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!

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

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,

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.

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.

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

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.

Thanks, Kurt.

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

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?

I also wanted to add that Mrs. Loesch’s column is set up very similarly to Heather B. Armstrong’s blog. In fact, it seems as though Mrs. Loesch modeled her blog ver closely after Ms. Armstrong’s. I wonder if Mrs. Loesch has ever gotten any communications from Mrs. Armstrong or her attorneys regarding the suspicious similarities? Where do we draw the line?

I think a key point that is missing in your description of the situation, Kurt (which may well be because you just aren’t aware of this part of the story) is that Dana tried to contact the owner of this other blog SEVERAL times, over the course of months, via email to resolve the situation amiably before any legal action was taken, but the author of Momologues.com did not respond to any of Dana’s attempts to contact her. If the other blogger had responded to Dana’s requests to work out a solution that would work for both of them, I doubt this issue would have gone as far as it has.

And Deb, I think the reason that Dana took action in this particular case is that many of her readers were in fact getting confused and going to the wrong site, and had emailed her about this.

BTW, Bionic Beauty, as a founding member of the Guild, I would like to mention to you that we will be making scholarships available to bloggers who can’t afford the dues, and we will also be allowing some bloggers to do volunteer work for the Guild in exchange for a free membership. So please feel free to email any one of the Guild members if you would like more information about alternative methods of obtaining a membership.

The membership dues are just to cover website maintenance, operating costs, and the cost of setting up meetings and events for local bloggers.

Hi. I originally sent this comment over to Ms. Loesch’s site, but as it’s not showing up, I’m not sure I posted it correctly. Thought i would post it again here. My parentheticals are new to this posting.

****

Hi. I’m a friend of Gen’s and naturally am compelled to come to her defense. First, do you have copies of the e-mails that you said you sent ? Because they never made it to her. Gen is really a very down-to-Earth person, and not at all argumentative and really great about responding to queries. Truly. She did get two twitters, to which she did respond. Twice. According to Twitter, if you don’t follow a person, the DMs don’t go through. So maybe that was the issue? (My point being, maybe Ms. Loesch didn’t get the responses and thus thought there had been none. But also– if she still has the e-mails she mentions she sent previously– maybe she could resend them?)

From her perspective, she responded to queries, and never heard back. Then she got a note from a lawyer just days before she was expected to respond. She had her attorney respond.

When you love someone, you hate to see pain. I’m sure your friends and family feel the same about you as I do about her.

That said, she didn’t call names. I’ve read the story, read her blog, and watched the video several times. She stated how she felt. She FELT like she was being bullied. She has never besmirched your character, and wasn’t being a “name-caller.” (I just watched the video again, trying to be as impartial as possible. Again, there was no name calling. She just relayed how she felt.)

I’m sure there’s an amicable solution to all this. I’m not writing this to get into right/wrong, victim/accuser, attacker/attackee. I’m saying, as a poster on momologue.com commented, there are two sides to the story. Clearly, both of you feel very attached to your individual sides.

Are Kleanex, Coake and Fridgedaire also copyright infringement?

YES!

I guess that’s why you aren’t a lawyer.

As well… in respons to “Gen’s friend”… It’s very easy to say that someone “didn’t get” e-mails. Unless they were bounced back to Dana then they arrived at Gen’s server. That can be checked and proven through server logs. Not saying they did or didn’t, but it can be researched and proven.

And even if all she got was a cease and desist, perhaps contacting the sender of such cease and desist letter would be the appropriate response as opposed to running to the media for a biased account of the situation. The story ran without consult of the other side of the story. Poor journalism at best.

You yourself say there are two sides to a story, but Gen and the reporter must not have felt the same way because they only presented one.

You’re inferring that Gen is a liar. Rude. I made no such inference of Ms. Loesch. Being we’re both not intimate parties to this situation, neither of us are in a position to make baseless accusations. It’s demeaning to both Ms. Loesch and Gen that you would go there.

Further, it’s not up to Gen to present Ms. Loesch’s side of the story, any more than it is Ms. Loesch’s responsibility to present Gen’s. Both are defending their viewpoints. It is ridiculous to think that Gen– when speaking to a reporter about what she is facing– is going to somehow defend actions she find reprehensible. And of course visa versa.

Craig, just a correction — the fact that Dana didn\’t get a bounceback doesn\’t mean much. Lots of things can happen to e-mails that wouldn\’t generate a bounceback message. Lots of hosted spam filters will \’blackhole\’ a message which will cause it never to reach the recipient or return a bounceback. A receiving mail server could also reject a message so it wasn\’t received (it was hard-rejected) and the receiving mail server does not have to notify the sender it was rejected.

I\’m not really taking sides on this because I\’m no trademark expert, but your tone is pretty confrontational with your \’I guess that\’s why you\’re not a lawyer\’ remarks, etc. I am a St. Louis blogger who would be turned off by the bloggers guild if I thought joining meant I had to buy into the confrontational tones I\’ve seen by some of the members on this issue.

Frankly, I thought Gen\’s Friend was pretty cool and respectful about presenting the \’other side of the story,\’ as it were. Friend could\’ve come out, guns blazing, etc., but chose not to do so. I wish I could say the same for some of the St. Louis bloggers. Sigh.

Oh, love all the back-slashes. That’s what I get when I forget to enter the anti-spam text? ha! That’ll learn me. Sorry.

@ Craig Mayhem

I don’t appreciate the slur, “That’s why you’re not a lawyer.” You don’t even know me. Why would you verbally dismiss a total stranger trying to bring balance to a discussion and to raise valid questions with such demeaning rudeness?

Are YOU a trademark attorney? Are YOU a judge? Are YOU the final authority on trademark infringement?

You carefully omitted your credentials, yet freely offered your opinions and your disdain.

I’m out of this discussion if it’s turning into a mud-slinging match.

I called no one a liar. I merely stated that it could be proven if emails got to a destination. Call that rude if you like. It’s a fact.

I inferred nothing. Gen says that she didn’t get the emails. I said we could find out. I’m making no accusations.

Maybe you should read my comment again before responding in such a “hurt” manner. I don’t buy it for a second. I grew up Catholic - guilt trips don’t work on me.

You’re the one who brought up that there are two sides to a story, now are you saying that it doesn’t matter? You can’t have it both ways. Either you support the notion that there are two sides, or you don’t.

NO ONE IS ASKING Gen or Dana to “defend” the other’s actions. That makes little sense. But if there are two sides, the story presented is heavily biased BECAUSE IT ONLY PRESENTS ONE SIDE.

I’m not going to question your reading comprehension - that WOULD be rude.

But I can’t for the life of me see what’s reprehensible about defending a trademark. I’m sorry if Gen had no idea that Dana has a trademark on the word Mamalogues as it pertains to a blog about parenting.

As they say, ignorance of a law is no excuse for the breaking of said law. While this isn’t exactly a law in and of itself, it still stands that by law, Dana is the owner of said trademark, whereby those infringing on said trademark must cease and desist.

Sucks for the unknowledgeable infringer, but that’s the way the cookie crumbles.

Also to others who think I’m confrontational - well yeah. But In defense of the Guild I will disclaim that my opinions do not nec. reflect those of the guild.

Actually, I admire Erma Bombeck. She’s the original and was in the paper. I think Bombeck inspired many other writers as well.

In response to the Kleanex, Coake question… it constitutes infringement on the ground of dillution. If the use of another name is likely to cause conflict, then it is an infringement. Here are some basics about trademarks and URL’s from FindLaw.com. Here is a quote from the second site in direct relation to this matter (see page 2, URL accessed on Thursday April 24th),

“The other kind of confusion occurs when a misleading name causes customers to believe — wrongly — that a product or service is sponsored by, approved of or somehow connected with a business they already know about. In other words, the customers are confused about the source of the product or service. This would be the case, for example, if you took your TV to a repair shop called IBM Electronics because you thought that IBM somehow sponsored the business.”

Here is some good advice from the site on avoiding such conflicts:

“The way to choose a domain name that satisfies your own marketing needs and doesn’t get in the way of anybody else’s trademark rights is to search as many existing trademarks as possible, spot possible conflicts and then pick a name that’s unlikely to generate a nasty lawyer’s letter.”

They also recommend on the thrid page of the article that a person check with the USPTO and check for names that are close as well as variant spellings.

No, we are not lawyers, but there is a wealth of information from lawyers out there thay can be easily accessed and advice to be headed.

Wow, I had a lot of typos in there, I meant to say,

Here is a quote from the second page of site in direct relation to this matter (see page 2, URL accessed on Thursday April 24th),

Thanks Melody for making a point more kindly than I would have.

This has turned into a conflict of emotion vs. legality.

Unfortunately in legal matters, one side always has hurt feelings.

I am going off topic here, but in RE: to Craig Mayhem… In my humble opinion, the law and emotion are often very closely enmeshed and that is why lawyers are called upon to sort things out. If people weren’t emotional about certain issues, they wouldn’t escalate to the point that a law would need to be called upon or created in order to make things just and fair. It’s one of the things I find fascinating things (and often not thought of) about the law. You aren’t just dealing with codes and rules, there is an equally large (maybe even trumping) human factor.

I agree Melody.

And again, someone is always going to feel badly when the law doesn’t fall their way. Fair doesn’t always mean kind or warm and fuzzy. Fair often feels crummy.

But that’s law for ya!

I guess what I find so interesting about this whole thing is everyone’s reactions– it’s the emotional component that Melody and Craig just discussed. Yes, I’m a long time reader of Dana’s site, and I’m lucky to now call her my friend. But that’s not why I support her on this issue. The fact that I don’t read Momologue.com or know Ms. Hinson personally is not why I disagree with her stance or claims. The fact is: I support Dana’s side because it’s what is right, it’s what is legally correct. The fact is: I don’t support Ms. Hinson’s side because it is illegal. It doesn’t even take a lawyer to know that. End of story.