new member

Originally Posted by KelliH

I gotta be honest here guys. Chris has had this username longer than Shadera has been using it as her business/website name. Why should he change it? Especially after the (IMO) rude and uppity way she came at him. Give me a break...

Kelli, you are correct, he had been using it first. However, Shadera posted proof that the name was inactive when she searched and she's put more time and money into making it her brand. By this I mean, ALL the names (Shadera correct me if I misunderstood) lead back to her now. Even his name under his spelling is how I am understanding it. Therefore, the name is practically useless to him because it's now hers. Hence, continued use of the name CAN be construed as "riding her coattails."

You are also correct that Chris doesn't have an "obligation" to change it, but a more ethical person, imo, would do so just to cut out any confusion like the first user that was contacted did, since it's obvious that Shadera put more into making the name hers, and he admitted that he wasn't attached to the name and may change it later. I certainly would give my name up, if I wasn't "attached" to it, AND the other person had put so much effort into making it a business name AFTER she had searched and thought I was inactive. Shadera showed that she did research, maybe this one (OP) slipped though the cracks, but the effort was there.

I am not going to get into the "feeling" of a worded post...I HATE doing that.

Originally Posted by deborahbroadus

Kelli, you are correct, he had been using it first. However, Shadera posted proof that the name was inactive when she searched and she's put more time and money into making it her brand. By this I mean, ALL the names (Shadera correct me if I misunderstood) lead back to her now. Even his name under his spelling is how I am understanding it. Therefore, the name is practically useless to him because it's now hers. Hence, continued use of the name CAN be construed as "riding her coattails."

You are also correct that Chris doesn't have an "obligation" to change it, but a more ethical person, imo, would do so just to cut out any confusion like the first user that was contacted did, since it's obvious that Shadera put more into making the name hers, and he admitted that he wasn't attached to the name and may change it later. I certainly would give my name up, if I wasn't "attached" to it, AND the other person had put so much effort into making it a business name AFTER she had searched and thought I was inactive. Shadera showed that she did research, maybe this one (OP) slipped though the cracks, but the effort was there.

I am not going to get into the "feeling" of a worded post...I HATE doing that.

I get it now...

So when I steal my neighbors car that he hasn't driven in a few years and put MY license plate on it, drive it for a couple years and keep it in MY garage...Then it becomes mine.

The whole thing seems kinda screwed to me.
I will say that if Chris didn't come here, I would only know MagikalMorphs to be Shadera. That doesn't justify it to be hers though.

If I stopped dealing with my animals right now and came back in a year, I would still want to use EAExotics.

Originally Posted by deborahbroadus

However, Shadera posted proof that the name was inactive when she searched

I believe Chris showed in an earlier post that was not true. He believes rightfully so that he was attacked and I'm surprised to see he was online here yesterday. This should have been kept between the 2 of them and defiantly not in a welcome post. If he took dunkindonut as a user name that wouldn't mean he was riding the coattails of the donut franchise.

Originally Posted by radera5

I get it now...

So when I steal my neighbors car that he hasn't driven in a few years and put MY license plate on it, drive it for a couple years and keep it in MY garage...Then it becomes mine.

The whole thing seems kinda screwed to me.
I will say that if Chris didn't come here, I would only know MagikalMorphs to be Shadera. That doesn't justify it to be hers though.

If I stopped dealing with my animals right now and came back in a year, I would still want to use EAExotics.

Interesting perspective.

Originally Posted by JColt

I believe Chris showed in an earlier post that was not true. He believes rightfully so that he was attacked and I'm surprised to see he was online here yesterday. This should have been kept between the 2 of them and defiantly not in a welcome post. If he took dunkindonut as a user name that wouldn't mean he was riding the coattails of the donut franchise.

Also, the name was already made. She might claim it was inactive, but regardless, it was already there.

I like Shadera. This is nothing personal at all. I hope you don't take these comments personal at all. You put this out here and this is just how I feel.

I do want to say good luck to both parties involved.

We seem to be straying from the point. The name was already there, already used but NOT registered NOT legal NOT a business name. That is the difference. Time has nothing to do with the issue, imo.

There can be a lot of names out there, but the ONE that has the foresight to register and claim the name has dibs and does not have to let anyone else use the name...Lucille may know more about this aspect of the law.

I get what you're saying. But there's really no such thing as original forum usernames anymore. Are you really saying that if in a few years, after you've busted your hump and spent $$$ working for an online rep, if someone came along with a forum username created before you created your legitimate business, that you'd roll right over and hand over the reins? Somehow, I find it doubtful. Forum username doesn't trump a legitimate, licensed business name. It's like you said yourself - you'd never heard of him. Where are his BOI threads with so many happy customers? Where are his happy customer threads anywhere, for that matter? (and of course I expect a slew of them to be posted now. LOL)

Anyone can twist words to make a situation look like they want it to look. Saying I claimed I was using it first (didn't), that I must have somehow rigged the link to KS' post system (I obviously didn't), etc are all grasping at straws. I haven't responded because none of it is true. I'm glad this is public, because it shows how willing he is to negotiate (see how he took Lucille's suggestion to add that in a signature line?), and how he will react to negotiate an unfavorable situation. Anyone who has followed me for long, knows that I don't much care if people don't "get" me. My stuff sells just fine.

Let's do this, then. If Chris can come up with a scan of his legitimate business license, dated before I started gaining online rep here, I'll hand over the name and all claim to it. Not the sites though unless he's footing the hundreds I have in the hosting, etc, but the name at least. I am actively hunting for my own copies of mine from years past to post, but with a cross country move and all my stuff still in boxes the task is a bit daunting.

That's it for me until something legitimate is posted by the other party. Or until I find my own documents to post.

While I can understand protecting one's name, having a protracted side discussion of this nature in the Welcome Room seems a little.....off.

see how he took Lucille's suggestion to add that in a signature line?

Nothing against Lucille's suggestion...but why should anybody feel compelled to mention another person/business in their signature? (that really isn't the purpose of the signature area, anyway)

Originally Posted by Shadera

If Chris can come up with a scan of his legitimate business license, dated before I started gaining online rep here, I'll hand over the name and all claim to it.

I don't believe Chris asked for anything. He's just using the nick he's had for years now.

Originally Posted by hhmoore

While I can understand protecting one's name, having a protracted side discussion of this nature in the Welcome Room seems a little.....off.



Nothing against Lucille's suggestion...but why should anybody feel compelled to mention another person/business in their signature? (that really isn't the purpose of the signature area, anyway)

Originally Posted by hhmoore

While I can understand protecting one's name, having a protracted side discussion of this nature in the Welcome Room seems a little.....off.


Nothing against Lucille's suggestion...but why should anybody feel compelled to mention another person/business in their signature? (that really isn't the purpose of the signature area, anyway)

Because, it would show good faith, perhaps? He's a relative unknown and (after what I've went though) I can understand her not wanting another name associated with hers.

We've already seen how mistakes are made, wrong people are mentioned, and him being somewhat new and unknown, I would be leery, too, on having a name that I've worked to keep clean even mistaken for someone else and then given the nature of the "Beast/Internet" a mistake can spread like wildfire.

I don't know what is so complicated about this issue. Her's is a BUSINESS name, his is just a "user name," so it's claimed. It really doesn't matter legally if he had it first as he never legally claimed it.

Me<<< Some of you may see his usage as a "Username" and that can possibly be misleading, because he is in fact using it as a business name (since he's selling and this is the name that would be used if he got a BG thread) and probably not paying taxes..etc...I can see a possible mess up ahead if this issue isn't squared away.

I'm sorry, Harald, but this is ASTOUNDING (to me) that an issue this simple (imo) isn't understood. Imo, it's a simple straightforward business issue. But you may be correct...and I've already welcomed Chris, so I'll bow out of the discussion and hopefully someone will start a discussion thread on the matter about the legalities of similar spelling in business names and if there were any legal decisions made on such issues.


Now, I'll shut up...