Jason Gambert – Consider Registering Jackass

On the SEOmoz I was surprised to see some doofus (there are worse names for these kinds of clowns, but seemingly clueless that I like to think of him as being more like Moose out of those old Archie comics) was registering SEO as his trademark. Like he’d get to own the letters or something.

I guess what is even more shocking is the fact he’s gotten so damn far! I mean, seriously, guy, you and your lawyer need to get a clue. As that lawyer who works with Rebecca points out, there’s no way in hell that any judge would reasonably honor that crap even if you did win!

Furthermore, your application says you’ve been using that term since 2007. Two thousand fucking seven?!?!?!? Seriously? Either you really have no clue, are a horrible liar or suffer from honest attorney syndrome. And if it’s honest attorney syndrome, you’re screwed. However, it appears to me he thinks you’re a total tool and is more than happy to dry up your hard earned dough! I don’t know how a contingency contract would work on that, but I pray for your sake that’s how the deal was set up. And if you’re not working with an attorney and got one of those generic trademark registration forms you heard about during the commercial break to Coast to Coast AM, this is exactly why you need to actually hire a friggin’ lawyer!

Lookit, Jason (can I call you Jason?), I enjoy jacking with people as much as the next guy or gal. But this, you’re just looking silly, angry, confused and jackass-ish. I think you ought to just let a sleeping dog lie. I mean, you’re trying to be an SEO for a living, right? All this is doing is making it so if a potential client searches for you to see if you’re legit or not, you’re gonna’ come off as some sort of crazy-ass kook. Cut your losses and comeback to Normal Land before it’s too late. Trust me, it’s a long walk to Normal Land from Kookville.

At any rate, good luck with the trademark thingy and then all the cease and desist letters you’ll be sending out if by some miracle Hell actually does freeze over. I’m sure this won’t be the last we hear from you!

36 Responses to “Jason Gambert – Consider Registering Jackass”

  1. Bill D Says:

    Am I the only one who can’t help but wonder if maybe he’s doing this as part of some misguided scheme to get press at any cost? Of course, if we accept that possibility, then I suppose that we must then accept the possibility that maybe this is but a small part of some grand scheme that we cannot yet even fathom, and that we’re playing into this guy’s evil genius hands. More likely it’s just the “jackass” thing.

  2. streko Says:

    i actually just trademarked “the worst seo blog ever”

    expect a C&D soon…

  3. greatscott! Says:

    @Bill D I’d almost think that, but the dude has ZERO online presence! Go search for him on Google and all you’ll find is articles about his trademark shenanigans.

    Option B? Calacanis has adopted an alter ego to try and register this trademark and fuck with every SEO on the planet. Of course that’s just one crazy, unsupported theory.

    @Hack We so need to get a mozDog so you can start referring to it as “that bitch who works with Rebecca.”

  4. Not A Hater Says:

    Negative Reinforcement To Try & Get Positive Feedback Never Works!

    Profanity, seems like his exact point! SNAKE OIL! LOL


  5. Back To The Future Says:

    Wow ha ha, “This definately is the worlds worst blog!” The worlds biggest “Jack Ass Too!” LOL This writer says, “I mean, seriously, guy, you and your lawyer need to get a clue.” Duh, he has got this far by representing his self! Donkeys don’t know how to read though huh, eeeeee haw eeeee ha ahhahahhahaha!


    Unfortunately, mules such as yourself make him look even better!

    He’s got my vote!

  6. seohack Says:

    @ BTTF – yawn. that’s the best you got? my mother calls me worse.

    @ NAH – huh?

    to both of you losers – i’m not saying you have to bring your a-game if you’re gonna’ comment here, but c’mon! you gotta’ do better than that! oh well, enjoy anonymous chickenshitdom!

  7. streko Says:

    “he has got this far by representing his self!”


  8. Websters Dictionary Says:

    Main Entry: blog
    Part of Speech: n
    Definition: an online diary; a personal chronological log of thoughts published on a Web page; also called Weblog, Web log
    Example: Typically updated daily, blogs often reflect the personality of the author.

    Heeee ha heee ha ha, nice one LOL “Back To The Future!”

  9. seohack Says:

    oh noes! someone is able to make up fake gmail accounts and make it look like there’s a lot of support for Jason Gambert! And they know how to read a dictionary! what am i gonna’ do?

    the self-congratulating reminds me of a certain mayoral candidate in San Diego . . . .

  10. That Guy Says:

    You can find information on <a href=”http://www.jasongambert.com/” Jason Gambert here at his site.

    I agree on the fact that the industry has a lot of people that “Think” they know what the search engines are doing exactly, and end up following practices that become outdated soon after their realized. There really cannot be strict guidelines for an industry that is shaped on “Factor Manipulation”, when the factors are always changing. I think best practice guidelines and trending data are the only things that can give “comfort” when the search engines deal the deck of change. Heck even then if Google and the other search engines decide on different factors to watch all past SEO will be obsolete. In the long run it would be nice to have some sort of certification with sites registered as “search engine compliant”. Thereby having these sites pulled to the top of the results with uncompliant sites following as possibilities, or even compliant and non compliant search engine results . The search engines could tell you what they want for compliance and any site that is compliant, would be free of deceptive techniques because they are human checked and monitored. You really could have a legit industry where people certified in the art of search engine compliance could make sure all the factors that hurt the robots ability to crawl, “dark” techniques are not employed, and the site is an overall business that will help people, not scam them, because they are optimized exactly to algorithim specs because they are deemed compliant.

    Just my two cents…… That Guy

    Maybe a

  11. seohack Says:

    @ That Guy – i’ve been trying to be as thoughtful as possible in my response to you. you’ve obviously put some thought into what you’ve written. But we’re just going to have to agree to disagree.

    the search engines aren’t going to tell us what they think is legit – it’ll just blow up in their faces. And if we’re counting on people to tell us whether a site is using “black” techniques or not, that only opens the door to further corruption. And i don’t know what you mean exactly by “compliance”, but there are already W3C standards, Google’s Webmaster Guidelines, BBB laws and regs and etc. Besides, what’s deemed “black hat” in one vertical may be necessary in another. Anyone remember NPR and the hurt feelings over them getting “cloaked” info into the SERPs years ago?

    i also think we don’t give the search engines enough credit for policing their own. they told us to build sites for users, not them. and as such, they’ve been (very slowly) adapting to what makes for a rich user experience. they’ll force “compliance” on us. you’ll either rank or not.

  12. RR Says:

    I just checked out the USPTO.GOV site’s full trademark application file for SEO. In the last two years, I worked with a trademark lawyer to get two generic terms trademarked, and it’s not easy or cheap.

    From my personal experience, I believe he applied for the trademark without using an attorney. An attorney’s name is listed in the application when you use one, and his name is the only one on the application. Also, I found at least a couple of letters to him from the trademark office which included the recommendation that he get a lawyer.

    If he gets a trademark, it will be heavily flawed and likely almost unenforceable.

    From the file, it was approved for publication in the March 25 trademark gazette and if there is no opposition filed in 30 days, the mark will be granted.

    You can take a look at http://www.uspto.gov using serial number 77171330. In the left hand column, click on TRADEMARKS (it’s the 5th one down). When that menu opens, click on “6. VIEW FULL FILES.” From there, put the identification number 77171330 in the search box and click. Apparently there have been almost 60 pieces of correspondence since filing last May. This allows you to read all of them.

    In the initial application, he tried to trademark the term SEO for:
    “Search Engine Optimization, Hosting, Webdesign, Software, Hosting, Domain Name, Software Development, All Computer Related Development and Marketing plus what is listed. Computer Software, Computer Hardware, “SEO” Letters to be trademarked in “All” Computer related areas.”

    Not surprisingly, that did not go well.

    The examiner responded:

    “Legal Standard

    A mark is merely descriptive under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose or use of the relevant goods and/or services. In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Bed & Breakfast Registry, 791 F.2d 157, 229 USPQ 818 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re MetPath Inc., 223 USPQ 88 (TTAB 1984); In re Bright‑Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591 (TTAB 1979); TMEP §1209.01(b). A mark that describes an intended user of a product or service is also merely descriptive within the meaning of Section 2(e)(1). Hunter Publishing Co. v. Caulfield Publishing Ltd., 1 USPQ2d 1996 (TTAB 1986); In re Camel Mfg. Co., Inc., 222 USPQ 1031 (TTAB 1984); In re Gentex Corp., 151 USPQ 435 (TTAB 1966).


    The applicant’s proposed mark, SEO, is merely descriptive of its computer related services. The acronym SEO stands for “Search Engine Optimization.” See attached evidence. The applicant’s proposed mark is for “search engine optimization” services, among other computer related services. See application. The proposed mark, SEO, is the known acronym for the applicant’s services. Therefore, the proposed mark, SEO, is merely descriptive under Section 2(e)(1).

    The determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is considered in relation to the identified goods and/or services, not in the abstract. In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 814, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (CCPA 1978); see, e.g., In re Polo Int’l Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1061 (TTAB 1999) (DOC in DOC-CONTROL would be understood to refer to the “documents” managed by applicant’s software, not “doctor” as shown in dictionary definition); In re Digital Research Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1242 (TTAB 1987) (CONCURRENT PC-DOS found merely descriptive of “computer programs recorded on disk” where relevant trade uses the denomination “concurrent” as a descriptor of this particular type of operating system). “Whether consumers could guess what the product is from consideration of the mark alone is not the test.” In re Am. Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985); see TMEP §1209.01(b).

    For the purpose of a Section 2(e)(1) analysis, a term need not describe all of the purposes, functions, characteristics or features of the goods and/or services to be merely descriptive. In re Dial-a-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1346, 57 U.S.P.Q.2d 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2001). It is enough if the term describes only one significant function, attribute or property. In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[A] mark may be merely descriptive even if it does not describe the ‘full scope and extent’ of the applicant’s goods or services.”) (quoting In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1346, 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).

    The trademark examining attorney refers to the excerpted materials from the Google search engine in which SEO appeared in reference to “search engine optimization” or computers in over 2 million stories, respectively. See attachments.

    Trademark rights are not static, and eligibility for registration must be determined on the basis of the facts and evidence in the record at the time registration is sought. In re Morton-Norwich Products, Inc., 671 F.2d 1332, 213 USPQ 9, 18 (C.C.P.A. 1982); In re Thunderbird Products Corp., 406 F.2d 1389, 160 USPQ 730 (C.C.P.A. 1969). A term that was once arbitrary or suggestive may lose its distinguishing and origin denoting characteristics through use in a descriptive sense over a period of time, and come to be regarded by the purchasing public as nothing more than a descriptive designation. In re Digital Research, Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1242, 1243 (TTAB 1987); In re International Spike, Inc., 190 USPQ 505, 507 (TTAB 1976).

    Attached are copies of printouts from the USPTO X-Search database, which show third-party registrations of marks used in connection with the same or similar goods and/or services as those of applicant in this case. These printouts have probative value to the extent that these registrants disclaimed the term SEO because it is descriptive of the registrant’s services.

    In addition to being merely descriptive, the proposed mark appears to be generic in connection with the identified services and, therefore, incapable of functioning as a source-identifier for applicant’s services. In re The Am. Acad. of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 64 USPQ2d 1748 (TTAB 2002); In re A La Vieille Russie, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1895 (TTAB 2001). But see In re Mgmt. Recruiters Int’l, Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1079 (TTAB 1986). Under these circumstances, neither an amendment to proceed under Trademark Act Section 2(f), nor an amendment to the Supplemental Register can be recommended.

    Printouts of articles downloaded from the Internet are admissible as evidence of information available to the general public, and of the way in which a term is being used by the public. TMEP §710.01(b). In re Total Quality Group Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1474, 1475-76 (TTAB 1999); Raccioppi v. Apogee Inc., 47 USPQ2d 1368, 1370-1 (TTAB 1998).

    For the foregoing reasons, the proposed mark, SEO, is refused under Section 2(e)(1).”

    Among the potentially conflicting marks cited, RENO SEO, described as “Promoting the goods and services of others through search engine referral traffic analysis and reporting.”

    It also cited TITAN SEO, RENO SEO, SEO UNIVERSITY, SEO KING, etc., etc., as senior in the application process to the SEO application.

    I note that most, if not all of the others have the rather standard disclaimer, “NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE “SEO” APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN.” Those marks consist of more than simply “SEO”. Gambert’s application does not seem to contain this disclaimer.

    By January 10, 2008, he wrote:

    “Please amend the description of services to as follows:

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

    (No. Seriously. That’s what it said.)

    The evidence he submitted to the USPTO in support of his application was the Wikipedia entry on SEO. It reads
    “Search engine optimization
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Search engine optimization (SEO) is the process of improving the volume and quality of traffic to a website from search engines via “natural” (“organic” or “algorithmic”) search results for targeted keywords. ”

    While there is more, this is the part highlighted in the page submitted as evidence.

    I’m surprised it went this far. Having slogged through this process twice, and having a legal background as well using expert legal guidance at $350/hour, I believe that if he gets this mark, he will have an impossible time enforcing it. Not only is the description of the scope of services under the mark heavily flawed for his purposes, but if he didn’t hire a lawyer to put this through, he won’t be hiring one to send out proper cease & desist letters. If he sent one to me, an average first year trademark lawyer would have no trouble tearing his arguments apart.

    Moreover, if he does not work to protect the mark by doing this, the mark becomes ‘diluted’ and progressively more difficult to enforce. Ultimately, it’s meaningless. (Think Johnson & Band-Aid® – people for decades have used this famous mark as synonymous for an adhesive bandage with a sterile gauze pad, and that severely diluted the mark. Same with Kleenex® and Xerox®. All three are made up words for specific products, but once the public used those words generically and they became part of the lexicon, the trademark holder is construed to have allowed the dilution and they became ‘merely descriptive.’

    If approved, I think the only tangible thing he gets out of this is the right to put the ® symbol by ‘SEO.’ He cannot ‘own’ this generic term as relates to ‘search engine optimization.’

  13. RR Says:

    PS: I just read Gambert’s page.

    It appears he does not understand what a trademark owner can – and cannot – do.

    He writes:
    “My goal in owning the trademark for the word SEO is not to try to force people to change their SEO process, but rather, prevent companies from selling “SEO” as a service under false pretenses.

    Not going to happen. If the trademark is approved, it cannot give him the ability to do anything of the kind. Not even close. It’s like proclaiming himself Grand Poobah of search engine optimization. There’s no authority.

    By the way, the people who own SEO.com, which could try to argue a common law right to the mark, didn’t even try to trademark SEO. They knew better. They may want to file an objection, though, although the trademark would not harm them if it went through.

  14. Jim Green Says:

    Don’t be surprised if you find out that he is indeed and attorney and working for MSN and the proposed Yahoo merger

  15. seohack Says:

    gawd, if he’s a lawyer then Microsoft should be ready to sue him for malpractice or something.

  16. Jason Gambert, Thank You, Idiot « The Worst SEO Blog Ever! Says:

    […] was even talk of his stupid sock puppets, which even managed to come by and spam my comments on Jason Gambert, Consider Registering Jackass. I mean, seriously guy. If you’re gonna’ do shit like that, you gotta’ be […]

  17. Peter Hamilton Says:

    The best way to be right is to cite yourself. Check out Gamberts most recent efforts to justify himself:)

  18. Link Building the Realtor.com Way « The Worst SEO Blog Ever! Says:

    […] general like realtor, and register it. You might have to hire an attorney for this, or you can be a crazy fucker like Jason Gambert and go it on your own. Just remember, you get what you pay […]

  19. Jennifer Linnuste Says:

    If you think he is bad check out htis guy..he is claiming the same crap along with taking credit for things he never did..Getupdated has and always will be a Swedish Company..Clinton has had no affiliation with anything except SALES!!!!!

  20. Mike Pedone Says:

    Ha. ha. Jennifer Linnuste was fired from Getupdated.

  21. Jennifer Linnuste Says:

    Sorry to say to the author( because I suspect that it is a forgery) above but I still work for Getupdated, however neither Clinton or Michael do…

  22. Jennifer Linnuste Is Someone Who Works Somewhere, I Think « The Worst SEO Blog Ever! Says:

    […] Someone Who Works Somewhere, I Think By seohack Alright, so all you all still remember that Jason Gambert fool who was going register “SEO” as a patent or trademark or something?  And then all he did was piss everyone off by making fake comments in blogs that […]

  23. Jennifer Linnuste Is Someone Who Works Somewhere, I Think | Marketing Blogs - All Latest Posts Says:

    […] so all you all still remember that Jason Gambert fool who was going register “SEO” as a patent or trademark or something?  And then all he did was piss everyone off by making fake comments in blogs that […]

  24. Melanie Phung Says:

    From the searchenginepartner.com page: “Clinton Cimring managed to optimize his own name so well that Google now recognizes it as a keyword.”

    Well, damn. I wish I was so good that I could get Google to recognize keywords … oh wait…

  25. Jennifer Linnuste Says:

    Yes that was my orginal thought..what a crock of …well you know…….

  26. Kayla Smith Says:

    I think he means that Google auto suggested his name bc of the amount of votes it got through several diff ips

  27. gamekeys Says:


    […]Jason Gambert – Consider Registering Jackass « The Worst SEO Blog Ever![…]…

  28. avoisaDof Says:

    The properties leaves

  29. globalspectrumequity.com Says:

    Why viewers still use to read news papers when in this technological world the whole
    thing is existing on net?

  30. SEO Says:

    Howdy! I simply want to give an enormous thumbs up for the good data you’ve gotten right here on this post.
    I shall be coming again to your blog for more soon.

  31. SEO公司 Says:

    Hello! I simply wish to give a huge thumbs up for
    the great data you could have here on this post. I will likely be coming again to your weblog
    for extra soon.

  32. premature ejaculation Says:

    I know this if off topic but I’m looking into starting my own weblog and was curious what all is needed to
    get setup? I’m assuming having a blog like yours would cost a pretty penny?

    I’m not very internet smart so I’m not 100% certain.
    Any tips or advice would be greatly appreciated. Cheers

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: