Morgan Carey

Also with respect to "initial interest confusion" you are getting into some SERIOUS issues here if you are going to start speaking about trademark law as an expert - honestly, you are clearly a "parrot" (someone who is simply trained to repeat what another has told them) Again, I remind our readers, that this has NOT gone to a court of law yet, but if you do your homework, you are going to find out that you need a lot more than fancy works (courts are subject to precedence) to win your case. Example: (again note the detail) "Certain Courts have expressed dissatisfaction with initial interest confusion, holding that it leads to a finding that trade-mark holders have an exclusive right to their marks irrespective of the manner in which the domain name is used, a notion which is incompatible with traditional trade-mark principles (Hasbro Inc. v. Clue Computing Inc., 66 F. Supp. 2d 117 (D. Mass. 1999), affirmed [2000] U.S. App. Lexis 27856 (1st Cir. 2000); The Network Network v. CBS Inc., CV-98-1349 (C.D. Cal. 2000)." Ref Gowlingsondomains You might want to consult your lawyers before making blanket statements regarding big words that you don't understand. I do apologize to the readership for my lack of patience, but clearly this entire ordeal is taxing mine.

Kathy, with all due respect, you have now posted this on several blogs and articles in an attempt at reputation management, yet you have failed to answer any of the questions posed, and are leaving out vital information. For instance - no court of law (US or anywhere) have determined that you do in fact own the common law trademark rights to Sarasota MLS. You state this as if it were fact, yet have failed to prove that you did in fact own common law trademark rights at the time that you initiated your ethics hearing. Next - you reference your being granted the trademark to the phrase "Sarasota MLS" yet you fail to mention that you did not even pursue this trademark officially until July 30 of 2008 (This is AFTER you lost at your own ethics hearing - let's not forget, I was there and I know the outcome - Marc might be forbidden to speak about it, but I most certainly did not take any gestapo oath to silence before being asked to participate.) Here is a link to your trademark application http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?action=DETFIL&inq_doc_number=T08000000878&inq_came_from=NAMFWD&cor_web_names_seq_number=0000&names_name_ind=N&names_cor_number=&names_name_seq=&names_name_ind=&names_comp_name=SARASOTAMLS&names_filing_type= All readers should note the date: This is a little over 5 years AFTER Marc had been using the domain in good faith. You need to give the Inmann readership and your own members a little more credit - we aren't stupid - you clearly initiated your trademark investigation "after the fact" as such, it should have been deposed, and if it has not yet been officially granted, then I will be recommending to all interested parties that they do in fact depose it.

Quick update, the CEO of the Sarasota Association of Realtors just posted a response on the blog referenced in the article: http://www.realestatewebmasters.com/blogs/morgan-carey/6350/show/ Those following the story, feel free to comment.