I'm not scolding or anything. Just trying to be helpful, honestly. So in that spirit, here's an example (not the only one) of something from your post that woul

I'm not scolding or anything. Just trying to be helpful, honestly. So in that spirit, here's an example (not the only one) of something from your post that would likely be deemed legal advice: "Basically, if you have been using your name prior to 2008, and can prove it, then you are in good shape. If you stared your site between 2008-2010, and they cannot prove that they started in 2008 as they claimed then you're probably in good shape. If you started your site after 2010 then you're reduced to claiming that the marks are not confusing. But you also have the fact that you already have agreement with them (and their failure to attempt to enforce their trademark rights after you changed the name of your service per the agreement) to show they've abandoned it." In this instance, you're making a lot of conclusions about the OP's case. See for reference: http://definitions.uslegal.com/l/legal-advice/ http://definitions.uslegal.com/l/legal-advice/ You are, as per that definition, using "application of legal principles to facts" in order to "in effect [predict] a specific resolution of a legal issue." Again, I'm not trying to make you feel bad or anything like that. I respect that you put in a major good faith effort to help the OP by writing your initial comment.