Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How SEOMoz sent us a takedown notice.

rudebaguette.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 164 posts

Re: How SEOMoz sent us a takedown notice.

#71

Post by masklinn »

Afforess wrote: post #66
MartinCron wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there may be dilution at stake if they don't defend their trademark I don't buy it. Give me an example of a company that lost trademark protection because they merely allowed another company with a similar name to exist and I'll eat my hat.

It doesn't matter, you have the responsibility to defend your trademark at every opportunity. If in the future, the court looks and sees that you didn't try to defend your trademark, even in grey or obviously incorrect cases, they could decide that it was no longer a trademark. Trademark laws suck.

Since when does "defending your trademark" means using legal bullying against people with marks somewhat similar from afar in the fog if you're legally blind?

Re: How SEOMoz sent us a takedown notice.

#72

Post by masklinn »

Bill_Dimm wrote: post #70
MartinCron wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there may be dilution at stake if they don't defend their trademark I don't buy it. Give me an example of a company that lost trademark protection because they merely allowed another company with a similar name to exist and I'll eat my hat.

Here is a list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized...

Operative section of GP's comment:

> because they merely allowed another company with a similar name to exist

reason for genericization:

> lost legal protection as trademarks by becoming the common name of the relevant product or service

Re: How SEOMoz sent us a takedown notice.

#73

Post by BrianEatWorld »

MartinCron wrote: post #50
ValentineC wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh, as someone who's only heard about Moz/SEOmoz recently, I did think that they were related to Mozilla in some way. On the other hand, it could be trademark law that's screwed up, because I understand that there may be dilution at stake if they don't defend their trademark.

there may be dilution at stake if they don't defend their trademark I don't buy it. Give me an example of a company that lost trademark protection because they merely allowed another company with a similar name to exist and I'll eat my hat.

I can't give an example of one being lost, but thats the same reasoning Ford used for going after Ferrari last year. Whats worse is that wasn't even a real car, the F-150 Italia was their F1 chassis. A bit silly given Ford's F-150 is a midsize truck.

Re: How SEOMoz sent us a takedown notice.

#74

Post by pbreit »

andrewdumont wrote: post #62
MartinCron wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's obvious confusion and brand dilution of Moz that can come as a result, and it's our duty to protect our trademark I just can't agree with this assertion. There is not a legitimate fear that you're going to lose trademark protection just because someone is using a similar (but obviously different) name. This isn't the same thing as Xerox or Kleenex turning into a general noun, this is just shameful bullying.

It's not a fear, it's a legal obligation. If we don't protect our trademark in instances like this, where we are aware of infringement, we can be legally estopped from protecting our trademark in future cases.

I see people cite this concern but have never actually seen any evidence. Since it sounds ridiculous, I'd like to see some decent support for such a contention. Keep in mind, we're talking about a service name that many legitimately feel is sufficiently different.

Re: How SEOMoz sent us a takedown notice.

#75

Post by eridius »

mindcrime wrote: post #16

Wow, Moz does not come out looking good here. Doz and Moz are not the same word, don't mean the same thing (I'm not even sure either word actually means anything ) and are only similar in the most superficial possible way. Moz should quit fvcking around with lawyers and filings and trademarks and whatever legal bullshit and just focus on innovating and being better at what they do.

They actually are quite similar words, for companies which it seems are engaged in the exact same business.

I can easily imagine how someone, not familiar with either company, might hear of Moz and, later, mistakenly believe that the company they heard about was Doz (or vice versa).

Don't forget, trademark law is such that you have to protect your trademark or you lose it. If there's any risk at all of infringement, you have to go after it. So although the case that Moz and Doz are similar isn't particularly strong, it seems close enough that I'm not surprised Moz is taking this action.

Re: How SEOMoz sent us a takedown notice.

#76

Post by dohertyjf »

masklinn wrote: post #64
dohertyjf wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a post that Rand wrote about the origin of Moz in SEOmoz - http://moz.com/blog/what-does-the-moz-in-seomoz-mean EDIT tl;DR based off the [moz] that was so popular years ago that stood for openness and transparency. DMOZ and others are included in this history.

> tl;DR not based off DMOZ Uh? > We're building off the history of organizations like DMOZ, Mozilla, Chefmoz, etc

Building off the history of, yes. The history of openness and transparency, not becoming an admin on DMOZ for the sake of a link from one of the strongest domains on the Internet.

Re: How SEOMoz sent us a takedown notice.

#77

Post by examancer »

andrewdumont wrote: post #62
MartinCron wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's obvious confusion and brand dilution of Moz that can come as a result, and it's our duty to protect our trademark I just can't agree with this assertion. There is not a legitimate fear that you're going to lose trademark protection just because someone is using a similar (but obviously different) name. This isn't the same thing as Xerox or Kleenex turning into a general noun, this is just shameful bullying.

It's not a fear, it's a legal obligation. If we don't protect our trademark in instances like this, where we are aware of infringement, we can be legally estopped from protecting our trademark in future cases.

Are you really trying to assert that by not going after doz for having a vaguely close name in the same industry you would no longer be able to protect yourself from egregious misuse of your mark?

By not canceling doz's trademark you would be prevented from going after a hypothetical Mozz, who attempts to pass themselves off as moz by using similar branding and product offerings?

You and I, and your lawyer, all know that is complete fantasy. Yes, not going after doz may prevent you from going after similar companies who aren't really infringing your mark anyways... but you would still be fully able to litigate against companies trying to confuse your customers.

Re: How SEOMoz sent us a takedown notice.

#78

Post by nthj »

unreal37 wrote: post #48
jennita wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say we're not trying to "look any better" we just want to be sure both sides of the situation are out there.

You work for Moz too. The whole Moz company is here defending yourselves without identifying your employer.

She did say "we're", it was pretty obvious to me that she identified with Moz

Re: How SEOMoz sent us a takedown notice.

#79

Post by cabinguy »

MartinCron wrote: post #18

There's a particular irony that the Moz folks think that the Doz name is too similar to be allowed, when they're using an abbreviation for Mozilla that has been around for years and years.

I'm pretty sure SEOMoz.org was a play on DMOZ.org, originally.
Post reply on HN