Trademark Infringement - TOTAL befuddlemitification....

Just when I think I have it all figured out, somebody clops me with a petrified churro.

Today, I received a very nice letter from S M C (Speclty Mrchnds Corp) informing me that the very MENTION of either of those names on my website "infringes on (their) registered trademark...."

(Excuse all spaces and abbreviations; I don't want this page showing up at the top of the search engines.)

I am more than willing to take down the offending page, because... (1) it's so old that I completely forgot it was there, (2) it is nowhere in the top 100 search results, (3) it isn't earning me a penny, and (4) I knew better than to have a trademarked name in my meta tags but, like I said, I forgot about it.

HOWEVER...

I don't understand, and I'm concerned about other pages on this site, but I'm REALLY concerned about soon-to-be a bzillion-and-one pages on AZoo with mention of "trademarked names" on them (at least I assume the big zoos and hotel chains are trademarked).

The letter refers to this page (as you can see, it's really REALLY old):

http://www.friendsinbusiness.com/best/smc.shtml

The letter says this page infringes in these ways:

1. "...not allowed to use (S M C etc.) or any wording that might lead people to believe that your site is endorsed by or representative of S M C.

(I don't see how it does that.)

2. "Your meta/title tags may not contain (S M C etc.)..."

(Sorry, I forgot about it. I knew that.)

3. "The wording, appearance and design of your advertisements and website must not create the impresion of such an endorsement. You must not use our registered trademark... to market and/or advertise your business."

(Is that what I'm doing? I was trying to tell people I thought it was a legitimate opportunity.)

They specifically cited the paragraphs saying "contact Mike Warner" if you want to test the waters as a subdealer.

It's the ending that confuses me (and worries me with regard to other sites and other pages):

"I need to ask you to address these issues and remove these and all references to S M C from your site as soon as possible."

ALL references?

EX-SQUEEZE ME?

I thought it was only if I gave the appearance of being endorsed by, or representative of, their company -- which I don't believe I do even on the page I'm going to toast.

There are "reviews" of S M C all over the net.

Is there a difference I'm missing?

Declan Dunn has posted a review of S M C that uses the name freely. It is in his title tag as well -- but he says "Review of"... maybe that makes all the difference?

Mazu... ditto. (The title tag here is S M C -- not "Review of")

I suppose questions-and-answers on this board don't count, because obviously they don't make me look like I'm endorsed by, or representative of, the company.

Would that explain why the scathing reports on RipOffReport (the ones repeat the trademarked names over and over again) are not infringing? And the filthy-mouthed attacks on InformercialScams? (I guess the point is, if you're attacking it, you don't appear to be endorsed by it, right?)

So what's the poop here?

Am I allowed to write an article and say I drank Pepsi every day while I was on vacation... or is that violating the trademark?

I'm so confused.

I'm leaving the page up long enough for somebody to tell me why other reviews of S M C are acceptable, but mine is infringing (except the meta tags and the title, sorry sorry sorry, I should have fixed those years ago; you can see I didn't know diddly back then, the way I even repeated keywords over and over again).

Luv,