Remember the silliness over the attempt by a certain attorney to secure trademark rights for CYBERLAWYER? The notable part about how that went down was that the foolishness was abated by virtue of a cacophony of webby mockery, a completely virtual beclownment of the first order.
Thatâ€™s right, folks, youâ€™re all once again about to lose your right to use SEO to refer to . . . well, anything. Back in 2008, one â€œintrepidâ€ â€œSEOâ€ [guy] decided heâ€™d trademark [sic] the term and impose standards on the rest of us. That didnâ€™t pan out, so someone else has taken up the [cause].
Or not. Apparently this person is confused about what, exactly, SEO will stand for once itâ€™s trademarked. In the original filing, Search Engine Partners/Shangri-La Boutique filed as SEO standing for â€œSearch Engine Optimization,â€ which the application claimed they first used in September 1996, and first used in commerce in September 1999. The filing also includes a pseudo mark (this is supposed to apply to other words that are pronounced the same way) of â€œStrategically Elevating Optimization,â€ which a company SEP acquired used as a slogan on its invoices. . . .
But the real irony, of course, is that a self-described “SEO” (“O” meaning not “optimization” it appears but “Optimizerrrr”) would be so tone-deaf, Internet-wise, that he’d want to be next CYBERLAWYER. Unless, of course, it’s, um, an SEO play?