First use (actual use, not intent to use) in commerce matters. A lot. And it seems like Doz has that. Also, they already own their mark (they did register it, s

First use (actual use, not intent to use) in commerce matters. A lot. And it seems like Doz has that. Also, they already own their mark (they did register it, seems there's confusion on that in this thread too). I know a guy that deals in this kind of thing literally every day - and after reviewing the marks and filings at uspto he says it's a pretty long shot that Moz will get the Doz mark removed. (actually he said "no way will Doz lose their mark") So unless those first use facts aren't actual facts....well I reckon we'll all wait and see how this plays out. Someone somewhere in this thread asked for an example of a similar situation. I can personally speak to that. Long ago and far away I worked at a software company and we developed a web based traffic analytics platform - pre webtrends even! Anyhoo we didn't register the mark for it (young!) and we were contacted by someone who was trying to get their mark (same exact product name, similar functionality - a web traffic analytics program) registered. They told us we had to stop using the name, blah blah blah because they owned the trademark. Well, they actually didn't - yet. And we had first use in commerce. So we opposed their application, it was denied, we filed ours (which they of course opposed), but we ultimately owned the mark. Solely because of first use in commerce. I don't know every detail of this unfortunate scenario, but from what I've read here and on the blog post, it's not at all a slam dunk for Moz. And it's unfortunate that they, and the Doz folks are having to spend time, energy and money on this.