MediaVision Blog : Search Engine Marketing

While Sarah Bird from SEOMoz was working on trademarking some new SEO Moz Marks, she noticed that a chap named Jason Gambert put in an application to Trademark SEO. What?

Not only did he put in an application, but she also noticed that he had managed to get all the way to publication phase too. So, it passed the preliminary review and is now sitting in that waiting period where people who may be harmed by this can object.

This guy managed to convince the TMO’s reviewing attorney that SEO is a process that involves the manipulation of keywords and is in fact not a marketing service.

He then went on to state that while “SEO” can’t be trademarked when it refers to a process of manipulated keywords, it can however, serve as a “service mark” for providing marketing services…in the field of computing. Nuts if you ask me…

So what can one do? The only solution, as Bird mentions, is to objectify, objectify and objectify some more. These guys at the Trademarks office need enlightenment: SEO is way more than a process to manipulate search engines with keywords, and every Search Engine Optimisor provides a Marketing Service.

Further arguments are that you can’t trademark descriptive marks, and you need to be the first to use this mark in your particular field or industry and prove it. It’s keeping in mind geography, and marketing relevant goods and services.

Bird delves into the dates and issues associated with this absurd application, you can catch all that right here… It’s worth a read.

Here is my understanding of the cycle that this absurd application went through to get to where it is now:

At first it appeared as though the Trademark office was going to reject the application entirely as it did not fit all the necessary criteria required by them. But then, Gambert amended his application so that the scope was narrowed down to encompass the requirements needed. He went as far as to change the mark’s denotation so that it doesn’t look like the acronym for search engine optimisation. He claims that the mark “SEO” actually, means “System Efficient Optimisation”. This guy has really lost the plot…

This cycle goes on from September 2007 till January this year, with Gambert using various resources including online dictionaries, the works, all to argue his point that the generic use of “SEO” refers to a process, and is therefore completely different from his exceptional use of the term “SEO” for direct marketing services. He tries all means to convince the TMO that his mark “SEO” is for a service, and not the process.

His application gets rejected again, and that frustrates Gambert to no end, as he ends up getting defensive and fires off an astringent and extremely confusing response to the rejection.

As you can see, by this point, the guy has wound himself really tightly and although he is clearly passionate about his stance, the application gets rejected once again due to lack of evidence that SEO is not descriptive of his services.

Eventually, the TMO agrees (clearly fed up with this guy’s antics) to allow the registration so long as he is providing the services for someone other than himself and that the service he is providing is not search engine optimisation.

So he adjusted his description to:

“Marketing services in the field of providing marketing services for the benifit [sic] of others in compiling advertising campaigns and promotional services for it? customers.”

Gambert claims that he IS offering advertising services to and for the benefit of others, so on the grounds of that, the TMO asks that he supply adequate evidence to prove how he will be using this mark and that he will also need to add computers into his description.

Gambert does just that and gives a “dubious” specimen of evidence that backs up his use of “SEO”. Surprisingly, the TMO are happy with this and his mark is approved for publication. As crazy as that sounds, the guy claims he was the first to use “SEO” for “marketing services in the field of computers”, but he is nowhere to be found on the internet. Where is the evidence?

Sarah Bird, with the help of a trademark attorney Venkat Balasubramani, suggests that the only way to fix this problem and put this chap back in his place is to object. She gives details on how to do this here.

She mentions how critical it is that all of us in the Search Marketing world take a stand in the matter and enlighten the TMO, with as much evidence and detail, that there’s more to SEO than keywords. That SEO is not just a process, it is a service, and that there are several people that have certainly used SEO in relation to “Marketing services in the field of Computers” prior to February 2007.

In summary, this guy has managed to get this far by convincing the TMO that SEO is a process, and not a service. By saying “SEO is a process, not a service” in every way imaginable, Gambert has underhandedly confused everyone at the TMO in order to get his way. He clearly has no knowledge whatsoever of SEO, as his personal site isn’t even crawlable, and it has all kinds of shady written all over it.

It is absolutely amazing that he has been able to get this far in his endeavours. We need to stand up to this guy; he can’t get away with this…