LinkedStrategies.com

23 Responses to “LinkedIn: Are you Crazy!”

1. 

   Sean Nelson
   

   16. Jul, 2009

   Nate,

   Thanks for the support, though you just killed the impact of my upcoming Monday post.

   I’m a believer that the LinkedIn name is trademarked and they have the right to “protect” it. I’m more concerned with the selective enforcement. There are three sites (and I’m not naming names) of people that have been advocates of LinkedIn long before me that include LinkedIn in the URL’s and one of two scenarios have happened:

   1. LinkedIn has chosen to not go after them because they like them, they have a secret pact, or I don’t know. I do know that LinkedIn would have to be blind to not have noticed them

   (Linked Intuition was the name of the blog and did not directly use the word LinkedIn although the two words combined in a url did produce the word. I knew the effect of the combined word and chose it because one of the three sites referenced below did this. If they are still up after 4 or 5 years then I assumed that was ok.)

   2. LinkedIn did send them a cease and desist letter and they said we’re not changing the domain.

   I made the decision to change the blog to http://www.socialmediasonar.com. I still plan on providing the same quality of LinkedIn content but I’m going to expand the content to include Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. Hopefully the site will provide even more value.

   It does suck in the fact that the site had grown to within the top 150,000 sites on the web which is pretty good considering the number of sites online.

   I also had the same thought that we’re dealing with social media yet LinkedIn isn’t that social. Vincent Wright, a early LinkedIn proponent had the rug pulled out from him about a year and a half ago.

   The sad thing is that I personally will not suffer from changing the blog. In 5 days I’ve recreated everything and will be up and running by Monday. I don’t personally make much money directly from my LinkedIn activities, but writing the blog has led to new business and many new relationships.

   The blog readers though will have to deal with having to possibly refind the site. I’m planning on forwarding the links to the new blog, but somewhere there will be issues.

   As far as using word “LinkedIn” in blog posts and tags I plan to continue. I provide commentary on LinkedIn and am simply identifying what I’m talking about. Using it in tags is to classify the post. Does it help page rankings…yes, but the more important part is that it is part of the categorization process of the data on the internet.

   Rather than take an adversarial approach LinkedIn should embrace the people and sites that are providing value to its users. There are hundreds of comments thanking me for providing quality information and helping people learn how to utilize LinkedIn to it’s fullest.

   So the conversation continues, it just has a new name and location.

   Warm Regards,

   Sean Nelson
2. 

   Tim Johnson
   

   16. Jul, 2009

   I was involved in an image campaign for the City of Houston several years ago, and I called Milt Glaser for some advice and input. Glaser is one of the world’s most influential graphic designers, and the creator of the “I (heart) NY” icon, a highly successful branding campaign that literally helped change NY from a dangerous, unfriendly cesspool to a friendly, open community that welcomes visitors and is a great place to live.

   He told me that he had donated all rights to the slogan and mark to the city and never made a penny off of it. The city eventually filed a trademark application and has made millions off of it themselves.

   After 9/11, Glaser made a slight modification to the mark, adding a smudge at the bottom tip of the heart and changing it to read “I STILL (heart) NY.” He said the city of New York sent him a similar letter. He said he called them up and begged them to sue him and asked them if they had considered what idiots they would look like. They relented and did not sue, and the mark has been published and used many times, to the benefit of the city, not to Glaser’s benefit.

   This story reminds me of the Glaser experience in many ways. Such foolishness abounds. To see it in LinkedIn is mind-boggling, but better brands have fallen because of equally stupid mindsets.

   Bottom line is there is a mentality in some corporations (and governments) of completely closed-minded arrogance. People like Sean MADE LinkedIn. His blog directly benefits LinkedIn. Now, it will provide a larger benefit to LinkedIn’s competitors.

   Oh, well. LinkedIn’s loss is Facebook’s, Twitter’s and YouTube’s gain.

   Keep up the good work, Sean.
3. 

   vaughn
   

   16. Jul, 2009

   Seems y’all need a lesson in use and protection of copywrites and trademarks, how valuable this property is to the owner, how much these protections cost to create and what it takes in a court of law to protect them. Also, it would be reasonably professional, if choosing to use a trademark, to (a) note it in use and, (b) write to the owner, asking for either permission or license. Instead, y’all seem to believe it’s fair game to sit on the coat-tail of a success and bleed some of their life-blood profit. Sounds like Obamaism, to me.
4. 

   pete
   

   16. Jul, 2009

   @vaughn – Linkedin makes its money with their premium accounts and advertising (not sure of other sources), but that’s 2 of them.

   The more people who use it, the more Linkedin Corp profits.

   What Nate and Sean do is help people see the value in Linkedin — How they can use it to advance their career, grow their business, or find a job.

   This directly helps Linkedin become more profitable.

   Instead of penalizing those who wish to champion your brand, why not engage them? As long as it’s clear that they’re not representing Linkedin, and that they’re an independent source, why not reward them? Why not give them more tools to help spread the word about Linkedin?
5. 

   nate
   

   16. Jul, 2009

   @vaughn – The issue we have is not with the Trademark or it’s value.

   The real issue is we, as Pete already expressed, are promoting LinkedIn’s brand, name, usefulness, value and so much more.

   Control is out in Social Media, that’s why we say LinkedIn is Crazy! They don’t get their own users, or seem to care.

   Can they really control if we put LInkedIn in our website code, or tags? That’s how the internet works. As I mentioned in the article posting, they don’t care if CNN or Fox mentions their name or posts it on their site, because it’s PR. That’s exactly what we do on a deeper, more intimate level with the community at large.

   I can’t tell you how many times our group gets questions asked about how to use LinkedIn for this or that, because LinkedIn’s response time is tied to paying members and if you are not a paying member, you get response in about 72 hours to a week. Who do the people go to? Us.

   Thanks for your thoughts though…

   ~ Nate ~
6. 

   Scott
   

   16. Jul, 2009

   What happens when you start bashing LinkedIn? Not that that will happen but that is something they must consider. Also, would you have such traffic is you didn’t have ‘linkedin’ in the name? Not to take anything away from your content but how much of it originated from having that in the name? How about if you start advertising? I totally agree with the benefits to LinkedIn but how about some commentary from somone in the field of intellectual and property law? Perhaps LinkedIn does have some agreements with the other ’sites’ using linkedin variations or bugs or logos or whatever. They could have a written legal agreement. Did you ever try that approach?
7. 

   Bob Melcher
   

   16. Jul, 2009

   LinkedIn got big and got lawyers. They do not understand what is good for LinkedIn, they just understand that they are paid to protect the mark.

   Best plan is to use only the word “Link” which they cannot push you off of. You can also refer to LinkedIn, if you are clear about its ownership. GreatLinkStrategies.com A site dedicated to making Money on LinkedIn.com (LinkedIn is the registered trademark of the LinkedIn Corporation). should be the model of a safe approach.

   I am not a lawyer, but remember, they have the right to protect their mark, and every intellectual property expert remembers that Bayer lost the right to the Aspirin mark because they did not act aggressively enough to protect it..

   Best all around if 1) you fight to keep their mark clean and 2) they fight to help you achieve your goals while keeping their mark clean (CPG companies regularly have to sue their biggest customers to protect their trademarks and trade dress, and they’ve become experts at this; pay attention LinkedIn!)
8. 

   Marie Pijanowski
   

   17. Jul, 2009

   Sean,
   You prevail! You rock & you are the MAN! Move forward, like you are. Don’t even try to understand & don’t waste any energy. There’s some that don’t get it….so be with people who DO! You have been doing a great job & truly care about people and helping them. I am proud to do business with you!
9. 

   Jacci
   

   17. Jul, 2009

   Like Bob said “They got big and got lawyers.” Many network marketing companies have done this also. Consultants who have paid fees to be a representative for the company are not permitted to have their own websites or create their own marketing materials. They have to use company approved emails and marketing materials. Many MLMs supply this for consultants, many don’t. The company spends millions creating their brand and thousands to lawyers to protect that brand. They want to make sure of consistency and proper representation. Because if I say something on a website with part of the company name in the domain or create a marketing piece touting something amazing that a customer doesn’t agree with, the customer won’t sue me, they’ll sue the company.

   Companies, LinkedIn included, want to be protected from that. My question to you is did you ask permission to use the LinkedIn name? I understand you were doing it to promote the virtues of the product. Once the company gets big enough they have to protect themselves.

   My father-in-law used to make sports team themed wooden clocks. He would purchase NFL, NBA, etc stickers for the clock face. He could make them for family and give them away for free, but as soon as he was profiting from them he was required to pay a licensing fee to the NFL, NBA etc. They were not small fees $25K – $40K. Not fair, but that’s the rules, AKA licensing.

   Ask any trademark/copyright attorney, when you are looking for a new company name, naming products, websites etc., you cannot infringe on ones that already exist. The first to market will win every time, especially if they’ve applied for the trademark.
10. 

    Gabriella
    

    17. Jul, 2009

    I am not sure how you can approach this without having issues. I am not a lawyer either but, have had enough experience to know large corporations hire the best for a reason. They know they can take anyone on especially the little guys. You see, the retainer to their henchmen is part of doing business.

    In my humble opinion don’t sweat the small stuff. You are adding value to your readers, to LinkedIn sure but, also to yourself period. That’s one way of looking at things. My Italian mama has always said ” There are three sides to every story… Yours, theirs, and the truth.

    So remember Sean life is short, break the rules, forgive quickly, kiss slowly love truly laugh uncontrollably & never regret anything that made you smile.
11. 

    Randy Schrum
    

    17. Jul, 2009

    This is truly a bad “business decision” by Linkedin. Although I appreciate Sean not mentioning my site. I gotta tell ya I would be in the wrong to not stand up and say something for someone who has given so much to the Linkedin Community.
12. 

    nate
    

    17. Jul, 2009

    This is Nate, and I have reached out to LinkedIn to open a dialogue on this issue.

    I sent the request through traditional and non traditional channels, so we will see if they get back to us.

    I would love them to engage us and have a conversation… isn’t that what social media is all about anyway?

    There is resolution, we just need to talk. Either way, Sean has made his resolution. I am requesting the conversation because it’s only a matter of time that we receive another one from them for http://www.linkedintomarketing.com.

    The big picture issue here is not that there is trademark infringement (or at least perceived infringement), but rather, that LinkedIn’s number one priority is not it’s customers/users, but about itself and how good LinkedIn is.

    The irony in it is that third party recommendations always go farther than self promotion or contrived testimonies. This is what Sean, Randy and I do is so good for LinkedIn.

    Best,

    ~ Nate ~
13. 

    Andrew S. Baker
    

    20. Jul, 2009

    The only thing that is really wrong here is selective enforcement. Organizations have a right — more like an obligation — to go after other entities that infringe on their trademarks, or they will not be able to enforce a real infringement suit later on.

    The problem is not that they’ve gone after Sean, but that there are several other sites that they should also go after, but have not. Perhaps, as has been suggested, they’ve made some side deals. Perhaps they’ve only made a cursory attempt to stop the other sites.

    Whatever the case, they need to find some consistency, or they may find that when they really need to use the legal remedy, that it will no longer work for them.

    -ASB
14. 

    Casual Observer
    

    21. Jul, 2009

    It is not verifiable that you are sending Linkedin business, at all.

    Even if it were, this amount would not be up to the level that makes it beneficial for Linkedin to enter into a partnership with you, given the expenses (drawing a legal agreement, negotiations, invoicing).

    Unless you can track conversions, purchases or the like, you are not in a position to tell Linkedin where and when they can make money with a product that they created and that they own.

    I am not reading anything here that states you can prove how much business you send to them. I am just reading vague statements like “tons of value”.
15. 

    Dean
    

    22. Jul, 2009

    Folks, all you have to do is ask for permission. Maybe you are adding value to LinkedIn, and maybe not. Either way, LinkedIn has the right to make the final decision based on the potential benefits as well as any potential risks.

    This is something that corporations take seriously. If they fail to enforce their trademarks, then those trademarks can be invalidated. That is why they take action.

    As for the other sites that are using “LinkedIn,” for all we know, they might have obtained permission to do so.
16. 

    Jim Kissane
    

    23. Jul, 2009

    I would like to add to the comment by Bob Melcher. Yes, the lawyers are paid to protect the mark. But protecting the mark also means active enforcement of trademark rights. Failure to “police” the mark can result in the loss of all rights. Thus LinkedIn has not only the right but moreover the obligation to protect their mark, as valuable IP. Rights in many cases can be negotiated with others, and when granted, often can prevent such unfortunate circumstances.
17. 

    Mike O'Neil
    

    28. Jul, 2009

    We received this very same note several years ago, when LInkedIn might have been at about 20 million users.

    I deactivated the domains which pointed to specific landing pages on the web site and kept them just to see how this all settles down.

    My lawyer, an IP attorney, tried repeatedly to reach anyone at LinkedIn legal via any means and even sent a registered letter. It seemed at the time like they might have had a 3rd party legal service doing this for them and, like a “photo radar company”, they get paid for their activity.

    Looks like I will be releasing some 70-80 “LinkedIn domains” in the next 6 months or so. It will be interesting to see if anyone picks them up. Nobody here will be I am sure.

    Thanks everyone for championing this cause!
18. 

    Small Business Owner
    

    21. Aug, 2009

    Just be sure you never get something you feel strongly enough to trademark, lest you actually learn how trademarks work.

    If you do NOT defend your trademark, it goes into the public domain and is no longer defensible.

    If YOU are adding value, you do not need to “link” to linkedin that way. Do something unique, trademark it and then let us know.
19. 

    Stephen Street
    

    12. Sep, 2009

    The last thing Linkin want is public domain trademarks. What you are “adding to” in not relevant. Your position is simply your opinion.

    If I came out of my house and found that you were “adding to” my automobile without asking my permission I would simply call the cops, unless I had a baseball bat handy.

    The simplest principles apply to the most complex ideas.
20. 

    Consultant
    

    18. Sep, 2009

    Stephen makes a simple and direct point. I find it absolutely incredulous that ANYONE would believe that it is permissible to affiliate one’s self with a trademarked product or entity without permission. It is akin to saying “Hey, I know what’s good for the Wall Street Journal…I think I’ll start a blog called http://www.WallStreetJournalTips.com” – it’s pretty safe to say WSJ would take issue with that. Are you people that simple that you’re incapable of understanding this?
21. 

    nate
    

    18. Sep, 2009

    I can appreciate your points of view Stephen and “Consultant”…

    I don’t disagree with you either. That is why everyone is/has changed their domain names. But for LinkedIn to request that Sean doesn’t reference “LinkedIn” in his blog, copy, or code, is out of line and over the top.

    Social Communities seek guidance, tips, advice, etc. LinkedIn doesn’t offer it at a user level, only a corporate level, with their agenda at the heart of what they share… ie, promoting the brand, serving who they view their target market as, etc…

    Groups like Sean’s blog and our blog are resources given for free to users such as yourself. If you don’t find it valuable, let us know, and stop visiting.

    Plus, it’s a dead issue… We all responded to LinkedIn and have yet to hear back from them since the posting date of this blog.

    To each their own I suppose… best to each of you.
22. 

    Ross Dodwell
    

    22. Sep, 2009

    Sean, Nate, Peter, and Randy. Keep up the great work you guys are doing for all of the “Linked” in community! . I think for anyone to say that you can’t use http://www.linkedin.com in a blog post when you are talking about the site is nuts! Did we forget the first amendment?

    I even think its a stretch to say that they own or control any URL with the characters L-I-N-K-E-D-I-N in it is a stretch too. Do you mean if I register and trademark any 8 characters, I own every URL that has those 8 characters…..that is a stretch. How about General (OK its 7), or American?

    Best to you guys!

    Ross
23. 

    Raj
    

    25. Nov, 2009

    Nate, This discussion has many dimensions.
    On one hand, there is a question on how much truly ’social’ is LinkedIn (LinkedIn is the registered trademark of the LinkedIn Corporation) [ - am playing safe here ] by wanting to restrict tagging or even restrict accounts of users for over 3 IDKs etc…

    Now, like many have rightly said, it is also not okay to do good to a brand without them wanting it! Simply because anybody who is ‘helping’ promote the brand do not fall into the branding strategy that LinkedIn might have in place – am sure it must be quite a water tight documentation.
    Stephen Street’s comment makes it simpler to understand the point.

    Coming back, is it really wrong to have my domain name to contain the sequence of letters xxxxlinkedinxxxx?
    May be yes if all the wildcard options of the said string of characters are bought out by them! Am no IP expert, but does anyone know more on this? You sound quite on this Ross Dodwell.

    The outcome, if anything tangible, must be very useful to all out there.

    Best,
    –Raj