I want people to understand the why, that's why I'm here. My goal isn't to convince people to change their mind. The truth of the matter is that we were put into a difficult position, and with the information we had, this was what we viewed as our only course of action.
Pulling over my comments on the matter from Inbound.org. Anji mentions a partnership in his post that I wanted to put come context behind.
> When Anji reached out to us initially, they were CapSEO. At the time, I had no idea Doz existed, or that CapSEO was rebranding. As Anji and I talked, the discussion was around the functionality of CapSEO, which I saw as complementary. Later the discussion moved to their plans to rebrand to Doz, with a fuller focus on inbound marketing services (and software). This too is complementary, but not with the brand of Doz, as Sarah alluded to. There's obvious confusion and brand dilution of Moz that can come as a result, and it's our duty to protect our trademark.
I think it's important to have this context. It feel into our lap with no other option than the action we took, we didn't seek this out. We've taken every step to be transparent into why, and hope, still, that we can resolve this in a civilized manner. I've spent the past 8 years of my life doing startups, the last thing we want to do is derail a startup from their mission.
I love the outpouring of empathy in the language of responses from Moz. Too bad at the end the end you still decide to stick to your guns and assert there is "obvious confusion and brand dilution". Really?!?
Are you really supporting the idea that potential customers of Moz, who go out in search of Moz and stumble on Doz, would confuse the two? Sure, they share two out of three letters, but they don't sound the same (no risk of a misspelling leading to Doz) or look the same.
It doesn't appear at all the that Doz is trying to conflate their brand to cause confusion or imply a relationship.
My guess is a company like Doz doesn't have the resources to fight, but they should. I can't imagine a court agreeing that even a "moron in a hurry" would confuse the two.
By that logic services like Hoogle (a haskell search engine) are even more likely to cause confusion with other services in the same arena (search). Yet, Google hasn't barked.
I just can't see a scenario in which a person is told about Moz, seeks them out, stumbles upon Doz, and thinks they found what they were looking for. The services may be complementary and even overlap on occasion, but even to a user in a hurry it should be painfully obvious they are not the same thing.
I don't think hamming distance provides a solid legal footing for arguing conflation of trademarks. Their phonetic difference is pretty large. The legal standard is generally based on an idiot in a hurry and I think the differences are large enough than even the biggest moron with no patience will know they are different.
Typosquatting has a larger legal footprint in copyright cases than Hamming distance, of which I can find no references. I'm not saying that typosquatting is happening here, but I would guess that typosquatting decisions would come to bear here well before HD did.
There's obvious confusion and brand dilution of Moz that can come as a result, and it's our duty to protect our trademark
I just can't agree with this assertion. There is not a legitimate fear that you're going to lose trademark protection just because someone is using a similar (but obviously different) name. This isn't the same thing as Xerox or Kleenex turning into a general noun, this is just shameful bullying.
It's not a fear, it's a legal obligation. If we don't protect our trademark in instances like this, where we are aware of infringement, we can be legally estopped from protecting our trademark in future cases.
Are you really trying to assert that by not going after doz for having a vaguely close name in the same industry you would no longer be able to protect yourself from egregious misuse of your mark?
By not canceling doz's trademark you would be prevented from going after a hypothetical Mozz, who attempts to pass themselves off as moz by using similar branding and product offerings?
You and I, and your lawyer, all know that is complete fantasy. Yes, not going after doz may prevent you from going after similar companies who aren't really infringing your mark anyways... but you would still be fully able to litigate against companies trying to confuse your customers.
I see people cite this concern but have never actually seen any evidence. Since it sounds ridiculous, I'd like to see some decent support for such a contention. Keep in mind, we're talking about a service name that many legitimately feel is sufficiently different.
The only legal obligation here is probably that of your lawyers to cover their asses.
You should ask them what are the actual risks, and how likely they are to materialize, so that you can make an informed decision. Your lawyers' responsibility isn't to your company's total well-being, but its legal well being. They warn you of legal dangers, but do not consider the cost of protecting you from them -- costs like bad PR. That's why you should tell your lawyers: thank you for warning me, but now I need you to try and help me make a global risk-assessment, one that takes into account all sorts of fallout.
Interested to see a case where this has actually happened
Surely if this is as dangerous as people are insisting, there must be all sorts of instructive example cases. It's not like rational people would get into a fearful panic about something overblown.
I would expand on this further, but I'm already late to my Friday afternoon satanic ritual murder party. It's my turn to bring the Judas Priest tapes.
I think this blog post, and some of the facts that seem to be missing from it (as Andrew outlined above), shows that doz.com is trying to get people on their side without being entirely transparent. Which is a shame. Their argument dilutes when the moz.com people can come out with significant corrections to the facts.
That said, come on - moz.com (which you JUST changed to) and doz.com? I think you had other options than the "we're going to cancel your trademark" route.
Even more so because moz's boss is on record citing Mozilla (and DMOZ, which got it name because it originally was Directory.MOZilla.org) as source of the MOZ part of the original SEOmoz. Part which is now the only thing left: http://moz.com/blog/what-does-the-moz-in-seomoz-mean
What a strange thing to lie about. Btw, how long after Capseo's purchase of doz.com did SEOmoz file the intent-to-use on MOZ? It's more of a moral question than a legal one.
Amazingly well-produced, and covers all of the basics -- without any of the snake oil. The SEO industry gets a bad wrap (most times, rightfully so) but once you parse out all of the shit, there's some great stuff out there.
I haven't heard anything that suggests that. In fact, most medical professionals suggest a morning workout for increased energy and better sleep patterns.
I've tried going with and without food before the gym, but settled on without. I feel more alert and less sluggish when I don't eat before working out.
If you're strength training, you may run into issues though.
Like I said in the 3rd paragraph of the post. "Of course, I'm not speaking literally."
I titled this post in this way because it really does make you feel like the day is extended by two more hours. Not literally, I'm taking about psychologically, which is often just as valuable.
You did, and I think this submission found me in a mean mood. For people who have read about polyphasic sleep etc. the phrase "26-Hour Day" has an intuitive meaning which led to disappointment on clicking to the article.
I stand by my point about entrepreneurs' blogs providing clues to their character, but I retract the judgement on your use of "26-Hour Day". You could have been clearer in the title rather than waiting until the third paragraph, but then there is a reason you seller types are what you are: you're good at hooking people in; after all, you got me to read the article.
I swear by morning workouts. It's just so much more efficient than evenings. When you're tightly scheduled in the morning you're forced to workout efficiently. A good workout isn't necessarily a long one -- high intensity is what matters.
Like Sharkweek said (awesome), the energy it gives you to start your day is amazing. It carries me to lunch with plenty of adrenaline flowing.
I also had difficulty falling asleep when I worked out in the evenings.
A 3am wake up time is crazy impressive, puts my 5am wake up to shame. Really like the recommendation of the review in the evenings.
I too have found that when I don't review and clearly lay out what I'd like to accomplish that day (or week), I tend to work just to work -- another post in and of itself. :)
