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.