Nibletz.com - Knowing & Criminal Trademark Infringement

Posted on Friday, June 7th, 2013 at 9:16am CDT by miko t.

Company: Nibletz.com

Location: 516 Tennessee St., Suite 220
MEMPHIS, TN, US

URL: www.Nibletz.com

Category: News, Media

On On May 24, 2013, at 8:49 PM immediately after it came to my attention an article written by Kyle Shannon: http://nibletz.com/2013/05/20/spanish-startup-moodyo-smarter-social-shopping-network/

that misleadingly calls Moodyo our registered trademark "social shopping network", I wrote an email to Mr. Shannon.

"Hey Kyle!

I am the trademark holder for the mark Social Shopping Network ?

Your article http://nibletz.com/2013/05/20/spanish-startup-moodyo-smarter-social-shopping-network/ is in direct infringement of my mark.

Can you please change the article title to "social shopping site" or something away from my mark.

Greetings.

Miko Tapio"

The following day I get a reponse from Kyle where he pretty much says that is not willing to change the text and to sue him!

"Absolutely not its a headline of a story and not a proper noun. If you hold the mark in the United States we are represented by Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell and Berkowitz for domestic issues and for international we are represented by Sheppard Mullins."

I respond back to Mr. Shannon asking for his reasoning and he responds that I need to sue him! His reasoning: that he is not infringing my mark in bad faith because he is not making any money from it.

I have been in contact with Moodyo, ceo Javier Padilla and he is respectful towards our trademark. Moodyo is not using the mark, it is only Kyle Shannon who wrongfully calls Moodyo "social shopping network".

The unwillingness of Kyle Shannon to edit his own writing and change the title of this blog post is remarkable. I tried to explain to Mr. Shannon after he gave me a list of example and his justification for not changing the mark:

"It is equivalent that Nibletz writes about a new product release of Sony. Sony has just release a new game called "Angry Birds" and that Rovio(the company behind Angry Birds) emails to Nibletz to notify of the error. Sony is not infringing Rovios mark because they did not release a product called "Angry Birds". Nibletz is not infringing the mark in bad faith because Sony is not paying them for the article. His responses and arguments does not make any sense. Its like he wants to be shot in the leg!

I have tried to explain this to Mr. Shannon, but he is not willing to budge! Why would you willingly/knowingly infringe someones mark/not have any financial benefit from it/ and insist on doing it. To me there is only 1 explanation to this, Stupidity!!!


0 Comments

Post a Comment