loving it!
Didn't Ralph Lauren once try to "own" the word "polo"? Assuming that Jason won't succeed this is just another example of an audacious person trying to pull a deal. If he succeeds, well----just anther example of an audacious person getting what they want and screwing everyone else:)
Can you guys forsee the possible consequences of this happening?
If not then take a look at what realtor.com has done.
Realtors not members of their organization are not even permitted to use the word realtor in their username on forums.
In the U.S. alone, the word realtor is what's known as a collective trademark:
https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmfaq.htm#DefineCollMark
Or for probably a more understandable definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_trademark
The National Association of Realtors' web site indicate they've been using the term (in caps, actually) to identify members of their organization for a long time. Its members have generally accepted such.
Actually I was thinking that's maybe a "better" and more "acceptable" approach to using the letters SEO as a trademark for a collective group of search engine optimization experts, although I'd imagine it'll be a nightmare trying to get a consensus or even a way to figure out how to "classify" and "accredit" one as such. In which case, it's probably better to leave SEO alone as it is.
Good luck to Mr. Gambert or whoever in trying to secure a service mark for SEO. Even if by some stroke of (bad?) luck his application is approved, it's not necessarily going to give him a magic wand to wave against people using SEO for search engine optimization.
On the side, is this thing a possible case of fraud?
https://thettablog.blogspot.com/2008/03/guest-article-carrie-webb-olson-on.html
Not a lawyer. This just happens to intrigue me. :)
David
That opposition do to fraud is an excellent example - not being a lawyer, but with a good understanding of legal procedures, I would say that there is cause to use it as a complaint:
However, if the registration would not have issued or been maintained but for the misstatement, e.g., relating to use, then fraud has occurred and the registration will be irreparably tainted.
The guy obviously had to show use of SEO - and he hadnt in the past and infact simply changed the template and sent of a screenshot - which is not proof of prior use, but a manipulation to show proof.
Looks too clever too me..Sounds like linkbait to me since registering SEO doesn't make any sense. I haven't checked the full thread or post though, so not sure what the exact case is.
None theless. this was my first comment at SEOMoz :) Let me go and check other sections now..
Pushkar
He lists "Search Engine Optimization" as one of his services!!! I can't believe he has the gall to do that after arguing that his use of SEO had nothing to do with search engine optimization. This guy is sketch-and -a-half. I'll be filing as well.
Thank you! The more letters the TMO receives, the better!
Clever, but unacceptable. Tim Peter is right. Ballsy and Audacious!
stop talking bad About jason, if yOu had the idea; wouldent you go for it? then poepLE post your pErson iNfo and where you live, and probly gettiNg haTe mail? he Was onlY Guilty of being smart and wity, you alI Even said it for yoUr selveS, most. jezz calm down seems like SomeONE STeped oN yOUR bloggers tails.
https://www.jasongambert.com
My goal in owning the trademark for the word SEO is not to try to force people to change their SEO process, but rather, prevent companies from selling “SEO” as a service under false pretenses.
First off - no one has appointed Jason as the SEO standards authority - by commercially owning that trademark - its not a public service, but a Jason pocket filling service.
Secondly - I do think that his home details shouldnt be posted up, but anyone with any SEO skills should be able to hunt him down anyway - remember - Moz isnt just read by white hats - black hats do to - if they wanted to really infict damage, they could - but that doesnt mean that they will. The fact that SEOMOZ took those details show that the community believes that the legal route is the right one - as you can see they have filed.
No one hates Jason - but the fact that hes gone after a trademark by misrepresenting the facts is not in his favour.
I am glad he posted a response - shows hes got guts (but we knew that anyway) - but whatever amount of oratorical conversation he throws up, doesnt alter the fact - SEO is not a term he coinde, or used, or to be honest, by the looks of his site, understands.
dude.
p.s despite our love for thumbs downs, I will wear those silly thumbs downs you have dished out childishly with pride ;)
AND i have gone and thumbed up everyone whos got one.
To Jason or whomever "stineyerya" is a cover for,
Please try to understand the comment on Jason's blog. Jason should work together with the community rather than force something upon it. He is taking advantage of the USPTO's lack of knowledge about this industry.
It's odd that you write a post to SEOmoz that looks a hostage letter. Trademarking SEO appears to be an attempt to hold the industry hostage rather than help set standards.
It's best to work with SEMPO, https://www.sempo.org/ , to aid in the development of standards. Work is currently in place to do so.
Join and participate in the community rather than choosing to be a one-man show who tries to claim ownership of a term he did not develop, something that cannot be owned.
Nothing matters if Google, Mahoo , and Walmart somehow show "Affliates" then prior use is backed to 199?. Sounds like he is for the people, lets hope!
what are you talking about?
Ok best link bait ever:
1. 500.00 to skip trace him
2. 400.00 ticket to where ever he lives in the US
3. 10.00 coconut cream pie
4. posting the video of you putting a pie in his face, priceless!!
Please insert any variation of this that you like; apple, blueberry, mince meat...etc
You will be the hero of every SEO'er out there, including me!!
Wonder what these two UK applicants had in mind?
SEO1
SEO2
This is sad, but not super shocking. The funny part to me is that the title refers to him as an "Internet Marketer" and no one can find him using SEO. He truly doesn't understand the industry because a) he is apparantly not aware that there are respected groups in the industry such as SEMPO who are more in a position to take this on and b) he claims to be the first one to use the term SEO - has he ever heard of Danny Sullivan?
I am also thankful for SEOmoz having Sarah on staff. Most SEO companies don't have the legal support or money to invest with their legal advisors to look into there matters.
Yeah, I'm quite positive that she has been invaluable to SEOmoz. Plus I met Sarah at SMX, and she's very nice and very attractive. ;) (call me)
If we wanted to do the same, can you provide us with a way to do it? An address? A template for the objection? etc. Or is that too much legal advice?
According to the Gazette (PDF) we need to send $200 with our filing. (The Gazette is a great read by the way - a kind of who's who of new start-ups.)
Do we just address our concerns to:
Alyssa Paladino
Law Office 107
Commissioner for Trademarks
P.O. Box 1451
Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
Or another address?
And according to this Title 15, Chapter 22, Subchapter I § 1063 we have to do all this within 30 days - which puts it at April 25th.
Since the mark has been published for opposition purposes, writing the trademark examiner wouldn't get you anywhere. Your options at this time are to (1) oppose the application; or (2) request an extension of time to file the opposition - you can get up to 120 days (30 days + 90 days extension) to oppose.
His site= https://www.jasongambert.com His email= [email protected]
Interesting story. Sorry to say I apperently live near the guy but don't know him well enough to punch him in the mouth. I've been in the "SEO" business for almost 11 years and to think this guy can walk in and snatch up a comonly used term is bullcrap. Anyhow, with a little digging I found his "website". I'd post a link but even a no-follow would be a waste. Just google "Modern Consulting Solutions" (with quotes... some "SEO" master... he doesn't even come up in a natural search for his own company!) I'd like to point out he has no PR and no Age date available. Looks like he scrambled to get something up to look "legit". Also, the logo says "MCS" and not "SEO", in some circles that might look deceptive to the TMO and should be pointed out.
Please keep us all updated on the objection process as I will be filing my own.
I wonder how long for him to notice a surge in traffic and track this down (your comment already ranks #2 in G for the phrase you pointed out).
Flash site... links on the "services" don't work.
I wonder that as well.
Would sure be nice if he voluntarily withdrew his application so that the rest of us don't have to spend hundreds of dollars and time and energy into opposing it.
HINT HINT, Gambert.
I'm just doing the finishing touches on my Notice of Opposition now. I will be filing it and making it available to everyone very soon.
Thanks, bUmp!
And to everyone else reading this... please consdiering joining bUmpInteractiev. While this may be good for a Monday morning laugh, it's also a potentially serious headache/expense for the entire industry. SEOmoz is fortunate indeed to have Sarah on our team to defend our position, but we sure could use all the help we can get.
Thumbs down for everybody! Wheeee! *rolls eyes*
Search Student.... People like you make him look even better, YOUR FIRED!
I've done SEO since 2003 and the term already existed at that time...so for this person to make such a claim is patently rediculous. Pretty sure it goes back way before 2003, to the late 90's.
My brain went numb about halfway through so I may have missed it -- is there a formal way to protest the issuing of this as a TM?
Sarah,
How can we file our own objections. We want in on the fun.
I'm really glad that people are willing to get involved. I'm currently putting together my Notice of Opposition. I will make an update to this post hopefully tomorrow morning outlining what I have done and posting mine as an example.
Of course, I can't give legal advice. Thus, it's always best for you to consult your trademark attorney if you have specific questions about how a trademark for SEO would affect your business.
That said, I will write about my experience in filing my Notice of Opposition tomorrow. In short, you can do most of it online at the Electronic Filing Office.You also need to create a short and plain statement about why you are opposing the registration. Finally, there is a substantial filing fee, $300, in order to file a Notice of Opposition.
That's hint of what's to come.
Thanks for your comments and your support everyone.
Sarah
$300 to defend the main keyword your companies optimize for, is a small price to pay.
Imagine if you hadn't brought this up. How many people here can say that they would have actually caught this?
When this goes viral, what are the chances Gambert would actually see it?
Sarah,
You are generally on track, meaning that you have a right to oppose the application on the grounds that you (or your firm/company) will be harmed by any resulting registration (i.e., you have to claim harm to have standing to oppose.) The filing fee is $300 and the filing is accomplished via the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's website: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/ttab/.
As a result of the filing, the Board will issue a scheduling order detailing various deadlines for discovery, etc. One alternative would be to promptly file a motion for summary judgment, after collecting evidence that the alleged mark “is not a trademark by which the services of the Applicant may be distinguished from the services of others.” I assume this would not be difficult to secure.
Good luck.
Allen
Is this our man?
The phone number on the account, 602 710 5527, is owned by a Pamela Upton
PAMELA UPTONAZ 0PHONE TYPE: WirelessCARRIER: Cellco Partnership Dba Verizon Wireless - AzTIME ZONE: COUNTY: MARICOPA This guy is shady all over.
Well done Sherlock.
Sarah, send me an email and I will get you a complimentary background check on Jason Gambert - from our firm at [removed]
The pro's are for the Standards....
Pros VS The Cons!
WebProNews interviews Sarah Bird. Video: "SEO" to Become a Trademark?
Great job, Sarah! Well spoken and explained.
An offer has been extended to Jason for an interview on WPN as well.
Thanks for linking that PixelBella. :-)
Who thumbed you down? How dumb..
Hmm
my gut feeling is that this person is "presenting" with symptoms of mental health problems - this reminds me of the florida lwayer that has juste been perminently disbarred.
persisting wildly with bogus aplications like this is not the work of a normal person is there no eqivelent of Vexatious litigant for trademarks?
BTW i have been working as an SEO since 2005
Jason Gambert's own writings are contrary to his trademark application.
When filing an objection please copy his reasons for the trademark from his website. In the application process he tries very hard to hide his intentions and confuse the lawyer, and now thankfully he publishes his real intent, which if included in his application would have been denied.
Nice find Sarah. Can someone from Canada object or is this just a US based thing?
I agree with Crash. This guy really picked the wrong industry to mess with. But don't anyone start linking to his site if we find it. That would just showcase how brilliant his link bait and SEO processes are. ;)
Anyone can oppose, assuming you can show legal standing; namely, that you would be harmed by the resulting registration.
ArteWorks SEO has retained counsel and will be joining in the fight. We will be filing a Notice of Opposition as well. There is a wikipedia entry for "SEO" - and this guy claims to own it?
Google defines SEO on its webmaster guidelines as well - in fact a bit differently - as "search engine optimizers". So he is also attempting to trademark the name of a profession.
You must, however, give the guy credit - it's a wonderful marketing campaign - imagine the links he's going to get. However, one glance at his site (flash, horrible title, etc) shows this guy has NO IDEA what SEO is about.
I look forward to this fight. This will be fun.
While you're at it, tell your lawyer to check Mr. Gambert's blog and note the comments made there. Might come in handy with your opposition. :)
I have added a really large update linking to SEOmoz's Opposition proceedings and describing the filing process.
I hope every finds this information useful.
Sincere Regards,
Sarah
Isn't there some trick that we let him use it, then all flile civil suits because we can prove we have used it commerce before him, and he gets to pay the legal fees?
THat's it. Fist thing tomorrow morning I will register "real estate SEO", "travel SEO", "jewelry SEO", "gourmet coffee SEO" and whatever other even more specific processes I can come up with. It's party time!
This reminds me of the streaming content issue from about 4-5 years ago, it was an actual patent which was slowly being enforced. They went after the porn industry first thinking that no one would care, since they of course are sleazy people, but they found that the sleazy folks seemed to have an awful lot of money to fight them. Not sure how it all shook out. But this is something that really needs to be stopped. Sadly we have idiots in our government that have no clue...
His logo is fraudulent. He removed "ASSCLOWNS" from above the SEO.
there is always a smart a** who's trying to get a trade mark, whether it is SEO in our case, or a brand name. Once they own it, they will make people pay for the use of it, or sell it to the brand later on, once it is worth millions. As a example, Nike could not be sold under "Nike" in Spain, because a guy had trademarked the name there. Unbelievable things like that happen everyday.. but if we react on time, and sphinn it like Rishil said, we might get the buzz out there, and stop him!
thank you Sarah for bringing up this issue.
Quite an audacious attempt indeed! It is absolutely amazing that he has been able to get this far in his endeavours. Now that this is out in the open the power of the internet will surely nip this little effort right in the bud. Thanks for exposing this!
I think we should all sphinn this one so that some serious heavy weighters can get into th act as well as mozzers.
This guy is a Search Marketing genius. His site contains no crawlable text!
Wow, wow and WOW. That is truly something else... he is quite the persistent man. You're right about having no online visibility yet somehow he is supposed to be the first one to have used the term? Some people.... hmm what are they smoking?
Actually, go to modernconsultingsolutions.com and you can see he has the same graphics using 'MCS' instead of 'SEO'. Just check WhoIs for more info. Surprised it was not under proxy.
wow. It looks like he's not even using "SEO" in commerce! No wonder is specimen looked a little odd...like perhaps it was crafted just for the benefit of the TMO.
Actually, the whole site looks a little off, right?
Great find!
a bit off? It hardly works and is built in flash! thats is not SEO...
Anybody take any screencaps in case he sees this thread and tries to make changes?
Wow! Underlining when not a link is bad usability. Shocking.
I'll be holding an intra-office marketing bake sale to raise the filing funds for an objection.
Read the comments, it's been said. kthxbye
A thousand apologies about the underlines.
Sarah,
while I do find your posts to be extremely informational, please don't underline text if it's not a link.
People could confuse that text with links and I even caught myself hovering the cursor over the text to see whether it's a link.
Sorry for the confusion!
I've noticed this too, and remember reading that links are the only thing that should ever be underlined online...usability and all that.
And, even with printed publications, underlining is out-of-date because it represents the days when manual typewriters (I know, I'm old) had no "bold" or "italic" feature and the only way to show empasis was to underline.
That said, is underlining still used frequently in legal circles? Or is that just your style?
Here is his site: https://[email protected]
Apparently Jason Gambert's approach to approving comments is similar to his plan to moderate the entire SEO industry. I know this because my comment on his blog saying the following: "You're a dildo" was not approved.
This worries me. I wonder if he will approve my method of hacking his clients' sites and linking them all to my pharma blog farm...
This is going to be a huge problem for the industry. Imagine trying to come up with a new term to define SEO industry or the practice of SEO....
May be industry should be referred to 'seoMOZ' and practice of SEO 'seoMozzed'
Great job on this Sarah. You get him girl. My money is on you. He won't know what hit him ;)
I'm a little late, but...
VIVA LE RESISTANCE!
and all that.
-Just "Fred", an SEO.
Thats crazy, now that everyone knows about it the "poor" sap doesn't stand a chance! :-) I've posted this article in a couple places that I frequent.
And he's wasting our time & our tax payer money while showing how silly some of our government processes can be.
If you comment on blogs and forums, you can help the cause by legimately asking other people how they would like to see standards implemented. Don’t offer your own solution. There are already people doing that and, frankly, I’m not impressed. Open up dialogue. Start talking about standards. Get people to thinking about them. Demand that SEO bloggers be more critical. Stop accepting smoke-and-mirrors posts as if they are great SEO advice. They’re not. They’re crap posts and often times you’ve seen better from the posters. If you attend conferences, ask the conference organizers to promote panels on standards. Don’t settle for back-room placement that no one will participate in. Demand that the conferences make standards front-room, main programming, major events. If you don’t put standards on the schedule, no one will. If you don’t make SEO standards a priority for your professon, no one will. If you don’t demand better from your peers, they won’t give it to you. This is where we stand today: it’s all up to you. Each of you. All of you. All of us. Do your part. Don’t leave it to Dirk Johnson to do your part for you.
He uses the same "logical" writing on the website, it says ;
"From the smallest to the largest projects, are systems of development are stremlined"
Yes they are stremlined which is streamlined opitimized. And I like the use of are systems, not our systems. Wait, maybe that is a question.
SEO:
Process: Seriously Erratic Optimisation.
He can have that trade mark without any argument from me.
lmao.. we already know he is an idiot.. lol
Pixel Bella You are an official Hater!
"When you realize you've made a mistake, make amends immediately. It's easier to eat crow while it's still warm." ~ Dan Heist
I'm sorry for my initial vigilante reaction. It was wrong and based on emotion. I will apply this verse to my approach: "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge..."
Rishil is correct. No one hates Jason. His actions are wrong, and our responses are to the injustice of the action, not the person. These actions could hurt an entire community. Best to work together with the legal system, organizations already in place, and with the community.
Thinking we surely don't want to give him any link love... If MCS is his business, he definitely doesn't understand SEO or usability!! And from looking at all his partnerships, he outsources all his work!
But it's worth each of us protesting how we can on blogs, our own and others, Sphinn, etc.
I saw a story recently where people protesting to someone's actions signed them up for every piece of junk mail possible, flooded their mailboxes. And what about cell phone junk mail???
Edited by SEOmoz: Gambert's personal identifying information removed. While we appreciate the emotion behind the sentiment, it's best to let the wheels of justice work rather than take the law into our hands. Making his life miserable will not stop the TMO from registering the mark.
note to self: Don't piss off PixelBella.
Thats The Spirit! Maybe This Guy Really Can Turn The Shade Around for us all! jasongambert.com
and maaayyyybeeee.......
not.
Sounds like you all are a bunch of haters!
Que? For point out a fact?
Maybe. Maybe Not. Freedom of speech and all that.
Rhea, if Seo Moz told you to jump off a bridge would you? Ha ha, woohoo, follow me lets all go jump off a bridge together, DUH he is on our side! Look at Dougs third response on his page.
I just wasted a solid 15 minutes writing and re-writing my response to remove all mentions of sphincter, asshole and miserable fuck. Sadly, this is all that was left:
You are no doubt the same individual that's leaving anonymous comments on every blog that mentions Jason's name. Please grow a pair and use your real name. Better yet, post an official response on your REAL site.
As for jumping off bridges, you must not know me. I'm impressionable and young, but I'm also the chairperson of a local non-profit that has successfully sued one city and pursuing the same with another. In my "free time" I manage hundreds of volunteers, most twice my age. I go out of my way to live a life without THINGS because I believe in making the world a better place. I do all of this because I believe in something and when I believe in it there's no stopping the lengths I'll go to.
This is the same for SEO. What Jason is proposing isn't just fun and games, it's WRONG and it will damage hundreds, if not thousands of companies. Whatever utopian crap he's managed to spoonfeed to a select few is worse than the Kool-Aid "Expelled" fans must be on to accept such a complete lack of investigative journalism.
Please consider the true implications of this trademark passing. I doubt the realities need to sink in as you are likely "Jason" himself.
Why did I personally file a NOO? To lend support to a beautifully written and researched NOO from SEOmoz. I haven't seen theirs, but ArteWorks and Jonathan Hochman did the same and I believe there are a few others as well. Somehow a judge let this slide through the system, but this registration will end there, have no doubt about that.
As for your ridiculous claim, I am far from a SEOmoz groupie. I don't read this blog so I can paint Rand's toenails and giggle about Matt Cutts. I read it to better my professional life and ability to make myself and others money. Please gain some perspective on life rather than downplaying a serious matter, because you're really just terrified that Sarah uncovered your misguided attempt at "altruism."
Rhea deserves the SEO Joan of Arc Award for going to battle for us against the injustice uncovered by Sarah and the Royal MozCourt.
I'm personally embarrassed that I didn't think to take a "one-man stand" like Rhea did in filing a NOO. Many of us spent too much time "discussing" our opposition rather than taking it to the USPTO.
The SEO community has been discussing standards for quite a while, e.g. a session at SMX West was dedicated to such.
"Thank you" to those who filed a NOO and for those requesting a time extension! As a result, the democratic process can continue (with its strengths and admitted weaknesses). However, if the USPTO hears the voice of those who are standing in battle for SEO and the rest of us, we won't be at the mercy of the autocratic "SEO Trademark Court."