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.