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

111–120 of 164 posts

Re: How SEOMoz sent us a takedown notice.

#111

Post by pron »

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.

The only legal obligation here is probably that of your lawyers to cover their asses.

You should ask them what are the actual risks, and how likely they are to materialize, so that you can make an informed decision. Your lawyers' responsibility isn't to your company's total well-being, but its legal well being. They warn you of legal dangers, but do not consider the cost of protecting you from them -- costs like bad PR. That's why you should tell your lawyers: thank you for warning me, but now I need you to try and help me make a global risk-assessment, one that takes into account all sorts of fallout.

Re: How SEOMoz sent us a takedown notice.

#112

Post by gscott »

eridius wrote: post #75
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,…

http://web.archive.org/web/20121207022623/http://moz.com/

While SeoMoz was promoting Marketing Analytics on this domain name there was nothing about moving all of their services to it. It seems to me that Doz has a reasonable chance (25% maybe) against the giant Moz. I would fight it! There is no way the DOZ guy could predict a domain name shift for Seomoz.com. I visit Woz.com occasionally to see what Woz is up to. I rarely search DMoz.com anymore. I would fight the Moz trademark if there is one... it is too common.

Is moz a person (Woz), a Browser?, a Metal Laminates and Architectural Products company, do they sell MOZ Luxury Wheels?, a songwriter? http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Moz, finance.yahoo.com/q?s=MOZ.TO, do they sell sweaters? viva-moz.com, is it a cafe? moz-cafe, another person Middelton-Moz Institute?, does it have to do with orphans? projectmoz.com. That is just 2 pages on Google.

Re: How SEOMoz sent us a takedown notice.

#113

Post by chopsueyar »

masklinn wrote: post #59
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.

And it's not really a similar name. You can't even mistype moz to doz.

Not a Dvorak keyboard user, eh?

Re: How SEOMoz sent us a takedown notice.

#114

Post by rhizome »

eridius wrote: post #96
rhizome wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know the statistical term for it, but the letters are on opposite sides of a QWERTY keyboard.

Which would matter if we were talking about likelihood of typos, but we're not.

Typosquatting has a larger legal footprint in copyright cases than Hamming distance, of which I can find no references. I'm not saying that typosquatting is happening here, but I would guess that typosquatting decisions would come to bear here well before HD did.

Re: How SEOMoz sent us a takedown notice.

#115

Post by dohertyjf »

jack-r-abbit wrote: post #92
dohertyjf wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

but... but... your TL;DR said "Not based off DMOZ" when the actual text does, in fact, say "building off the history of organizations like DMOZ". So, at a minimum, your TL;DR misleads people who didn't read it.

Fair point. Updated comment.

Re: How SEOMoz sent us a takedown notice.

#116

Post by mindcrime »

eridius wrote: post #105
mindcrime wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They actually are quite similar words Only in that they both end with "oz" and sound nothing alike, don't share any common meaning, and have no other obvious connection. Personally, I don't see how anybody could ever confuse those two words. 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. "any" risk? OK, g…

Only in that they both end with "oz" and sound nothing alike, don't share any common meaning, and have no other obvious connection. Personally, I don't see how anybody could ever confuse those two words. Right, because everybody has perfect memory of everything they've heard in the past. No wait, it's actually quite the opposite. People have crappy memory, especially for things they're not already familiar with. Neit…

If someone else launched a company "Fogdeam", which sold similar software to yours, surely you'd go after them.

I don't know for sure that we would. But I'd argue that, being a longer word, you get more confusion with the one character change, since any one character changes a smaller percentage of the overall word.

The position of the character definitely matters to. For example, in your "fogdeam" case, I'd say it's iffy. But if somebody launched Dogbeam, I doubt the thought of going after them would even enter my mind. This is all, of course, assuming that they didn't also use a similar logo and similar messaging, etc.

Re: How SEOMoz sent us a takedown notice.

#117

Post by nhebb »

I know that HN has ring detection for up votes, but how about down votes? As of this writing, this post is only 1 hr old and has 98 points (which is higher than many of the posts currently above it) and 105 comments. yet it's dropping fast. It's a bit suspicious.

Re: How SEOMoz sent us a takedown notice.

#118

Post by benatkin »

Ryan_Watson wrote: post #106
Ryan_Watson wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In trademark law, a mark can be "Confusingly Similar." Doz differs from Moz, but it may still infringe on Moz's trademark. Because Doz has a similar spelling and operates in the same industry as Moz, it may lead a "reasonable person" to believe the trademarks are related. The court will hold that Doz infringed on Moz's trademark if a reasonable person would find the two confusingly similar.

Doz and Moz operate in the same industry and the use of Doz would most certainly trip the reasonable person standard for confusing similarity. If "Doz's" attorney had performed a 30 min trademark search with the USPTO "Doz" would have been advised to choose a different name.

> If "Doz's" attorney had performed a 30 min trademark search with the USPTO "Doz" would have been advised to choose a different name.

I don't believe you, and you haven't provided anything to back up your statement.

Re: How SEOMoz sent us a takedown notice.

#119

Post by FireBeyond »

ssharp wrote: post #30
akg_67 wrote: post #13

Very interesting. If Moz and (D)oz are close, how about Moz and Moz(illa)? Lets start out as SEOmoz and when we become big enough, we can change our name to Moz so that Mozilla doesn't come after us when we are small. As SEOMoz has changed the name to Moz, may be Doz want to rename to SEODoz. What a racket!

This certainly wasn't their strategy. IIRC, SEOMoz started out as SEO consultants and evolved into a software product supporting SEO / inbound marketing.

Actually it was - upstream is a link to an interview where Moz themselves stated they wanted to appear close to Mozilla.

Re: How SEOMoz sent us a takedown notice.

#120

Post by chopsueyar »

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.

Sorry you are taking so much crap from everybody on HN here.

We may not like current IP laws in the US, but they are the current IP laws in the US.

I agree with your reasoning.

Post reply on HN