Comments on: Jason Gambert – New Low in the SEO Trademark Saga

By: fotosCR

fotosCR — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 08:37:37 +0000

is unfortunate.

By: fotosCR

fotosCR — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 03:37:37 +0000

is unfortunate.

By: Mahesh Kapshikar

Mahesh Kapshikar — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 05:55:36 +0000

I am shocked by reading this news….

By: Peter Hamilton

Peter Hamilton — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:53:28 +0000

more fun stuff about Jason:) The best way to be right is to cite yourself!
http://www.arteworks.biz/2008/07/gambert-cites-wikipedia-then-edits.html

By: Nick Stamoulis

Nick Stamoulis — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:37:05 +0000

This guy is horrible and had not a leg to stand on! Take a look at a more recent post at SEO Chat:
http://www.seochat.com/c/a/Search-Engine-News/An-Unlikely-Attempt-to-Trademark-SEO/

By: SEO Canada

SEO Canada — Sun, 11 May 2008 01:55:43 +0000

Some people are udderly unbelievable. Even if he managed to obtain the trademark he couldn’t launch a single lawsuit without the entire industry ganging up on him like how those open sauces operate with the free software foundation. Given the prior use of this term its amazing he has gotten this far.

By: jonson roth

jonson roth — Fri, 02 May 2008 04:10:24 +0000

Fantastic detective work, Rhea. Let’s hope there’s someone in the trademark office who has the sense to consult the industry. That aside, I thought that you can’t trademark a term that has been in the public domain for over a year. That’s what I remember, anyway.

By: Michael VanDeMar

Michael VanDeMar — Fri, 02 May 2008 00:16:05 +0000

Matt – the monologuing thing is a trip, I hadn’t thought of that. :D

Thank you so much for being willing to provide that data, btw. That is the one that was needed to seal the deal. Without that it could have just been some random dweeb stirring the fire… knowing (and being able to prove) that it was Jason himself leaving all those comments makes all the difference.

By: Matt Foster

Matt Foster — Fri, 02 May 2008 00:10:57 +0000

Here’s the email header, if anyone wants to see the proof:

Received: from smtpauth02.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net ([64.202.165.182]) by home with MailEnable ESMTP; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:07:46 -0700

Received: (qmail 944 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2008 00:07:44 -0000

Received: from unknown (67.188.25.114)

by smtpauth02.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.182) with ESMTP; 24 Apr 2008 00:07:44 -0000

From: “Jason Gambert”

To: “‘Matt Foster’”

References:

In-Reply-To:

Subject: Peace

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:07:39 -0700

Message-ID:

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: multipart/alternative;

boundary=”—-=_NextPart_000_0004_01C8A564.894AC330″

X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0

Thread-Index: AciliVsrDKmXE5RXQxyIe8LboF6ySgAB1HAwAAI5ZUA=

Content-Language: en-us

Return-Path:

By: Matt Foster

Matt Foster — Fri, 02 May 2008 00:03:28 +0000

Those two emails he sent me proved fatal! It’s like in movies, right when the villain is about to prevail, he goes into a monologue, which always proves to be his downfall. Always! If the villain would just shut the heck up, and put a quick end to his enemy, he would win! But there always has to be a monologue, or as I called his email in my blog, a “Manifesto”, which ends the reign.

Lesson to be learned: Villians, keep your mouth shut!