From the U.S. Patent and Trademark website, discovered by searching reputation management in the U.S. trademark database.

Word Mark INTERNET REPUTATION MANAGEMENT
Goods and Services IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: On-line advertising and marketing services. FIRST USE: 20090105. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20090105
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 77907989
Filing Date January 8, 2010
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Owner (APPLICANT) Obtainium, LLC DBA Internet Reputation Management LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CALIFORNIA Suite E432 7770 Telegraph Road Ventura CALIFORNIA 93004
Attorney of Record Clinton J. Cusick
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

Now, if you go a bit deeper you will see that the “TARR status” indicates that the reviewing attorney appears to have issued an initial rejection. (Way to go reviewing attorney!”

Unfortunately, this practice – of attempting to corner emerging markets by attempting to trademark the words or phrases that the world had adopted to describe the new trend or new service in dialogue – is not all that uncommon. Witness, for example, the attempt to trademark the letters “SEO”.

Unfortunately, some poor soul spent thousands of dollars fighting that application to reign in a backdoor attempt to corner the SEO marketplace. (I, as did many others, contributed to a fund meant to reimburse the person who fronted the costs of the fight.)

Word to the wise: Pay a visit to the USPTO, from time to time, to see if someone is engaged in a bit of . . an effort . . to convince some possibly poorly informed attorney or bureaucrat that they should reign supreme in a world that you are already inhabiting, as a service provider, by the act and artifice of claiming rights to exclude you from calling yourself what everyone else in the industry would call you: SEO, internet reputation management specialist, etc.

I just performed a search on the U.S. Patent Office website using only the word “social”.

Why did I do that? I did it because scanning a number of recently “beta released” social networking websites I was reminded of a concern I expressed several years ago, that the USPTO was granting patents to the evolution of how people relate. Forget “patenting the human genome”.

So, using “social” as my search word I quickly found reference to a patent application that proposed to patent putting a link to a gift in an electronic card or E-card.

I stopped right there. Why? Not because I wanted to take issue with this particular patent but because I was confronted once again with the frightful notion that – as things now stand – “patent” appears to have lost a bit of its luster of true genius.

Let’s say I send you an email with link to an image of a gift I just purchased. Should I patent this process? What if I send you an email with a link to an affiliate website with a gift I want you to purchase. Should I patent this bright idea? How about I send you an e-card with a link to a gift suggestion? Patentable? Flash of genius, right?

If there weren’t so many patents pending or registered that might spring from the bushes like a thief in the night – in other words totally unexpected but nonetheless threatening patents – such patents might be funny. Indeed, what would be funny would be a section of the USPTO website entitled “Patent Applications – For Entertainment Purposes Only”, where ridiculous patent applications would be put on display. What would be needed for this would likely be an Act of Congress.

Patent reform is pending. I have a hunch that it won’t fix the problem of the dwindling of true inventive genius in this country.