Twitter's Trademark Travails..Continued
Twitter's trademark issues don't really warrant three or four posts, but..it is what it is (see here, here, here, and here).
Sam J. has a post ("Twitter's 'Tweet' Trademark Torpedoed") that I think adds to the mix:
don't have strong feeling on the issue (probably more accurate to say that I) haven't taken a close look at the issue, it's just been interesting to watch it twist and turn. I don't know that Twitter's efforts are doomed, but they've been pretty inconsistent about messaging, and developers are bound to grumble.
[modified to include an excerpt of Sam's post]
Sam J. has a post ("Twitter's 'Tweet' Trademark Torpedoed") that I think adds to the mix:
IAccording to documents from the Trademark Document Retrieval system, their lawyers (Fenwick & West LLP) were notified of the rejection by email to [email protected] that day. The USPTO had explained that "marksin prior-filed pending applications may present a bar to registrationof applicant’s mark. [...] If the marks in the referenced applicationsregister, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under TrademarkAct Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion between the twomarks", referencing and attaching not one, not two but three separate trademark applications:Now I may not be a lawyer (I did play a role in overturning Dell's "cloud computing" and Psion's "Netbook"trademarks) but given all three of the marks identified look likeproceeding to registration (it only takes one to rain on their parade),it's my non-expert opinion that Twitter has a snowflake's chance in hell of securing a monopoly over the word "Tweet".
- #77695071 for TWEETMARKS (pending receipt of Statement of Use)
- #77697186 for COTWEET (pending clarification)
- #77701645 for TWEETPHOTO (pending transfer to Supplemental Register)
[modified to include an excerpt of Sam's post]
With "Twitter" having made its way into the dictionary I'd be fighting fires back at the ranch rather than chasing fairies if I were them... there's a lot more on the line here than a "nice to have" trademark.
Sam
Reply to this