Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
04.23.2008 10:28 am

Mamalogues vs. Momologue: A trademark battle in the blogosphere

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

LoeschHinsonJust a day after blogging about the St. Louis Bloggers Guild and talking to one of the organizers, local blogger Dana Loesch (at left), she is in the news again over a dispute with a California blogger over the name of the blog.

Loesch’s blog, Mamalogues.com, is trademarked. According to a story by ABC TV station KERO Ch. 23 in Bakersfield, Loesch, through her lawyer, has sent a “cease and desist” letter to the author of a Fresno-based blog called Momologue.com.

Says the story:

Fresno mommy-blogger Genevieve Hinson said a recent cease-and-desist letter from St. Louis blogger, Dana Loesch, wrongly claims infringement over blog territory.

According to Hinson, author of Momologue.com, she’s being bullied by Loesch’s lawyers to give up her DNS and domain name, cease all related blogging, refrain from using momologue and any variation of it online and pay $2,500 in court fees.

The story has upset Loesch, who Twittered about it yesterday, “I feel bullied. It’s sad when you try to protect your intellectual property and you’re smeared in the press without your knowledge.” Loesch also said this sort of battle over intellectual property was “exactly why I founded (the bloggers guild) — to protect bloggers rights.”

UPDATE: Here’s Loesch’s blog entry on her Mamalogues blog about this controversy.

Hinson is quoted in the KERO story: “With as common as the word momologue is, I don’t think I’m infringing on her in any way. My one blog is not diluting her trademark because it’s (name) so widely used everywhere…they’re using it in everyday language.” She points out the word is used in UrbanDictionary.com.

Yet, Loesch does have a trademark on the name.

Bullying? By whom? An interesting case.

Oh, here’s the full-disclosure part, mentioned also in earlier posts: Loesch used to write a a blog for STLtoday and a column for the site. The column was also called Mamalogues (and linked to her Mamalogues blog) with her permission.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (5 votes, average: 2.8 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...
27 comments

Comments are closed.

A trademark is a trademark. In this case it seems pretty cut and dry. If it goes to court, Dana will win.

By the way, I was thinking about starting a blog called “Virtual Street Louis” or Virtual St. Louis. Hope that’s ok!

— Craig Mayhem
12:05 pm April 23rd, 2008

I’m a local St. Louis blogger (and a member of St. Louis Blogs group) and would love to join St. Louis Bloggers Guild, however $40 for the year seems a bit steep. Maybe my hosting is just cheap, lol. :)

Anyhow, best of luck to you all. And yes, if she was using the term first, trademark “in-use” rules apply. It does not matter if she registered the trademark first or at all. First use, and it’s yours.

Cheers,
Bionic Beauty

— Bionic Beauty
12:44 pm April 23rd, 2008

The story above appears to infer that Loesch owns the trademark on the word “momologue.” To be clear, she does not. She owns the trademark on “mamalogues.” From my extremely limited understanding of trademark law, it appears that the Fresno blogger is correct– a commonly used word cannot be trademarked. I have seen several sites use the word “momologue” in passing reference. Based on that fact, it seems like Loesch’s own trademark is in jeopardy.

— Traci
1:00 pm April 23rd, 2008

Traci,

People use the word “Coke” to describe any soda drink in certain parts of the country.

Doesn’t mean that Coke can’t be trademarked because of it.

See also Kleenex.

Limited knowledge indeed.

But if I understand you correctly, my new beverage, “Coke” is safe from litigation! Sweet.

— Craig Mayhem
1:07 pm April 23rd, 2008

The word Klennex(r) also became a commonly used term after the product was invented and trademarked, but they still own the trademark. They have not lost it because the brand name has been so strongly identified with the product after it’s inception. By this same reasoning, the mark has been registered for four years with the United States Government as an indetifying symbol for blogging about parenting issues.

The URL for “momologue” is only a step away in spelling from “Mamalogues(r)” which is registered to protect a blog that talks about parenting issues… and there are well documented legal precedents that spelling variations in a URL consitute trademark infringement.

I am not a lawyer and do not play one on TV, this is all from layman’s research.

— Melody
1:12 pm April 23rd, 2008

I think people should read my post before assuming to know all parts of the case or even sentiments about them. There is a lot of valuable information that is left out that I detail on my site.

http://www.mamalogues.com

— Dana
1:20 pm April 23rd, 2008

Excellent! Thank you for posting, Dana. I’ve been trying to keep my eye on your blog to see when you might comment on it. I’ve updated my entry to include a link to it.

— Kurt Greenbaum
1:40 pm April 23rd, 2008

Thanks, Kurt.

— Dana
3:10 pm April 23rd, 2008

Does this put manologues.com in jeopardy?
Only one letter away, but quite the opposite of mamologues.com

Or mumologues.com for folks in the UK?

mimologues.com
memologues.com
menologues.com
minologues.com
mymologues.com
mynologues.com

Just where is the line drawn?

I don’t begrudge someone her trademark, but precedent or not, a different word is a different word, I don’t care how many letters are changed. That way lies chaos. And if mamologues is trademarked, it can have the TM symbol or just those letters clearly displayed.

Is this just a tempest in a teapot? Is it an Internet “real estate” grab or justifiable?

Kleenex, Coke and Frigidaire all assiduously guard their trademarks now, because the courts ruled that NOT to do so constituted neglecting their trademark.

Are Kleanex, Coake and Fridgedaire also copyright infringement? I don’t think so. But of course, I’m not a lawyer.

It’s merely MHO on an interesting and controversial subject.

Deb Gallardo

— The Story Ideas Virtuoso
3:36 pm April 23rd, 2008

Mrs. Loesch may have an actionable claim and may very well be successful if she seeks an injunction against Mrs. Hinson. But I wonder why Mrs. Loesch’s attorney hasn’t advised her to keep her mouth shut regarding this matter?

— Jennifer
4:13 pm April 23rd, 2008

Pages: [1] 2 3 » Show All