Setting it straight

| | Comments (69)

Way back in 2004 I applied to register "Mamalogues" as a federal trademark. At the time there were no other "mamalogues" on the Web. I researched. The USPTO researched. They concurred, which is why they agreed and allowed me to register my site's name as a trademark in connection with a blog about motherhood and parenting.

One thing about trademarks: they're not like copyrights. Trademarks must be maintained because any stone left unturned can weaken the ability of a mark to distinguish a person's goods and services. This is intellectual property law 101. Because my mark was used as a column, because the name was optioned in Hollywood once, and now it seems for a second time, as a project, I knew that I had to stand up and protect my property. So I did.

Ms. Genevieve Hinson was apparently offended by this. I got emails asking me if I was related to her, if our sites were affiliated - there was actual confusion between the two websites. Then she followed me on Twitter. She was well aware of my trademark as I use the ® symbol present beside my mark. I was very cool and contacted her and told her hi, I was a bit concerned, could we talk? I was ignored. Again. And again. And again. I didn't quite know what to do. I realize that bringing the law into your life is a very serious thing and I wanted to steer clear of that but I have a responsibility to protect my property. So I contacted my attorneys. A cease and desist was sent out.

Just days before the deadline to which she was to respond, I was notified by a reporter, Nick Belardes, in my comments section no less, who very curtly asked me why I was "going after" everyone with a "mom" in their website name and oh, he was going to do a piece about it for the ABC affiliate ABC23 KERO in Bakersfield, California. Except that he already did it; it not only aired, but a story was on their website as well as video. I followed the link he gave me and I couldn't believe my eyes. I started crying.

Not only was the story missing valuable information, but I couldn't believe that they went so far as to suggest that I'm somehow being a "bully." I couldn't believe that Hinson thought it easier to run to a news outlet instead of just talking to me in the beginning. Who knows what could've happened. That it was asked why I was protecting my mark instead of asking why others were causing me to protect my mark also blew my mind.

What wasn't mentioned in the piece were all the times I tried to contact her and amicably discuss the issue. Or that I obtained my federal trademark before she blogged, and years before the entry was made on Urban Dictionary (I also think it's curious how the Urban Dictionary entry was created just last month). It didn't mention that my dispute with MomLogic was not over the issue of "MomLogic.com," but rather over their use of "momologues" as a blog on their website.

The bottom line is that it's not a case of "cyber bullying," it's about the rights extended to owners of trademarks under federal law. Specifically, federal trademark law requires that the trademark owners be vigilant with the protection of their marks. Plus, the term "bullying"  suggests that there is a disparity between resource and power when in reality, both parties are represented by capable counsel representing their interests in this matter.

It's amazing that I can be vilified for simply protecting that which I have earned, applied for, and received. I never tried to prevent anyone's speech, but rather act to protect my proprietary interest in my URL. I've never told anyone that they couldn't blog, but rather am asserting my right to my trademark which identifies my website.

That's why companies protect their trademarks.

You can't create a car company and call it "Dadge." You can't open up a coffee shop and call it Stahrbuchs. This is one of the main reasons I, and others, founded the bloggers' guild, to protect our work. We want to protect ourselves against any attempts to restrict and/or dilute the scope and force of the validity of our intellectual property, among many other goals.

It really upsets me that Ms. Hinson would use such a platform to express, for the first time, her disagreement with respect to my rights under trademark and in the process essentially cast me as the villain - that her dispute would resort to personal name-calling instead of having a discussion about the issues of our dispute.

Comments will be moderated.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , ,

69 Comments

I swear you know how to make a comeback..

The thing I was less than thrilled about was her assertion that momolouge is such a commonly used word, in my experience its not.
Toss that in with the lack of communication and the BLATANTLY LEADING line of questioning by that reporter who was clearly aiming for slander I can see why you were upset...

I'm gonna go make you brownies!

What really baffles me is that you weren't contacted to give your side of the story.

Amen, Dana! You stand up for yourself.

Oops, sorry, hit send then had another thought.

If I had been doing a story about this for my silly little internet show, I would have gotten interviews with both you and the other blogger and an interview with an impartial lawyer. Show all sides and then let the viewers make up their minds.

Maybe that's why I still only have a silly little internet show and not an actual job on TV. Seems fair to me, maybe I'm missing something?

Dana, glad you are back up and running; hope you can retrieve ALL your "good stuff". I checked out the "momologue" site; not only is momologue extremeley close to mamalogues; at first glance, the first o in her header font looks suspiciously like an "a". You go girl. Protect what is yours. You did the work, you were given the trademark. Period. Don't back down. There's only one "mamalogues"... :)

I used to work for a national television news network (and perhaps will again), and now, as a public relations professional, I'm often tasked at obtaining media coverage for clients. While I always hope that my clients' stories are prominently and positively featured, there is always the expectation that the reporter and his or her editors will do their due diligence and report on both sides of a story. It's an absolute shame that the reporter in this instance provided a one-sided account of this story; it definitely illustrates the inability to fact-check and provides content that's as accurate as possible. There are many people out there striving to provide good stories (and this story had the opportunity to be a good story, considering the prevalent subject matter), and it’s an utter same it didn’t end up being solid.

I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on television, but where is the line drawn between defamation/slander and reporting?

"Likelihood of confusion" is grounds for a trademark infringement suit.

Sounds to me like Ms. Hinson and Mr. Belardes might be working together. What decent reporter doesn't try to get the other side? Or did I just answer my own question?

Last night after reading it my analogies on my blog were:
Can I go out there to bestbuys.com and start selling electronics???

Can I open a store called Hallmarks and sell greeting cards????

How about call myself Jennifer Annistons and join the screen actors guild??

I like Starbucks w/ the extra R..
I think you will find the majority of people that have read your blog will "get it".. the rest..well screw 'em

I used to work as a reporter as well and often had people coming to me to fight their battles for me and I was taught to always represent the other side, if they want to be. So this is absolutely ridiculous and I think you have every right to be upset. Good luck with everything.

Dana, You have every right to be mad as hell. Mine is the view of a current blogger and former TV reporter (in much better markets than Bakersfield) who still cares a lot about journalism.

First of all, if I had put that story on the air at any station I worked for in fifteen years as a reporter, I would have been fired. You are the victim of corporate America's continued squeezing of TV news for profit.

Your new best friend Nick violated so many rules of journalism 101, I don't know where to start. Not contacting you before airing that video (if the station actually put it on the air) is a terminable offense. He also conducted a softball interview. Could we have one tough question in that fiasco? Also, how about talking to an expert on trademark law? That person almost certainly would have backed your enforcement of your brand.

The unfortunate trend is that corporations owning TV stations are trying to do news as cheaply as possible. The "hip phrase" in TV these days is backpack journalist, or digital journalist. The code for that is: "kid straight out of college willing to shoot and edit his own stories and accept something just this side of minimum wage in return." The smaller the market, the worse it gets because they don't get as much money for commercials, but are expected to produce the same amount of news. (Noon, 5, 6, and 10 etc.) Bakersfield is market 125 and the station is owned by McGraw-Hill, a publicly traded company. That means they're expecting about a 45% profit margin. Nick is likely cheaper than a McDonald's fry cook, and probably bought his journalism degree on Ebay if he's got one at all.

The thing I think I'm most offended by is that nowhere on that page does the name Nick Belardes appear. It's amazing how much more care you'll take in your reporting when your name is attached to the story, and you've got to take the angry phone calls.

To me this was a hatchet job by a kid trying to make a name for himself. Write the GM and the News Director. Hopefully someone in that place has the ethics to make this "reporter" answer for his actions. If there's any good news it's that they probably only have about 12 viewers anyway, so your name wasn't sullied too badly.

I liked what Karla said: There is only one Mamalogues.

Fight for it. I'm with you.

Her comments and the reporter's story are absolutely outrageous. I'll be praying for the outcome of all this --- that it is in your favor.

St. Louis has your back Mama. Take it easy and let your lawyers do thier thing.

" I also think it's curious how the Urban Dictionary entry was created just last month)"

That is this lady's nail in the coffin. Boohoo for her. Raquita had the exact same thought I did at first.

XOXOX

I'd look @ the possibility of slander. I read the story/watched the video. Slander. I got your back girlfriend. tell me when & where. *S*

Interesting.... I can think of nasty things to say - not about you dear - but nothing nice to say. So I'll say nothing else.

I have to agree with George on this. It seems like there was little attention to making the story fair and balanced by only sharing her side of the story and was not researched. People have been sued and lost lots o' money over less.

On that note, I also agree with Raquita on not having heard of the term before, or ever, commonly used in speech.

I can't access Urban Dictionary from work, but isn't that site user submitted? The argument about in common speech holds little water in that case, especially if the date it was submitted follows your contact and cease and desist. That is like someone using Wikipedia in a court of law... ummm, no.

I think it's a shame that the news media can publish a story with whatever slant they want, never mind the WHOLE story or the truth, for that matter. Keep your head up, and I hope it all turns out ok!

Yeah, judge? See Urban Dictionary is this thing online...

Air tight.

/sarcasm


I can't believe anyone would use Urban Dictionary to support a casual argument, much less a legit legal claim.

I watched the video and read the story. I thought it sucked and I really searched on the page for somewhere that I could e-mail the news station with my thoughts but could not find one. Even stltoday.com provides e-mail addresses for the reporters so readers/viewers can respond.

Mamalogues most certainly is not a common word. I've been blogging and reading mom blogs for three years now, and I can tell you that I've never seen or heard the word, unless in reference to your site (or more recently, hers).

You have a right to your trademark, just like anyone else who has registered a trademark. Being a mom blog doesn't make you any different from a large corporation's trademark. Would someone be allowed to sell soda called Pepsee?

It's sad that she couldn't simply address the issue with you rather than running to the news and accusing you of cyberbullying. That reporter should be fired for slander - everyone wants the "hot" story, but this is not it, at least not from her perspective.

I've seen her site. I respect her writing about autism. But in this case, you're in the right. A trademark is a trademark, and you have the right to defend your trademark.

Just read the story. One thing that got me was that Nickie took it even lower by "reporting" (using that term VERY loosely) that you were attacking not just any mom, but a *special needs* mom. Ugh. I can't possibly imagine how he ended up in market 125. That's WAY too good for this incompetent slug.

I don't know with whom to be more angry: Ms. Hinson or the journalist who 'reported' the story. All the reporter did was provide Ms. Hinson with an open forum to make her emotionally-led, legally unsubstantiated claims. He did not legitimately attempt to cover your side of the story; he did not to even the minimum amount of research into trademark law/infringement; he did not even speak with an impartial lawyer regarding the topic. This infuriates me to no end, and I sent an email off to the news director about it.

Ok, next:

Ms. Hinson. All of her claims are without merit. You began blogging before she did; you registered the Mamalogues trademark long before she'd ever even thought to use the singular version of the word. You tried to civilly resolve the issue; she repeatedly ignored all of your attempts. Instead, she passive agressively ran to a news station to spout off her emotionally-based claims (cyber bullying; seriously?), hoping for some groundswell of support that could miraculously negate the legalities of the issue.

Ms. Hinson and the reporter are both fools; and in the end, despite the stress and cost of this to you personally, Dana, you will be vindicated.

Oh geeze! What a crock of shit! Stick to you guns mama. As others have said, there is only one mamalogues for me.

What struck me most is when we returned home from dinner, for my little sister's birthday, and Dana got the message from the reporter. I told her not to respond until she found out the thrust of the story and had all the documentation together to show how fair and easy going she had been on the matter. She sent him an email saying that she would be willing to talk perhaps tomorrow... except the story already ran! Even before we had a chance to send off the first email. My wife, who is a spirited person to say the least, was reduced to tears over the horrible insinuations in this story that didn't even seek to get her side. A story that isn't even a story at all, except if you want to expose how people don't feel trademark law and copyright law extend to the internet. It infuriates me to no end, especially in light of Dana's efforts with the Bloggers Guild, which is helping other bloggers protect their rights and content from pirates, squatters, and other BS. This woman apparently used the bully pulpit of the media to advance her position and disregarded Dana's rights and the repeated attempts Dana made to be civil. Who's being bullied here? Dana went through all the trouble and expense to trademark "Mamalogues" so her creative identity was protected.

Thanks to all of you for your support of her in this, by the way.

Oh geez. Well. As a journalist-type person, I've gotta say that I would be RIPPED A NEW ONE for doing that kind of reporting, no matter who was right. Even the "truth" were that you were, in fact, bullying her with pitchforks and swarms of frogs, they would still be under an obligation to get your side of the story. I know as an editor -- which I am/was -- I would NOT allow a story like that to run without comment. I would tell the reporter to hold it. That being said, it's television, and television does not remotely adhere to the same standards, in my experience.

Also, local news outlets tend to defend the shit out of local residents, especially like that. They just DO. It's an inherent bias I discovered while on both sides of the fence.

That being said, I ... I am really disappointed in Genevieve that she would go directly to the media with talk of "bullying." That seems incredibly harsh and unfair and irresponsible of her, and really, it should have been handled blogger to blogger first.

I'm sorry this happened to you.

hmmm... so you think 61revised.com is on dangerous ground due to it's obvious Bob Dylan reference?

Skewgee - If Bob Dylan was blogging before you and trademarked that name with respect to blogging, then yes.

I totally support you. You have every right to protect what's yours. (Besides, I didn't think her blog looked very interesting.. I've read yours for the last 3 or so years.)

it's a shame she wasn't adult enough to respond to your emails. You certainly gave her more than enough opportunities to right the situation.

I nearly choked on my soda when I got to the part in the article about you not knowing how to use Twitter!

Ms. Hinson has done your lawyers a BIG favor by running her mouth and ignoring the legal process. The things she has said can come back to haunt her. I say, as painful as it is, let her yack it up in public forums and see how well it serves her before a judge.

Just for kicks let's assume she made a naive mistake. It is likely that the original use of her blog name was not malicious. She doesn't seem particularly evil. Perhaps she simply made a stupid, ill-informed decision to choose "that name" without bothering to check the legal ramifications.

Here's the hard truth that she can seem to comprehend. Just because we make bad choices doesn't mean we can continue without consequences! Now that she is aware of her legal faux pas, she is obligated to do the right thing and make a choice that puts her on the right side of the law.

She is trying to drum up some sympathy and get you to react in an incriminating way. Don't fall for it. Just keep in mind that what you say and what you write may be read and discussed by a judge before this is over. Let HER be the one who talks and writes herself into a corner.

Peace and blessings to you and your family.

Boy you just can't catch a break can you? One thing after another.

Can I just say, it was not the suprising fact that someone was using what was yours, but the part of your post that caught my eye the most was the poor, high school newspaper type journalism. You could get them for defamation of character so quickly. And the reporter never contacting you until the story was already ran shows an immaturity that can only be explained by how little of an amount of time he must have been working at his job. In my experience, that usually means that a)they are going to fabricate the story no matter how many facts they gather or b)the person of interest in the story (Ms. Hinson) is aware of the fact that she did something wrong and needs to get as many people on her side as quickly as possible before it turns sour.

I hope you know that we are all here for you and we back you 200%.

This is unbelievable! How can someone be so silly. I'm so sorry that you have to be going through this now, along with all of the other changes. Good luck--but I don't think you need it!

BTW, had you noticed that Momologues.com has a link to Belardes' blog on the right hand side? Something's fishy here.

A 15 year old texting "your fat" is cyber-bullying. You handled yourself like an adult. The reference is mute. Kudos to you for standing up for yourself and sharing your story.
The thing that made me mad was that she used the fact that she writes about her children's disabilities to gain sympathy. I write about my own sons learning disabilities but the fact is a writer is a writer a trademark is a trademark no matter what. Her stating about what she writes to gain sympathy was of poor taste, and was not fair!
Again Best Wishes to you!

I think I've figured out the connection here - Belardes has a son with Aspergers Syndrome, and Hinson's obviously got connections to autism.. It wouldn't surprise me if they're friendly and this article is somehow his way of helping her out.. Trying to get you to back off.

I've just read both sides of the story. I think you've set it straight with class & dignity and leave the rest to your lawyers.
On her part, shame on her for staging herself on the families of autism to try to pull the sympathy card to cover for her deception. How low.
And as for the faux journalist, some of the pro's who've written above me have hit the nail on the head with that guy. It's a sad day for the news media if the guy still has a job today.
And even sadder that the KERO23 hasn't pulled the whole thing. Must be getting a myriad of hits that they're not used to and enjoying at truth's expense. I see he's the Online Managing Editor.
Makes me wonder what connection Choate/Hinson has with KERO23/ABC and the faux journalist.
Sally

Dana, I'm just stunned at the lack of professionalism by the softball interviewer who appears to be unschooled in (1) blogging (2) trademark infringement (3) journalism and (4) common courtesy. The high road is yours to own, all the while protecting your trademark, your dignity and your sanity. "This too shall pass ..."

I checked that lady's Blogger profile, it says she has only been there since July 2005. In the "news" piece she makes it sound like she started in 04 like you did. Interesting. I hope this all goes well for you, when it rains it certainly pours.

WOW, don't even know what to say. CYBER BULLYING? Remember little Megan? You know the one who killed herself after a mom was mean to her on myspace? THAT is cyber-bullying. That mother should be ashamed of herself! It is a shame that she could not handle herself as an adult and speak to you personally.

I am sorry you have to deal with this, but I am confident that your attys will handle the situation. If I were you I would not hesitate to press charges on the "reporter" (her cousin, friend, possibly?)

On a different note, you are blessed. I am confident that this issue will be resolved in your favor.

Well, I read that article and am astounded how clear it is that only one side is represented.

I have been blogging for 4 years now, but have not made a name for myself... though have been fortunate to meet mostly wonderful people, and have never had to fight like you have. I think I may have just been too overwhelmed to take action.

Good for you. I am impressed by your knowledge and level-headed approach. You could really dig in attack, but I appreciate how you communicate your frustration,etc... but still manage to get the facts across.

Hoping this resolves in your favor with very little resistance.

I've wanted to trademark my blog name for a while, is the process expensive and long?

I also think it's crazy that she would attack you when she was in the wrong. I'm glad you are standing your ground. She probably thought the news report would scare you off--isn't it funny when people underestimate? ;)

I echo every encouragement you received here. You didn't deserve this.

Jamie Allman once said years ago that he thought it was a cop-out for journalists to publish or air a story without securing comments from the other side. He pointed out that too often you see reports where the other party 'did not return phone calls' or 'there was no answer at a number listed in the phone book'. He had no tolerance for it because the practice was lazy. I have no tolerance for it because it is cowardly.

I want to know - what can your readership do to help you and Chris? How can we donate to your legal fund? We'll make phone calls to KERO if you think it will help. Just let us know.

Did you know that April 23 is World Book and COPYRIGHT day? What an irony, eh?

You're doing only what you're legally and intellectually entitled to do. Good for you for standing strong on this.

Now, if only my trademark will hurry up and get passed *sigh*

Hold your head up high and think about the good that will come out of this. First, you are showing your sons how an adult handles a bad situation appropriately. Sometimes the less desirable people infiltrate our lives and you take appropriate action. And yes, sometimes it is legal action. You have every right to stand up for what is lawfully yours.
Please don't underestimate the value of this experience. I'm just terribly sorry to see you have to suffer through it. You are my favorite blogger and in the end you know that 'right' perseveres.
Don't let the bastards get you down!!

This lady and the reporter just made arses out of themselves and the station. You are a million times more talented than these folks and you obviously have the sense to protect yourself creatively and legally. Just know that many, including myself, know who the truely talented and gifted writer is in this situation....YOU!!

Hang in there girl! STL has your back!!!

When I created my blog I did an extensive search to make sure I wasn't using a name already taken or even similar. It was my responsibility to do that before I created anything. If I hadn't and picked a name that was trademarked it would be my arse and money on the line for not doing my homework beforehand. I honestly don't think she understands the law and thinks she can get away with keeping her site by whining. She is in the wrong and now she has to make it right. It's not your responsibility to police the internet and make sure no one uses your trademark. She has to pay to fix the infringement. Stupidity like this just makes me sick. If that reporter had just spoken to any decent attorney, it could have been explained to both of them in terms a five year old could understand. GEEZ!

Hey
I am so sorry that this happened to you.
However, I must say, being from Fresno California myself (not proudly), I am not at all surprised that this person has nothing better to do than stir up trouble. It is essentially why I left that hell hole in the first place.

It is small town people with small town lives who cannot (will not) handle themselves appropriately and will do anything to have their 15 minutes of fame.

This is not to degrade ALL small town people, just the one's like this who continue to amaze me, but who I do not allow to faze me.

You rock Dana, keep it up.

That story was a terrible, one-sided farce of reporting, which is par for the course these days in TV news, part of the reason I don't bother. And the newspapers aren't much better ...

Protect what's yours, Dana.

Sorry-- been trying to comment here for a while but your comment section doesn't like me these days. (Or maybe it's that my script blocker doesn't like your comment section. Heh. Hard to say.)

You know how I feel about this but I just want to reiterate it for your audience:

This ABC station article seems to argue two main points: One, that Dana is using unreasonable legal force as a bullying tactic to intimidate another blogger, and two, that defending Dana's trademark is a trivial issue anyway, since mommyblogging is a common, trivial hobby.

But if this crackerjack "reporter" had done ANY research on Dana's side of the argument before writing this drivel, he would have known that the author of Momologue was given several opportunities to resolve this situation in a friendly fashion before Dana took legal action. So it is utterly ridiculous for her to portray Dana as some sort of bully.

And if he had bothered to use his computer mouse for, oh, twenty minutes, he also would have discovered that, unlike most bloggers, Dana actually blogs for a living, and she has had been involved with several projects outside the blog under the Mamalogues brand. So clearly it is a bit more necessary for Dana to defend her brand identity than it is for most bloggers; it is not a trivial issue for Dana to have the Mamalogues name diluted.

I am getting so tired of putting up with the junk that tries to pass for responsible mainstream journalism these days. Between this, and that Globe article that quoted Catherine from Her Bad Mother out of context, I'm about ready to boycott the MSM. (Except I can't, because I have to cover the election, and they can get press passes to places I can't. Grrrr.)

Hi Dana!

Been lurking for YEARS. I am finally compelled to comment. "Momologues" is treading on thin ice. You commented in a professional manner, as usual. I have loved this blog for years, and it is rather offensive to see someone trying to benefit from your hard work.

First, bravo for defending your intellectual rights. Makes one wonder how "balanced" some of our local TV reporting is?

As this is my first time commenting, I'll stray a bit from the article topic. I ask your indulgence as I didn't see another way to provide non-article related comment. While I'm not a mom, I really enjoy your writing. I was a single dad for a few years and now have a single mom daughter. My personal experiences (a long time ago) along with the current joys (and tribulations) of being a "pawpaw" is why I so enjoyed discovering your column (in that previous existence) many months ago. BTW: have your tech guy (the CSS guru) take a look at configuring your site to be more mobile firendly. I travel a fair amount and my Blackjack is the esiest way for me to keep up with Mamaqlogues. Keep up the wonderful writing.
Regards,
A (male) fan

This thing is eating my comments.

You know we love and respect you. You know we've got your back, right lady?

In response to Amy's comment about not finding an email address on KERO's site: I found a contact info page, w/ phone #s, snail mail, and email info.

http://www.turnto23.com/contact/index.html

They give you a list of departments and people to choose from to send email to. Not sure who we should pick; maybe News Director or General Manager? In any event, there's the info. Email away, y'all! But PLEASE be firm but civil. I'm sure Dana would concur.

People always assume that you personally wrote the wording in legal documents. It's SUPPOSED to be intimidating. The idea is to get you to respond instead of ignoring it like all the previous requests were ignored. By this woman’s definition of the word "bully", anyone who asks you to do something you don't want to do, even if it's the right thing to do, is a bully. I wonder if I could convince my boss that this is true.

I hope this all works out well for you, Dana. We're all in your corner!

Dana, I just wanted you to know that I sent the following to the News Director at that "TV Station":

Dear News Director,

The piece about Momologues.com was absolutely one-sided and inaccurate. You are allowing something to air accusing Dana Loesch of cyberbullying? Nobody even contacted Ms. Loesch for her side of the story. How one-sided is this? For your information, Dana Loesch is the OWNER of the REGISTERED TRADEMARK "Mamalogues" and anything that would be confusingly similar, like Momologue. She is completely within her rights to request a cease and desist. After all, that's what trademark law is designed to protect. You couldn't open a fast food chain called McDanalds. You couldn't open a retail store called WallMart either. It's exactly the same thing. Dana Loesch is a professional blogger and she owns the name "Mamalogues" and anything similar. To her, it is her bread and butter, not just a hobby. If she doesn't protect what is rightfully hers she runs the risk of losing her brand and there's too much value in that for her.

I am sickened by your station's irresponsible reporting and sorry excuse for "journalism." I think Dana Loesch's attorneys might have something else to think about now besides her trademark infringement case. How does defamation of character sound? You all publicly defamed her and you owe her a public apology.

The writer of the article, has a comment section on this piece.

http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ABC23/25373

If you don't want it posted Dana, I understand - but if people are looking for a place to sound off on the whole ordeal.

Sometimes, Google just makes it too easy to be all slueth-tastic. lol

I didn't bother with the comment over at the Bakersfield site and settled for a letter of complaint to KERO's general manager.

Well, two things.

First - you go girl! That guy's gonna make your lawyer happy.

Second - I've tried to register twice now to comment as real person, and I've never gotten the confirmation e-mail. Don't know what's wrong.

BTW - I'm also a (male) fan.

I always read, and never comment. I just wanted to add my voice to all the others- we're behind you, keep fighting.

I can finally leave a comment (I hope!) There is nothing I can say that hasn't already been said....I'm just sick to my stomach over this whole thing and sick of reading all of the lies she is spitting out. At the very least in their little update story they could have linked to your side of the story, since they couldn't be bothered to talk to you directly. Shall we start another grass roots project and all write a letter to the news director as Karen did?

never been to your blog before but saw your tweet and read the story...

Bottom line is you took the effort, the financial investment and the forethought to create and register a trademark for your brand.

FOUR YEARS AGO.

You are not claiming some vague ownership of a domain name or some name you created but only your sister knows you created 2 years ago.

Keep to your guns, keep making the simple points you are making here and just keep it simple.

You created it 4 years ago, you own the name, keep your examples of how major brands would do the same thing and don't let her get any more publicity for herself then she has already.

USE THIS to publicize your brand and your product. Turn this around and get more new readers/visitors like me!

Wow... they even YouTubed it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XalDUUfy06s

This guy's really full of himself.

Note to Dana: avid reader, first time commenter! Do you know what it means to be a TV news reporter in Bakersfield, CA? Not much! You are the first blogger to get my attention and I still don't read very many. Keep on writing my dear...and keep on fighting for what is writefully (yes, I did that on purpose) yours!

I was so shocked by the report, especially how it is written. Very crass if you ask me. There were plenty of low blows in there and just down right meaness. I am sending lots of happy thoughts and prayers your way. If I was closer I would treat you to a warm and soothing Starbucks!

Hey, Dana, keep your chin up. It's always easier to tackle these things when you are in the right! Sorry to hear about the server problem, too. Major bummer. Grace and peace!

First I was saddened to hear about your server crash..(I have only been reading for a couple years now, and was still enjoying reading your archives) Then I was just astonished to hear about the latest round of drama that you have had to incur. I know I speak for many when I say that we were supportive of your separation with stltoday.com recently(their loss)but we are ten times more supportive of you now! Good for you to be smart enough to register your name four years ago--you have every right to hold your ground! Mamalogues is your witty identity that we have grown to love--and there is NO OTHER! (and I checked out the CA story--what a pathetic excuse for news)

Dana,

I think that Jimmy Buffett said it best-

"If it suddenly ended tomorrow,
I could somehow adjust to the fall.
Good times and riches and son of a bitches,
I've seen more than I can recall"

- Changes In Latitudes, Changes In Attitudes

Hey Dana, As a reader/blogger from Bakersfield, I am incredibly saddened to read yet ANOTHER incident of totally inept reporting from our local stations.

I wrote this letter to them:
Hello there -

My email is in regards to the newstory about Mamalogues vs. Momologues that was run just a few days ago both on the station and here on the website.
http://www.turnto23.com/news/15961345/detail.html

I am a blogger from here in Bakersfield and have been blogging for nearly three years now and I also have frequented Mamalogues website over the years.

I would like to say that I think your story was clearly lacking valuable information.

For starters, people who begin websites and blogs normally check to see if another website is using a similar and/or trademarked name. By not doing so, Momologues was irresponsible and naive. She must own her part in this situation. She had a responsibility to ensure that she was entitled to use the name.

Secondly, I find it incredibly irresponsible of you to equate protecting your intellectual property with cyber-bullying. They are totally incomparable! I'm horrified that you would put the two in the same league. I see it as not only belitting to what is ACTUAL cyber-bullying but dismissive and slanted AGAINST Mamalogues.

Please do a follow up to this story that includes Mamalogues side of the story. It wouldn't hurt if you had someone more affiliating with the blogging world do the interview as well.

Thank you.

I doubt it will do anything but just know that I'm horrified and think you've done all the right things here. Best of luck!

I'm a little late on this, but I cannot believe that article. I have NEVER in my life seen something so biased, ridiculous, and without journalistic merit. A high school newspaper wouldn't have been allowed to run this; that an actual station would have run a piece that was so one-sided is inexcusable. I'd say it doesn't matter, because the reporter is no-account and I bet the station reaches all of two people, but it does matter. It does matter that you weren't contacted, were publicly insulted and slandered, and had no way to defend yourself.

REAL late, but....how lucky is the woman to have her own "journalistic" (and I use that term loosely) minion to do her dirty work for her? She comes off as whiny and very, very misinformed. I should think your lawyers will have no problems w/ merits here!

You're doing great w/ your site recon, BTW!

www.flickr.com

Powered by Movable Type 4.1
--------
--------

Categories

Archives

Momversation

Dana asks: "Thanksgiving Traditions: Yours or Your Mother's?"