May It Please the Mozzers,
Happy De Facto Legal Monday!
Little did I know what an exciting morning it would turn out to be! Definitely worth an update to the blog! Jason Gambert has delighted us with another literary and legal masterpiece in his misguided effort to trademark "SEO."
Here's the brief refresher/update on the Gambert Saga:
1. In April, I discovered that Jason Gambert was trying to trademark the term "SEO." Several people in the community, including Rhea Drysdale, Beanstalk Search Engine Positioning, Arteworks, SEO.com, LLC, JE Hochman & Associates and myself filed opposition proceedings to block the application.
2. Gambert created a website, jasongambert(dot)com, insisting that he was merely trying to protect SEOs from themselves by creating and imposing standards upon the community. Ahhhh... He was trying to help us!
3. As part of the opposition process, I mailed a copy of my opposition papers to Gambert. My package was returned even though I sent it to the address provided by Gambert. The other opposers have had similar mail issues. Gambert is going out of his way to be unavailable except by electronic means. hrm. The forwarding address may be worth looking into...
4. Rhea, Michael VanDeMar, and Matt Foster of Arteworks.net discovered that Gambert had been using sock-puppet accounts to make it look like his position had popular support among the community.
5. Gambert missed his May 19th deadline to file an official response to SEOmoz's opposition proceedings. Thus, I prepared a Motion for Default Judgment, which is basically a request for an automatic win because the other party failed to respond. I filed the Motion this morning.
6. Apparently, Gambert has been watching Law and Order and reading Black's Law Dictionary. He filed lots of very interesting paperwork this morning!
That's right ladies and gents, the zaniness continues. Mr. Gambert and I must be psychically connected because apparently he filed an official response to our Notice of Opposition at the same time I was filing our Motion for Default Judgment. You can take a look at the case documents and download copies of both Jason's 41-page response and my motion, here.
Happy De Facto Legal Monday!
Little did I know what an exciting morning it would turn out to be! Definitely worth an update to the blog! Jason Gambert has delighted us with another literary and legal masterpiece in his misguided effort to trademark "SEO."
Here's the brief refresher/update on the Gambert Saga:
1. In April, I discovered that Jason Gambert was trying to trademark the term "SEO." Several people in the community, including Rhea Drysdale, Beanstalk Search Engine Positioning, Arteworks, SEO.com, LLC, JE Hochman & Associates and myself filed opposition proceedings to block the application.
2. Gambert created a website, jasongambert(dot)com, insisting that he was merely trying to protect SEOs from themselves by creating and imposing standards upon the community. Ahhhh... He was trying to help us!
3. As part of the opposition process, I mailed a copy of my opposition papers to Gambert. My package was returned even though I sent it to the address provided by Gambert. The other opposers have had similar mail issues. Gambert is going out of his way to be unavailable except by electronic means. hrm. The forwarding address may be worth looking into...
4. Rhea, Michael VanDeMar, and Matt Foster of Arteworks.net discovered that Gambert had been using sock-puppet accounts to make it look like his position had popular support among the community.
5. Gambert missed his May 19th deadline to file an official response to SEOmoz's opposition proceedings. Thus, I prepared a Motion for Default Judgment, which is basically a request for an automatic win because the other party failed to respond. I filed the Motion this morning.
6. Apparently, Gambert has been watching Law and Order and reading Black's Law Dictionary. He filed lots of very interesting paperwork this morning!
That's right ladies and gents, the zaniness continues. Mr. Gambert and I must be psychically connected because apparently he filed an official response to our Notice of Opposition at the same time I was filing our Motion for Default Judgment. You can take a look at the case documents and download copies of both Jason's 41-page response and my motion, here.
It's forty-one pages and truthfully, I haven't sat down and studied the whole thing yet. But it's too delicious to withhold any longer.
And who is the real "Jason Gambert," anyway?
Good grief.
- First, he requests that his response be confidential. That's right. He doesn't want anyone in the community to read his response. Why should this legal proceeding be conducted in secret? According to Gambert, SEOmoz "along with their [sic] supporters are clearly using this case by creating negative images to deceptively thwart all their blog followers to increase their support within the internet community." That's right, folks. Apparently I'm somehow "deceptively thwarting" my readers by merely writing about the application....not sure where the deceptive part comes from and I'm not sure how I'm thwarting my readers either.
- To be fair, Gambert is also concerned about harassment. Apparently people have threatened physical harm, publicized his personal phone numbers, his home address, and otherwise acted maliciously. I'm an attorney, so I'm the last person to favor mob rule. After all, if people always took justice into their own hands, I'd be out of a job. So for the record folks, let's let the legal process work here. SEOmoz has never advocated harassment and certainly does not condone it.
- Gambert also attempts to shock the moral conscience of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board by revealing that SEOmoz is self-interested in this proceeding. Holy Not-A-News-Flash! Of course SEOmoz is self-interested. We provide SEO services. The whole point of filing a Notice of Opposition is that we would be harmed if someone were permitted to trademark the term.
- Gambert also claims that SEOmoz, "being a blog, will try to drag out everything as long as possible, try to benefit from this kind of free publicity as much as possible, and try to attract as much attention from everywhere online as possible." I'm not a psychologist, but I believe one could call this phenomenon 'projection.' Trust me. I have no intention of "dragging this out." I was hoping to quickly knock out this risk to our company and then move onward to bigger and better things.
- Gambert is requesting that the Board "strike" SEOmoz's Notice of Opposition. He has several arguments and I'm only going to cover some of them here.
- SEOmoz didn't try to contact him to settle the claim. First, this isn't a defense. You don't have to try and settle. Second, SEOmoz has no intention of paying any kind of settlement. Nor are we going to agree to drop our opposition in exchange for any kind of amnesty/license for using "SEO." Definitely not going to happen.
- SEOmoz didn't "serve" Gambert. Apparently he thinks that we shouldn't be able to oppose his application because he refused to pick up his mail. Note to Gambert: See 37 CFR § 2 .114(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 55, and Trademark Rule 3.12. There is a service exception for filing a Notice of Opposition. Not accepting your mail only prolongs this mess. And I'm sure you wouldn't want to 'drag this out.'
- Search engine optimization is a process and not a service. This argument harkens back to the unintelligible arguments he made in his original application. Interestingly, it is very different from the argument he made on jasongambert(dot)com in which he claims his goal is to impose standards upon everyone providing SEO services. Funny he didn't make that argument to the Board, right? Must have slipped his mind.
- Wikipedia proves that "SEO" describes a service and is distinguishable from "search engine optimization," which describes a process. According to Gambert, Wikipedia is "the world's most trusted online encyclopedia." As further evidence that Wikipedia is conclusive evidence that SEO is a service and not process, Gambert states "Please also note the first result to show 'SEO' in a Google search is 'Wikipedia' above all other sources in the online world. Further adding to the overwhelming evidence SEO publicly known as a 'Process' and accepted as the true definition of 'Search Engine Optimization.'" I don't know who this zero-web-visibility, I-use-flash-to-build-my-website SEO is, but I think it's really shameful that he is trying to secretly con the Board into treating Wikipedia as the world's most reliable source. The irony!
- Because Google wasn't registered until 1997 (according to Wikipedia), it cannot be used to find evidence that SEO was used to describe internet marketing services prior to 1997. Yeah. He actually makes this argument on pages 6 and 7. Apparently search engines can't find documents that existed before they did?
- Gambert owns Tosonoe875.com and claims he received an email about search engine optimization on July 27, 1997. This is way out of left field. Gambert includes a printout from Wikipedia that states that the first known use of "search engine optimization" was a spam message posted on Usenet on July 26, 1997. Then he attaches an email from a nonsense aol email to a nonsense tosonoe875.com email address allegedly delivered on July 27, 1997. Then he attaches GoDaddy information showing that he owns Tosonoe875.com. This effort is so misguided that it's hard to know where to begin discussing it. First, an email talking about "Search Engine Optimization" is not evidence that one used the proposed mark "SEO" in commerce. Did he forget what he was trying to register? Further, evidence that you received an email doesn't prove that you used the term in commerce. It just proves that you received an email. Finally, the WhoIs information for tosonoe875.com shows that it was created in April of this year, not in 1997.
- SEOmoz didn't try to contact him to settle the claim. First, this isn't a defense. You don't have to try and settle. Second, SEOmoz has no intention of paying any kind of settlement. Nor are we going to agree to drop our opposition in exchange for any kind of amnesty/license for using "SEO." Definitely not going to happen.
And who is the real "Jason Gambert," anyway?
Good grief.
To hell with the special tools at SEOmoz. I'm happy that my monthly fee is going to support what you're doing here. Fighting this is a huge favour for the whole community at large. Good work Sarah.
He could be a genius. If he plays dumb well enough, and a major media outlet picks this up, might it not be the ultimate "linkbait coup"?
That, or he wants some royalties when NBC finally picks up "Law and Order: SEO". I hear Jim Boykin's been tapped for the lead.
I'm going to be giggling at that for a while. Law and Order: SEO. Very well played.
I like the idea that he's playing dumb; however, would that fall under the recently unearthed "guidelines" about fake linkbait? ;)
I don't know. I think I like "CSI: SEO" better (or would that be "CSI: Seattle", starring Sarah Bird and Rand Fishkin). ;-) And, from the looks of things, at least one crime may have been committed here. "Ripped from the headlines..." Oh. Wait. That's Law and Order, isn't it. Curses. ;-)
If he really wanted a real "linkbait coup" (love the phrase btw) then he probably should steered his attacks away from the very group of people savvy enough to know to not link to him and his flash-tastic site! This man is so bizarre; it truely baffles me. I really do wonder what his actual motivation is.
Though, I'm not going to lie, I would so be up for some Law and Order:SEO. :)
Good old LAW & ORDER:SEO
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v42/zegron/LAOSEO.jpg
All the witty comments I had planned just went out the window when I read this. Well said sir. I'm setting my Tivo up now to record Boykin in all his awesomeness.
This is truly beautiful. Zany is an understatement. While the man clearly has no leg to stand on in this futile effort, it's quite entertaining nonetheless.
Sarah, although I admire your perseverence and professionalism, I'm quite distraught by one of your comments:
I was hoping at some point in the future to be able to retain your services, however with a comment like that, you just don't seem to possess the qualities I'm looking for! ;)
Keep up the great work Sarah. I can see the fat lady is getting ready to sing a little song to Mr. Gambert.
Who you calling fat?!
; )
lol np ur not fat :)
Gambert's whole purpose in this is to prevent mob rule, remember? He wants to set the standards, as opposed to letting the community deal with them. Maybe Sarah and Gambert are psychically connected after all.
Rarely will I make reference to politics on a blog, however in this case I'll make an exception.
Albeit on a miniscule scale, our friend Jason Gambert seems to possess qualities of:
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - "This is for peaceful purposes only. There are no ulterior motives".
Mr. Gambert would have us believe that his actions are not self-motivated, but rather for the greater good. Not only does Mr. Gambert possess ulterior motives, but they are also highly transparent.
Saddam Hussein - When impending failure becomes obvious, pursue the scorched earth policy.
Such is the case in his personal and immature attacks on both SEOmoz and Arteworks, coupled with his outright and preposterous lies. The end of this charade is nigh and Mr. Gambert is feeling it.
In both these cases, as in the case of Mr. Gambert, the same fundamental mistake was made. Efforts to manipulate, dictate and rule over people will ultimately result in your own failure and demise.
Mr. Gambert - you chose the wrong forum (the SEO community at large), in which to falsely market an ill advised idea. There are no lemmings here. Thus, I am pleased to tell you that you will be drowning in your own failure and waste of time, effort and money - alone.
Next week he will say he invented post-its, and the week after that it will be the internet. I can see it now Jason Gambert sues Al Gore for stating that he created the internet :-)
Sorry I couldn't resist, this guy is entertaining.
lmao re: al gore
"I can rule a nation with a microphone" - Flobots, also Al Gore, also Hitler.
Hi Vanessa :)
Hi!
Great contributions to this post.
So, is " Jason Gambert" an anagram of anyone that we do know?
Threw 'Jason Gambert' in an anagram generator. Here are a couple of my favs.
This guy needs to learn not to mess with people who have A LOT of time on thier hands.
EDIT: I am sorry if this comment offended anyone. It was not my intention. Please see this thread for a healthy and enlightening discussion on this issue.
I'm no Freudian, but seriously, "Grab Jane Most"? That's got to mean something. I wonder if you can file a harrassment claim based on a name anagram?
I did a little legal research: according to the source of all knowledge, Wikipedia, sexual harrassment "includes a range of behavior from mild transgressions and annoyances...". So, by his own logic, you can countersue Gambert just for being annoying.
lol! Her husband is going to be pissed.
*** Grab Jane Most ***
Holy heck. Rebecca's gonna feel left out.
I'll admit, this is the first legal post I've read all the way through. But this guy and his weirdness was worth the possible law talk. Ms. Bird, you make reading legal jargon very nice (if that's possible).
This guy is praying that everyone opposing this will just lose interest. But how are we to do that? It's our profession.
Oh, and SEO is also a noun. Someone is an SEO by trade. I am not sure its in the dictionary yet, but I would argue that SEO=Search Engine Optimizer as well.
Thanks for keeping us updated Sarah!
Excellent point, Kate. Eeeeeeeexcellent.
Strike it down by the Doctrine of Mistakes! Doctrine of Laches! Doctrine of Acquiescence! Doctrine of Unclean Hands!!
Who the Hell is this guy, Hammurabi?!
(It'll make sense if you read the nonsensical filing Sarah links to.)
Read it. Brain hurts. Sarah rocks.
Jason needs to get over his claims that SEOmoz is out to get him. He isn't even a real person as evidenced by his return to sender for everyone's NOOs. This has quickly devolved and I hope the USPTO sees that they are being taken on a wild goose chase by a deluded and sick individual.
Rhea, I think you should add up all the hours you spent investigating his fraud, and send him an invoice.
:D
Hammurabi! Love it!
I bet you he is going to claim there is a SEO hall of fame where he is claimed as the first hero who fought the email spammers who claimed to be SEOs. There is no winning with this guy other than crushing him. Thank you Sarah for doing the legal part of the crushing for the otherwise busy SEO community.
Focusing strictly on the fraudulent claim of receiving the email in 1997, based on his owning the domain... regardless of the fact that it doesn't actually affect his case, it's perjury, isn't it? Aren't papers filed the same as making statements under oath? It costs a few dollars to retrieve who owned that domain in 1997, if it happens to be available. What needs to be done to get someone to file perjury charges against him? Only the PTO can do that, right? Since he publicly blogs that his intentions for obtaining the trademark are not what he states in his application, this should be something easy to get done... who do we contact to point this out to that he keeps lying?
I intend to notify the United States Attorney of this once I have all the facts. But yes, I sent Sarah an email today (not that she needed me to tell her) of the likely fraud involved. Which is perjury, under oath, and a criminal offense.
Also, while I haven't thoroughly examined the documents, it appears there is some claim he registered some domain in 1997 through GoDaddy or another registrar (according to supposed domain registration receipts with logos on them). Brief research indicates GoDaddy was founded in 1997 another another name. Further, while not confirmed yet, I believe Network Solutions was the sole registrar of domain names until 1998.
This case is ripe with fraud and perjury. The very claim that he made first use of the term seo is perjury.
I also think there are civil remedies for those of us that have been harmed (via attorney's fees for fighting this) due to his bad faith and fraudulent claims with the PTO. I and my attorney are currently researching civil liability he may have accrued and I intend to pursue any and all legal claims possible against him.
Who knows, maybe I'll win a civil judgment against him and get all of his assets, including the seo trademark, lol. Then I can be the SEO Fuhrer and impose standards on everyone. After all, don't you guys trust me? ;)
I already have some proof counteracting his claim of ownership of the domain mentioned in the email he cited from 1997, as well as the original cached copy of the email. Let me know if you need that.
you holding something back my friend?
My proof is what I call the Vingold test of "Really?".
As in... Mr. Gambert registered a domain name back in 1997 - when the world was still full of .com domain name possibilities, and the best he could come up with was tosonoe875.com?
Really?
To be fair, I've seen some truly terrible domain names registered in the first years of the web. You have to remember that domains were not such a commodity back then. The space was more important (to me anyway). Most of us didn't think about picking up good generics, you were more likely to pick up your chat handle (e.g. things like tosonoe875.com).
This may be one of the best services that SEOmoz has yet to offer the community. Thanks Rand and Sarah Bird for the efforts on this one.
Brent
I think the phrase "flagrant idiocy" sums him up quite nicely. Expect some more insightful comments from me once I have some time to read the documents thoroughly.
My brain hurts. This guy is confusing. I'm certainly not one to demonize and call him names or judge him, but come on, friend, let it go. Is there anybody who feels he's got a strong case? I think he'd do better to devote his time and effort to more fruitful pursuits.
There are a number of sock puppets who feel he has a strong case, yes.
If we take the premise that Google is who to consult on what an SEO is because their first returned result is Wikipedia's SEO page - then why don't we follow that logic and ask Google exactly what an SEO Is?
Google : What's an SEO?
Or, I dunno we could ask the U.S. Government.
Government: What is SEO?
(Of course, on that second page they link to the Wikipedia article so that might not help (and we wonder why Wiki has so much authority?))
"we wonder why Wiki has so much authority?"
Because ppl are lazy really (and so is the gov). They want an answer now, that pretty much sounds right, and we don't have to look hard for it. Wikipedia gave us that. Right or not, it has good info (80% of the time i'd guess) and its easy to find info. So ... we'd rather believe that than do serious research. :) Just my thoughts.
WHO IS THIS GUY?
I checked out his website, Modern Consulting Solutions. If he plans to trademark SEO to set the standards don't you think he should know the cardinal rule is not to build your website entirely in Flash?!?! Is this seriously his business?
I can't believe I'm actually citing Wikipedia for something, but under the circumstances of Mr. Gambet using Wikipedia as "proof" that SEO is a "process" not a service, I find the following very funny:
The initialism "SEO" can also refer to "search engine optimizers", terms adopted by an industry of consultants who carry out optimization projects on behalf of clients, and by employees who perform SEO services in-house. Search engine optimizers may offer SEO as a stand-alone service or as a part of a broader marketing campaign.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_optimization
Ian
PS: the day that Wikipedia controls a judgement is the day "mob rule" controls the courts, by definition.
The ALL MIGHTY Wikipedia is calling SEO a SERVICE?! Well hell, case closed then! Gambert himslef says that Wikipedia is the definitive resource on what SEO is and isn't, so if "they" say it's a service, his claim is completely unfounded based on his r-tarded criteria.
Anybody wanna take bets on how long it takes for some sock puppet to go edit the Wikipedia entry referring to SEO as a service?
Though I don't favor illegal sorts of harassment, I think a bit of "mob rule" is quite appropriate in this situation. He absolutely should be "exposed" for what he's doing.
I still would give 5:1 odds that this is an attempt to be the greatest linkbait ever and that the smartest people in our industry have been pwned by whomever is behind this.
A very failed attempt, since nobody is linking to him. In fact I wish Google would invent a negative link - worse than a nofollow - that pulled back link love. Now that is an idea worth patenting...I said it first! :-p
I would laugh so hard if Jason Gambert turned out to be Jason Calacanis. Haha.
We always knew he hated SEO.
On another note, maybe it's Jeremey Schoemaker's alias? He's the one who is so convinced that SEO won't be around much longer...
Ahh, I hope someone is able to expose who this guy really is.
either this man is a genius and he is creating the perfect link-bait. Or he is mad with power and pride.
His pride and desire for power will lead him to his downfall because why would anyone go up against the world of SEO's. Who does he take all of the SEO's for, idiots?
Sorry Lance, just saw your last comment after I posted mine. I'm starting to believe that this is a sweet linkbait campaign.
thumbs!
No worries
This just might be one another one of those prositiute stories that FoxNews did. He is just taking it to another level
hehe! I love this saga. One of the most interesting things to happen in SEO since ol' "snake oil" calcanis started upsetting people
awesome.
Where does Doug Heil weigh in on all of this. He's the only one that seems to have "allegedly" spoken with the guy first hand, and somehow agrees with his scheme, saying:
There is something very odd going on here.
I am not surprised - Doug isnt exactly pro "all" SEO. See some of his comments on Lyndon latest link thingy and Anns post on thinking like a blackhat.
I woudn't be surprised if that's not Doug at all, but yet another Sock Puppet.
The style of language used seemed quite different from his earlier posts on the 'SEO Trademark' website.
I like the fact that he references a resource that anyone (including him) can edit as "the world's most trusted online encyclopedia".
And for those who think it is a linkbait plan? Well, considering he is costing several people and companies money in terms of time and legal resources, any of his "future clients" will be likely to find more negative than positive when searching for info on him.
Regardless, here are two potential outcomes that could occur:
1. A class action law suit by those who engage in SEO as a business against someone who intentionally and maliciously intended to financially harm them.
2. A lawsuit (or reprimand) by the government in the event that it is proven that his email dated 1997 is not legit.
Or option number 3. We just deal with it in Texas, our way.
I sincerely feel your pain on this one, Sarah. My former company went through a similar saga with a frivolous patent claim. The claim was ridiculous, the patent application read like a 2nd-grade science report, and the entire exercise was an opportunistic attempt to extort money out of an established industry. Still, ridiculous or not, it still cost many people a lot of time and money, and we had to take it seriously.
Luckily, the industry banded together to fight it, which is exactly what needs to happen here. As ridiculous as the claims sound, anyone with any concrete evidence to the contrary or that debunks these wild claims should send it to Sarah. If by some very unfortunate event, someone with absolutely no SEO industry knowledge (and, let's face it, that includes 98% of the judges and attorneys out there) made a ruling in favor of Gambert, it would be incredibly damaging to the entire industry.
This might be the coolest thing I've read today! Pure entertainment from top to bottom. Who does this guy think he is? If you're going to try and dupe the SEO community, at least make sure your site was legitimately owned by you in 1997. Come on!
Does this guy think we are all SEOmoz puppets?
Surprised he hasn't logged in again using his many aliases and given everyone thumbs down multiple times as in Sarah's groundbreaking post.
Looks like he's moved on to bigger crimes.
This sounds like many of the crazy ideas to regulate graphic designers and the graphic design industry over the years. The SEO industry, like the design industry, can police itself. Unless you have a licensing standard, then using a certified TM name on your shingle is kind of worthless (reminds me of a certain auto shop near where I live where the guys wear jackets saying "ASE" on the sleeve and have never taken the tests, but I digress).
I am curious, though. Say there is an SEO standard. Then, Google (et al) changes how things work (as happens now). How often would you have to become re-certified (and at what cost)? And how would this organization police obsolete or outdated certifications?
I think Google is doing a good job weeding out bad practices on their own.
What's this world coming too, next thing you know some company is going to try sue us for patent infringement for linking an image to another web page.
The man is a bloody moron...
Gambert Wars.
Gambert Strikes Back.
The Return of the Gambert.
The Gambert Menace.
Attack of the Gambert.
The Revenge of the Gambert.
I think Sarah must have caught a Star Wars marathon on TNT recently... ;)
Did he bait SEOmoz again? This is some guy living in his mom's basement and the whole SEO world is talking about him. I know something like this is somewhat newsworthy, but I think our whole industry is a little gullible sometimes.
the website he supposedly has had since 1997 was not captured in archive.org - use the wayback machine to see old version of websites. While archive.org doesn't have everything - it has a lot.
we are working on that. thanks!
This is a great argument. I liked how you used a lot of great information in your argument to back up your opinion. I always find that this blog is nicely written and your opinions are very thought provoking.
Is it possible that this is the greatest linkbait campaign EVER!?
In 30 days we'll just see playstations and ringtones being sold on that domain.
A small part of me wants to believe that.
lol... that's exactly what I was thinking. In fact, it's taking everything in me to keep from posting about it.
Except (as mentioned a few times above) nobody's live-linking to him. If it's a protracted linkbait campaign, he's making the mistake of trying to get links from the one group of people who actually know how to use no-follow.
Aha! This is all just a distraction from his real aim: Patenting the term "nofollow".
Jason Gambert is a g-d!
Ugh. I think I've developed a twitch in my right eye. This guy's tactics remind me too much of the joke of a divorce proceeding I went through years ago. Keep fighting the good fight, and as always, tell us how to sneak in a punch or two.
Let's say JG is successful and wins a trademark for SEO (which won't happen, of course), what about Search Engine Optimization and Search Engine Optimisation? Can we still use it? Just hypothetically...
hell yeah we can! patent those f*ckers now, while you can, lest Jas or someone else suck 'em up!
:) What if Google wanted to patent "search engine" or "the search engine"? They will then set standards to other engines to make sure the 'best practice' is in place. In a good faith, of cours. That would be cool!
Interesting stuff about SEO and trademarks leads to banned users at Wikipedia...
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Great_Mans_Job&oldid=223945439
Great_Mans_Job is an anagram of Jason Gambert for those that haven't been following the plot.
So, the term SEO was already in use by a few people at the beginning of 2001:
https://www.google.com/search2001/search?num=100&q=seo+google
The above link will only work during 2008 October, and it links to Google Search results much as they would have appeared in 2001 January.
Pretty much exciting unfold of the story. Interesting read:)
How do we stop this guy? And can you guys update us on your efforts?
Someone blogged an update:
https://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2008/05/seo-trademark-battle-continues.html
Happy reading.
Great post, interesting story.
This sounds like many of the crazy ideas to regulate graphic designers and the graphic design industry over the years.
CT SEO Company
I think he "bothers" because the US legal system is prone to this kind of things. From what we read, in the US you can pretty much ask for a patent or a trademark for anything you come up with...
You can also sue anyone at any time in the US and if you lose....you just have to pay your court costs and lawyers. You don't get penalized if you lose, you just pay and walk away. The US should set things up to where if you sue someone and lose you must pay your costs AND the person you sued against. Maybe this would stop bogging down our court system and make people think twice before they sue
Actually, in Portugal (where I am) that's how things work. Whoever loses, pays all the judicial costs. That prevents a lot of bogus court cases.
this guy cracks me up. haha...
"Gambert Strikes Back" again!
*i in no way am supporting gambert in this. i just found his reply funny. it shows how unprofessional and immature the guy is.*
Do judges like it when your signature cuts into the text?
Wow. So much to comment on here.
I think for me, the most concerning thing about it all is the criminal perjury, or which may be known in Federal Courts as criminal contempt.
Sarah, that was an awesome post. Very entertaining. I hope Rand is paying you more than the Law and Order execs are willing to pay...
Oh, and he's up to something else, just today. I can't prove it yet, that it is him, but if anybody knows anything about emails coming from seoinvestigatorATgmail.com to their clients, vendors, or other professional associates, asking for information, please contact me directly. I'll leave it at that, for now.
um...sarah...you have two points numbered 3 in your original post. ;)
Heh! Good catch. :)
i only caught it because i was being narcissistic and referring my friends to the reference of my name. i discovered that "see point number 3" didn't exactly do the trick. so i had to send the email as "see the fifth full paragraph, may be the second of two points numbered 3 or if changed point number 4". although i don't think that is any more helpful to those that may be internet challenged. ;)
sorry!! Fixed now.
: )
Sarah stop what you are doing and read this. I am not trying to drop a link. Delete this post if you want. But please see this immediately: https://www.arteworks.biz/2008/05/actually-it-can-get-lower-gambert.html we have proof he attacked my charities.
Matt,
That's truly appalling. I don't even know what to say other than, "Why on earth would someone go to such lengths for such a doomed enterprise?" This secretive, destructive conduct increases my reservations about Gambert's character and motives.
I'm very sorry that you have to go through this. I know that you have been merely sticking up for what you believe is right. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance.
Thank you for sharing your story. And thank you to VanDeMar for lending his expertise!
Let's get in touch tomorrow.
Wow, that's appalling. This guy needs to be lined up outside of SMX Advanced next week and verbally shot
@arteworks - I just made an online donation to Mission Impossible telling them it's because of ArteWorks and what you've done for them.
@Mozzers - I initally had a mob reaction. I'm so, so thankful for Sarah, ArteWorks, Reah, Beanstalk, SEO.com & Hochman for standing in the gap for us!
Donating to ArteWorks charity above was a start. Encourage others to find a way to spread SEO love to those to turn this around in a way Mr. Gambert would least expect! We all know that a negative suggestion about someone has viral power. His inquiry about ArteWorks could have hurt them and the charity.
Actually, didn't take too long after all: https://www.arteworks.biz/2008/05/actually-it-can-get-lower-gambert.html
Great update Sarah.
Sphunn!
https://sphinn.com/story/49129
Doug Heil mentioned on this esteemed site - my oh my.......
Sarah, you're not an IP attorney, so you're pretty much doing the same thing Gambert is: boning up as you go. I think he'll lose, but it's nowhere near as open and shut as you imply. Most of what you're talking about is not pertinent to whether he can get a trademark, and he doesn't have to show he was the first to use the term or that others have not used it.
I couldn't agree with you more that most of this post is not pertinent to whether he can get a trademark. Those reasons are covered in my Notice of Opposition.
The post covers what he wrote and my thoughts about his arguments.
As for your claim that "he doesn't have to show he was the first to use the term or that others have not used it," that's partially true. There are many elements to a successful trademark registration. "First use" is only part of the analysis.
If you know of a law that permits someone to register a merely descriptive term like "SEO," that has been in common, frequent use for well over a decade by people operating in his same market, I'd be happy to hear about it.There are no "acquired distinctiveness" arguments to be made in a case like this...
I respectfully disagree whether this is 'an open and shut' case. There are no decent claims here.
It makes my jaw drop that this story hasn't quietly disappeared yet. It was on the edge of my radar before I joined Distilled this month, and it's now great that Sarah is looking out for us all, though it's a shame she has to.
I'm still in the dark as to why he believes that SEO should be trademark-able, when 'cooking' or 'house building' would also be awesome trademarks to have.
Also, "the world's most trusted online encyclopedia"? Citation required.
Check for sock puppetry. If SP fails, check for idiocy. Sir, excuse me, who are you? Because I think you are the village idiot. Sarah has never or done anything to inflate herself. She is only doing her job. She went to law school. That's it. She is doing a damn good job at this, and leading the industry. So honestly, seriously, who are you? I mean that. Who are you? Email me. I'd love to get to know you. Divulge a website or email address please? So we can chat privately?