If You Don’t Like The Heat…
You best stay out of the kitchen.
Being one of the more visible YTB blogs on the internet, I have my share of readership. Most readers are supporters and enjoy my insight and information about our company.
I also have my share of detractors. Some I would safely say detest my existence for one reason or another. If you’re in the public eye, you can’t be everything to everybody and there will always be those who don’t agree with you. What makes my sort of activity and exposure dangerous is when emotions enter into the mix.
Emotions have too many variables. You can’t expect emotions to remain constant over time or from one person to another. Each individual perceives and reacts to each situation differently. Logic and facts however always have a base or a core that remain constant. One of the things we’re finding through our journey together with YTB is that the facts of our business model are able to withstand the misconception, half-truths, and lies that we see from those who use perceptions and opinions as their core defense.
As expected, John Frenaye took exception to my article on Friday and boldly laid claim that I’m the one who “spins”. He added that his blog was more “legitimate” and his was the only viable option where people had to ability to “judge for themselves”.
He’s also a tad upset at what he’s deemed a “personal attack” and eventually, “my lies” will catch up with me.
My – my – my. How easy it is to dish it out.
It’s interesting to me how quickly this group pulls the “personal attack” card when challenged. I’m not sure if they think they’re too pure, or we’re to take pity and look the other way when their blatant misrepresentations about our people, our Founders and our company are created by their hands. I hate to break it to this group – but they leave some enormous “stinkers” out there on the web. Their activities have left some laughing, and others appalled. We DO know right from wrong, ethical from unethical, what is morally right and what’s morally bankrupt.
To illustrate how bold and brazen John has become over the years, we’ll reference one of the most legitimate and honorable sources I know – our court system. What was forwarded to me last week clearly illustrates why our Home Office made the decision to turn down his requested interviews and why others have come to the conclusion that John can’t be trusted to “report” anything concerning YTB in an unbiased or accurate manor.
Case in point: This was written by John last week on his blog:
Of course, back in August of 2009, we reported on the story where Coach had a ramshackle home and was able to convince a church to make the repairs in return for a lease. But Coach reneged on the lease and got his home fixed for free.
I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t call his post entitled “Once Upon a Time” an actual “report” but ironically – a “Fairy Tale”. If you strip away John’s “report” and look at the court documents which are linked in the word “TRUTH” it reveals John’s elaborate web of deception – not Coach’s.
Yes – John’s the one deceiving the flock – pouring Kool-Aid if you will. The “truth” shows that Coach and Chris “donated” the parcel in question to the church for a Minister and his family use as a parsonage. More troublesome; the word “lease” never even appears in the actual court documents, although conveniently inserted by John in his – “report”.
True, the home needed electrical upgrades to meet code, and a gas furnace needed to be converted to propane. There was never any lease however, and Coach and Chris never received a penny for their generous donation to the Church and its family. Consequently, the court concluded:
“the parcel here in issue and the house thereon qualified for exemption during all of the 1998-assessment year either because it was in the process of adaptation for exempt use or because it was actually used by the Church as a parsonage for Rev. Casey.”
I know I’m going out on a limb, but you be the judge here. Which do you find more “legitimate”? John’s “Once Upon A Time” fairy tale – or – documentation from “The State of Illinois“?
What’s so astounding to me, is the man doesn’t appear to understand how anyone could possibly question his “reporting” as wrong or even inappropriate. To question anything he says or does is challenged with a very coy rebuttal and continued claims that HE is the most fair and unbiased source concerning YTB in the land. According to John, he’s proven how Coach has a long history of deception and he’s proud that his flock agrees that Coach should be thrown in jail for doing what he did to this church.
And yes, that type of arrogance is frustrating – even for me.
We can’t forget another court ruling regarding YTB’s business model and claims of an elaborate pyramid scheme that wasn’t just dismissed but tossed out as “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter“. Again we find John and others on the wrong end of an argument calling the absurd complaint “powerful”.
Here’s how the Honorable Judge Murphy described the complaint:
“The First Amended Consolidated Complaint, filed July 15, 2009, is an ungainly monster of 39 pages containing 133 paragraphs (many of which have subparagraphs) that likely does not pass muster under the familiar federal “notice pleading” standard.”
True to form, John “disagrees” with the court’s ruling, and makes no apologies for his position or opinions. John falls right in line with the type of hideous and outrageous accusations Counsel tried to pull in its second go around, after the first complaint was dismissed. Their answer to the problem – a bolder, more brazen attack.
So which do you find more legitimate? John’s statement, or Judge Murphy?
From John’s point of view, it’s YTB that is “crafty” and “sly”. The only reason why YTB is still around is due to changing our model or living on the very edge of the law. Regardless how much change or how close we “appear” to be, it’s still the right side of the law. YTB’s model has never required “payment for the opportunity to recruit others” from day one. You may not agree with that – you may not understand that – and you may never accept that. But because yours is only “opinion” and not “fact” – you do have to continue to deal with YTB.
Finally, John recently found out that the law is the law, and everyone (including him) must abide regardless of opinions or perceptions. The creation of a fake Zam Zuu fan page to mock and poke fun at our company violated ZamZuu’s trademark causing a confusing similarity. His defense – a space between “Zam” and “Zuu”. (And no, I’m not kidding.)
John, you don’t just stink – you absolutely reek of lies, deceit and a perception that the laws of this land simply don’t apply to you. It’s a double standard that I will not turn away from and I will not make any apologies for in calling you out. We all make mistakes (even me) but there comes a time when you have to stop blaming others or being a victim and take personal responsibility for your own actions.
You are in the public eye and there will be those who will disagree and oppose you. There will also be those who will hold you accountable for your actions. If you don’t like it, either toughen up or stop what you’re doing and go back into hiding.
As it stands right now – you have proven to me, our company, and several outsiders who have no beef one way or another with YTB that you should not be trusted due to your attitude and your actions documented above.
For every action, there is a reaction. So if you don’t like my reaction, stop acting the way you are!
PS - If you're involved with YTB, sign up for our FREE Newsletter. As a Website Owner or Website Seller, we'll keep you up to date with all the latest news, acquisitions, and developments with YTB.
PPS - Subscribe to the Just Picture It Now RSS feed, (including e-mail) for all the latest posts and updates found right here!
|
|
Doug & Ronda Bauknight AKA: TravelPro Travel Agent / Networker Phone: 678.458.5812 |
Book Your Travel & Vacations With  |
| TSO #588629 |
Tags: Anti-MLM, Coach, John Frenaye, Limiting Beliefs, MLM Myths, Personal Responsibility
March 8th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
I read these two blogs back and forth all the time why I don’t know, lol.
I was wondering why your calling someone out on a trademark infringment, when their can’t be a detirmination of infringment just yet, its not possible.
The word ZamZuu does indeed hold a TM behind it, but what does that mean?
Right now it appears to be a common law trademark which is done all the time in the United States, I have several myself for my businesses. There is also an application pending at the patent/trademark office you can review it online if you like. That application if approved does give a little bit more security. The application is just that an application right now, there has been no assignment of the application as yet. In otherwords it is still pending. Other then that there appears to be nothing about it. Technically if someone out there who may own a business or other can prove they are using that word as “common law” with TM behind it longer then the current applicant submitted to the trademark office, that application could be denied. That is why there is a process. Now does that mean no one else can use or trademark the word absolutly not! The key here is understanding trademark rules/law to know what can and can not be done.
Now, on the other hand.
I did a quick search for a term you happen to use as your logo/slogan in various places “travelPro”. I knew I had heard that word before but could not put my finger on it, low and behold when I did a search I found out why, it was on some of my luggage…. Not only that it is spelled the same way this company protected it higher then just trademarking it has it registered, you know the little R with a circle around it. http://www.travelpro.com
You see they have done it the right way, they have not only gone through the trademark process they have registered the name, “travepro”. In reality you could be infringing on there registered mark. This company could call you out and more if they elected to do so if they feel you are infringing on there registered mark and possibly confusing the public between your company and theres.
So, I would not be so quick to call the kettle black on this one when your doing the same thing.
March 8th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
You’re welcome to your views Spectator.
I on the other hand will take the advice and the direction of our Legal Counsel who served a Cease and Desist to John. It’s the second time he’s been handed one from the company in just as many years.
I’m actually amused at you’re attempt at my handle or screen name. If you’d like, talk to an attorney about it, and if it has any merit, I’ll be happy to change my “handle”. As it stands, in the 5 plus years I’ve been using that screen name, you’re the first who has tried to tie it to this very fine luggage company.
It’s a stretch, but give it a go and I’ll be happy to oblige if I’m a “pot” or it does have merit.
Thanks
March 8th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Doug, can you send me a copy of the cease and desist? I got an email from YTB in December 2008 asking to stop using the logo since it was confusing people–and I complied. But if you have a copy, please post it or email it to me. You have the address!
March 8th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
I’m glad I amused you, I get amused myself reading these blogs all the time, I guess that is why I keep coming back, lol. To your comment, as I said in the first post it all depends if that company even cares if you are using there name or not. I highly doubt they do, unless that is, you would be selling luggage online then that may become a serious problem.
As far as sending cease order from your company, that may have occurred but so what? That does not mean any thing illegal took place as implied. Same as how amused you are by the comment, you may be violating someone elses registered mark using Travelpro.
The reality is your doing the same thing you taking someone else to task for.
March 8th, 2010 at 7:03 pm
You don’t appear to have the proper grasp concerning the main functions of a trademark.
You are correct. I don’t use the handle “TravelPro” to sell luggage, nor have I ever referred to the company in any way. It’s a screen name and used in a context that can’t be confused with the luggage company. My screen name and the luggage company may look and even be spelled the same, but no one (with the exception of you in an attempt to stir up argument) would confuse the two.
Think Delta and Delta. One represents an airline; the other represents a faucet company. The two operate in two separate realms and nobody confuses the two companies – yet they have exactly the same name.
ZamZuu is a “coined term”, such as Kodak, Xerox, and Google, with no pre-existing use than as a trademark. These generally receive the strongest protection under the law because they are usually not similar to other terms or descriptive of other goods.
What our legal department deemed improper, (as do I and anyone else who has an ounce of ethics and morals in them) was the use of Zam [space] Zuu with our new product and company. With the name being so new, and not having any true meaning before January 11th (when the company was launched) people can’t possibly distinguish that John’s site was not the official ZamZuu fan page simply based on a space between “Zam” and “Zuu”.
While the site was most likely meant to be some sort of childish prank, people who found it could not distinguish from a simple space that the Fan Page was not a company approved page.
The TM enables ZamZuu to take legal action against sites such as John’s – that’s what it’s there for.
John;
Try this – “I’m sorry”.
March 9th, 2010 at 8:16 am
I see you did a little homework.
I’m wondering do you sell luggage products through these stores. Granted it’s a far stretch and I would never think they would come after you, but there may be a closer relationship then you automatically assume.
+++ What our legal department deemed improper, (as do I and anyone else who has an ounce of ethics and morals in them) was the use of Zam [space] Zuu with our new product and company. +++
I agree with your comments above, you or I may deem it anything we like, that doesn’t mean anything was illegal. For example, I coin a term “xxxxx” but I don’t tm it right away, someone else sees the term and starts using it. The first company never tm the name then decides to submit a tm application weeks after the fact. Who has rights, both where using it prior to any tm application? This is the issue you have with your blogging competitor.
If they would have had there tm application in from the beginning or better yet protect that name by registering it, I would agree with what you first wrote. But the timeline does not suggest this, unless I’m missing something.
March 9th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
When you’re writing is picked apart and dissected like mine is (to the point of “It’s ‘your’ not ‘you’re’!”) you learn that proper homework and study counts.
I’m not complaining mind you. In fact, I’m grateful because it’s made me a better writer.
Do you know anything about Nissan Computers, and Nissan Motors? Look at that case and see how long and drawn out it’s been over the domain Nissan.com. I haven’t followed it for more than two years, but I just checked, and Nissan Computers still owns the domain. Yet most (and I think you would agree?) would type in the domain thinking it linked to Nissan Motors.
Good, because that’s exactly what happened and we can finally put it to rest.
March 10th, 2010 at 8:24 am
Good, because that’s exactly what happened and we can finally put it to rest.
++++++++
Oh my goodness….
Go review the supporting documents for your company, its all public the applications for tm were not filed until 7-weeks ago 1/20/2010.
Upon quick review in the case of Nissan, it has nothing to do with what we are chatting about. The key to that case is the guys last name, it’s “Nissan”. Being it is not a fictitious name, that is what is saving his domain.
March 10th, 2010 at 10:09 am
Thank You!
What you have shown is our “TM” officially changed to an “R” on that date.
I appreciate the time you took to inform everyone.
March 10th, 2010 at 11:16 am
What you have shown is our “TM” officially changed to an “R” on that date.
The first date anything was received by the United States Patent & Trademark office was two applications one ending in serial number 901 the other 914 both applications are dated 1/20/2010. There was nothing submitted to the office prior to that date.
For goodness sake it’s all public record in black and white go read it. You can follow the trail of any trademark that was ever submitted to the office.
March 10th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
My apologies, you are correct Sir!
One application is if for the word ZamZuu, and the other for our logo.
My understanding from what I’ve learned over the years was anyone can use the “TM” to indicate that there is a claim before registration is issued. When you said “supporting documentation” I assumed (incorrectly) that the registration was complete.
It is not.
March 10th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
+++ My understanding from what I’ve learned over the years was anyone can use the “TM” to indicate that there is a claim before registration is issued. When you said “supporting documentation” I assumed (incorrectly) that the registration was complete. +++
Yes your almost correct.
This will be my last post on this topic.
Most companies especially one like you’re involved in (operating in all states) before ever announcing a new name will have one of there attorney’s who specialize in patent/trademark do a couple things.
1) Check all 50 states for fictitious name licenses in that name so they know they will be able to operate in each state under the name.
2) Then, they will not only submit for tm but also register it, so there is no mistake on who has title to the name.
Once those steps occur and others then they announce the new name. Otherwise they open the door for issues.
Here is something, Cracker Barrel restaurants. You may have never notice this but for the longest time Cracker Barrel Restaurant chain did not operate in the state of Pennsylvania. There was a small restaurant in that state that held a little ole fictitious name license with the same name and would not give it up. That alone kept Cracker Barrel out of the entire state for the longest time. The Cracker Barrel Corporation on several occasions approached the owner before they finally came to an agreement. Once that was complete the small restaurant owner changed the restaurant name, gave up his license and only then could the Cracker Barrel Corporation started building restaurants in the state of PA.
It is extremely risky for any company to come out with a new product name, change there name or whatever then apply for tm or registered mark for the name weeks after, that is almost crazy to do. Right now there could be any individual sitting out there using that name in a private business or other and if they would raise there hand then problems can occur with the name. It may be as simple as having a checking account that was open prior to your usage with the name on it. Of course it could be lucrative depending on the size of the company and how bad they want the name.
March 10th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
With a name like “ZamZuu” – I would be shocked, no blown away if that’s the case. ;-p
One of the reasons why the name was picked was because 1. Nobody owned the name and 2. Nobody even heard of the name.
Thanks for your insight however.
March 12th, 2010 at 7:02 am
[...] I haven’t been around much this week. My post on Monday got a ton of traffic and I appreciate the private messages, e-mails and phone calls. Every so often [...]