Sounds like every "Zomg my son joined Cutco, what should I do?" thread out there! (My suggestion = seppuku)

Now, if he was using "coke" to refer to cocaine, that would not be using it in a trademark sense.

I'm only suggesting what MonaVie *might* do in the context of other cases that involve metatagging and the internet. Because MonaVie is not stupid enough to come at you with a straight TM infringement case, it's worth it to read those cases which deal with metatags directly because they've already indicated that it's what they're upset about. Any good judge would refer to those cases, too. Those cases (as noted by EFF and mentioned above) are not traditional TM cases. MonaVie has a better chance at coming up with a viable case (as opposed to a frivolous charge) if they follow those grey area cases where the law is not necessarily settled. SO, that's where I got all the arguments about goodwill and what it might take to prove that your website is somehow touching a commercial stream.

BTW: I don't know if it's the same for TMs, but in copyright it wouldn't matter if YOU made money or not. The effect of the infringing use upon the potential market for or value is also considered. It's something to think about.

Good luck.

I would compare my use of metatag keywords to a teaser for the nightly news program like, "MonaVie is gathering juice devotees, news at 11." Such mentions of trademarked terms are allowed and they aren't really considered news, just a description of the news segment at 11.

I would default to the purpose of metatag keywords in the first place. They are used to describe the content. That's what my meta keywords and meta description do. What should I use for meta keywords in an article asking if MonaVie is a scam? Should I use "purple juice"? Should I use "the juice that can not be named"? Talk about causing confusion (though in a different way).

(I don't mean to seem ungrateful, I am enjoying this point as it's a little outside the box. I like exploring these kind of edge-cases.)

If the nightly news, instead, said that the nightly broadcast was being brought to you by corporation XYZ and flashed XYZ's logo on the screen without XYZ's permission, you can bet that XYZ would have a good trademark violation case and the station would probably not be able to use the defense of "commentary" or "criticism" as it would be able to do if the mark was part of a news story. In that sense, the news station could be said to have been trading on XYZ's goodwill (ie watch us b/c we're associated with this product).

It's not a matter of whether the mention of a mark "might bring in viewers" as you suppose. It's a matter of whether the mark is used in criticism or commentary vs trading on another mark.

In your situation, LazyMan, the metatags are NOT being used to further your criticism or commentary, so that fair use defense is out the window. So, what are the tags there for? As I supposed, the only thing I can think of is that MonaVie would say that the tags (somehow, someway) might cause initial interest confusion. Whether they can prove that is a different story.

If it's the first case, I shouldn't have reason to worry. If it's the second case, then we know that MonaVie isn't protecting it's trademark and just handpicking the ones they don't like (maybe because they are one man shops like myself). If it's the third case, well then I'd like to talk to Newsweek and see how they are handling it.

It's conjecture on my part, but I think it's more about the critical nature of my article, the fact that I'm one person, and that it ranks well in Google which makes me an attractive target for them. We'll see if they are going after everyone.

My above-theory is the only way *I* could think of that MonaVie could use to wedge itself into a trademark case. Also, I don't think it would be successful (I don't think that it's Lazy's intention to trade on MonaVie's goodwill).

Do you have any ideas what MonaVie's theory of the case may be?

If that @billy's admittedly "stretchy" definition of cashing in on "goodwill" is true, then we need to redefine how monetization of news is done in the United States. Think of your nightly news station. Do we prevent them from mentioning a trademarked term, because the term might bring in viewers, which allow them to cash in via commercials on that trademark's "goodwill"?

But that's not the end of the story. If someone used a mark that would cause a likelihood of confusion (and there are many factors) it might be seen as infringement. For example, Koke used as a soft drink would infringe Coke used as a soft drink even though Coke probably doesn't have Koke TM'd. In the same way, "monavie" might cause a likelihood of confusion with "MonaVie" regardless of registration.

I like the ballsy move of adding the "Monavie" tag to this...on wikipedia, that's called WP:POINTy.

They have to fight every battle to protect themselves even if it means bad publicity or the like.

I realize that it's a bit of a stretch for MonaVie to make that claim (especially if search engines don't use metatags), but that's the only way I see this case going. I don't think that the article implies that it's Lazy's intention.

The complaint is about the metatags. According to EFF's article, that's a gray area and (I assume) the defense to the use of the marks in metatags is probably different.

The bottom line is that just because MonaVie has no problem with Lazy's right to free speech in one area doesn't mean that there is no legitimate issue with Lazy using the mark in other situations.

"The company's concern, [MonaVie council Doug Whitehead] said, has nothing to do with user-visible content on the Lazy Man site, but instead is all about the site's metadata, which includes MonaVie's name."

I'd like to point out that the metadata is user-visible content for all posts on my site. It's been that way for over a year now (check Google Cache if you don't believe me).

I've had a section that says:

"This post deals with:
[Wordpress tags]
... and focuses on:
[Wordpress Category]"

The metadata keywords are generated (in part, I occassionally add more) from this user-visible content.

I didn't pay much attention to it because spam is, well, spam. I was going to link to the question but it has already been removed.

Good job making sure the interweb recognizes you for what you are MonaVie. Is there a chance this company is a subsidiary of Cash4Gold?

However, people that just heard of MonaVie might find this behavior surprising.

LMAO... great analogy. At least I've never heard anyone on the Internet claim that Monster Cable will cure cancer, autism, fibromyalgia, etc. Monster Cable has that going for them.

Hint: It's very close to zero

[www.gpo.gov]

I am not going to listen to you. You are a fat, lazy, sit on computer with no lover asswipe attorney. You're an annoying douche.

I don't see how either test would succeed.

@LazyManAndMoney: You're surprised by this? These people are making money off of this; it's their livelihood. Of course they think you are a "douche."

Good job, Marc!

And to add to the discussion, I agree that MonaVie was out of line and I believe they are trying to use "strongarm" tactics to silence at least this one critic.

@Rectilinear Propagation: I think this is a huge gray area right now. In some instances, they are given some of the same protections as regular media (like revealing sources), but in other cases, they hide behind being bloggers (as in the cases where they make shit up).

I think it has to be better defined. Either any yahoo that manages to register a website and starts pontificating, speculating, & reporting is automatically considered the "press", or not.

@LazyManAndMoney: Looks like that person's been drinking the acai Kool-Aid.

IIRC, there was a case a while back over whether or not a blogger has to reveal their source.

Here's an extra bonus sub-plot. There was a comment left on the post that the Consumerist links to here. That comment called me an "annoying douche" as well as "fat" and having "no lover." I traced the IP address of the person leaving that comment to MonaVie's offices:

[www.lazymanandmoney.com]

The news media are also expected to follow journalistic standards and ethics, which very few bloggers do. I wish people would stop confusing bloggers with journalists.

Also, what GMFish said.

Its very important that they make these distinctions, as to get the bets of both worlds.

This is incorrect, or at least poorly written. You make it sound as if only journalists or bloggers have any first amendment rights to criticize companies. We all do. I can say "Coke sucks and tastes like shit" all day long and no Court in the US could or would stop me.

The purpose of trademarks is to protect consumers from buying an inferior product or service under a confusingly similar name or mark to that of a higher quality product or service.

Me saying "Coke sucks and tastes like shit" in no way confuses consumers into buying an inferior product because I'm not selling such a product. I'm merely voicing my opinion which is protected by the first amendment. And that is true whether I'm a blogger, journalist, or just a citizen of the US.

@HillSA23: Yeah, I saw that, and I guess I wasn't clear. But I still don't get why MonaVie even cares if the metadata is irrelevant. Maybe it doesn't think it's irrelevant.

Bloggers = "news organization?"

It's hard to tell from your post whether or not you picked up on that. =)

I've never seen a company make such a half-hearted and nonsensical threat against the Internets. Come on, MonaVie, where's your spirit? Have you not had enough acai berry supplement today?

MonaVie, if it's telling the truth, has a new employee who gave that acai berry a big ol' bear hug, and jumped the gun on something that really wasn't a big deal and wasn't really a problem - if this person had taken even a minute to think it out, and consider Wikipedia and other sites that are full of MonaVie trademarks. Lazy Man had it right - MonaVie shouldn't have gone after him, and had no reason to.

"Just take [the metadata] down," he said. "Every search engine expert I've spoken to says metadata doesn't do anything anymore."

Tell me, MonaVie, why do you care if it doesn't do anything? Is it possible that you got embarassed by your new hire, and are trying to save face, lest the armies of the Internet go after you with fury?

Maybe Lazy Man should threaten to write a song about it.