[twitter-dev] Re: Cease Desist from Twitter
LOL, problems are now all sorted, lawyers happy it isn't confusing anymore. Turns out that he thought there was a big grey box in it, similar to the new Twitter front page, but only because he was using IE6 and I don't bother applying any transparent png fixes :) On Aug 14, 3:16 am, Zac Bowling zbowl...@gmail.com wrote: Wow. Twitters legal team thinks twitter owns blue backgrounds. Hehe. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 13, 2009, at 3:32 PM, Twitlonger stu...@abovetheinternet.org wrote: I recently got a letter by email from a UK law firm representing Twitter claiming that my websitewww.twitlonger.comwas infringing on their trade mark and was inherently likely to confuse users. The version of the website they were objecting to didn't have a similar font but did use the same birds as the old version of the site (fair enough to be asked to remove them). The timing coincided with a redesign of the site anyway which went live this week. I emailed them back pointing this out and then ended up on the phone with them with the claim being that the site as it stands now could still be seen as potentially confusing. I want to know how different they expect a site to be (especially when it doesn't even include the full word twitter in the name. Compare this to Twitpic, Twitvid etc who are using the same contraction AND the same typeface. This feels so much like a legal department doing stuff that is completely contrary to the Twitter team who have been so supportive of the third party community. Of course, all these applications have been granted access to be listed in the posted from field in the tweets, been granted special access to the API via whitelisting which requires the application to be named and described and, in many cases, been registered with OAuth, again requiring the name and description of the app. Has anyone else received similar letters where they have no problem with the service but can't seem to tell the difference between two sites if blue is present in each? :( Letter copied below. --- TWITTER - Trade Mark and Website Presentation Issues We act for Twitter, Inc. in relation to intellectual property issues in the UK. Twitter has asked us to contact you about your ww.twitlonger.comwebsite (the..Website..).Twitter has no objection to the service which you are offering on the Website. However, Twitter does need you to make certain changes to the Website. We have set out the reasons below. Your Website Twitter owns a number of registrations for its TWITTER trade mark, including Community trade mark registration number 6392997. Your use of a name for the Website which is based on the TWITTER trade mark is inherently likely to confuse users of the ww.twitter.com website into thinking that the Website is owned or operated by Twitter, when this is not the case. You are using a font on your Website which is very similar to that used by Twitter for its TWITTER logo. You have no doubt chosen to use this font for this very reason. You are also using a blue background and representations of blue birds. These blue birds are identical to those which Twitter has previously used on thewww.twitter.comwebsite. The combination of these factors and the name of your Website inevitably increase the likelihood of confusion. We therefore ask you to confirm that you will, within seven days of giving the confirmation: 1. incorporate a prominent non-affiliation disclaimer on all pages of the Website; 2. permanently stop any use on the Website of a font which is identical or similar to the font used by Twitter for its TWITTER logo; and 3. permanently stop any use on the Website of (i) representations of blue birds which are identical or similar to the blue bird design previously or currently used by Twitter on thewww.twitter.com website; and (ii) a blue background.
[twitter-dev] Re: Cease Desist from Twitter
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 7:16 AM, Goblinstu...@abovetheinternet.org wrote: LOL, problems are now all sorted, lawyers happy it isn't confusing anymore. friggin IE6. Had to GIF some PNGs recently myself. ∞ Andy Badera ∞ This email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private ∞ Google me: http://www.google.com/search?q=(andrew+badera)+OR+(andy+badera)
[twitter-dev] Re: Cease Desist from Twitter
Yep. I'm at the stage now for personal projects (and clients if they are cool with it) that I'm just not worrying anymore about IE6. Twitlonger runs about 3% IE6 so it's just not worth degrading the experience for the people with decent browsers to make exceptions for those living in the past. Out of curiousity, have you tried the Unit PNG fix to deal with IE6? Interested to know if you did and it didn't work out for you. On Aug 14, 12:18 pm, Andrew Badera and...@badera.us wrote: On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 7:16 AM, Goblinstu...@abovetheinternet.org wrote: LOL, problems are now all sorted, lawyers happy it isn't confusing anymore. friggin IE6. Had to GIF some PNGs recently myself. ∞ Andy Badera ∞ This email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private ∞ Google me:http://www.google.com/search?q=(andrew+badera)+OR+(andy+badera)
[twitter-dev] Re: Cease Desist from Twitter
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Goblinstu...@abovetheinternet.org wrote: Out of curiousity, have you tried the Unit PNG fix to deal with IE6? Interested to know if you did and it didn't work out for you. I was unfamiliar with it, I'll have to check it out, thanks.
[twitter-dev] Re: Cease Desist from Twitter
Nice little footnote to the story, got this email from Jillian at Twitter which has made me feel all warm and fuzzy: Hey Stuart, Thanks for bringing this to our attention and for reaching out. Our Platform team should be communicating our goals (in relation to CDs, and why they're sent) to the Developer community soon, but I just wanted to thank you for making those changes to your site and let you know that our intentions were never to be pushy. Things sometimes get lost in translation, and while we wanted to make sure your site was understood as a third party app and not a subset of Twitter, we do understand that your application is great and thank you for your support. Kindest Regards Jillian (I deal with our TM protection here) On Aug 14, 6:14 pm, Duane Roelands duane.roela...@gmail.com wrote: Lots of folks don't understand trademark law. Other folks are mad because they've been asked to stop selling spam-o- trons. I can't fault Twitter for their behavior in this matter. On Aug 14, 11:42 am, David Fisher tib...@gmail.com wrote: How are some of you failing to see the difference between Powered by Twitter being something they want you to do and http:// TwitterApplication.com is something they don't want you to do? Why don't they want the latter? Because someone with the email of adultsexdatin...@googlemail.com registered the domain. Not exactly the type of company that Twitter wants to associate itself with. Yet, for applications and sites that DO comply with the ToS, they want an attribution and link back to their site. Aren't some of you self proclaimed SEO/Marketing experts? Everyone wants links back to their site, including Twitter. Making a logo downloadable doesn't mean either that they want you to use it, or their font on your website when doing your own branding. Some people here are confused dave
[twitter-dev] Re: Cease Desist from Twitter
And the love returns . The PR value of a few nice words :-) On 14 Aug 2009, at 19:08, Goblin wrote: Nice little footnote to the story, got this email from Jillian at Twitter which has made me feel all warm and fuzzy: Hey Stuart, Thanks for bringing this to our attention and for reaching out. Our Platform team should be communicating our goals (in relation to CDs, and why they're sent) to the Developer community soon, but I just wanted to thank you for making those changes to your site and let you know that our intentions were never to be pushy. Things sometimes get lost in translation, and while we wanted to make sure your site was understood as a third party app and not a subset of Twitter, we do understand that your application is great and thank you for your support. Kindest Regards Jillian (I deal with our TM protection here) On Aug 14, 6:14 pm, Duane Roelands duane.roela...@gmail.com wrote: Lots of folks don't understand trademark law. Other folks are mad because they've been asked to stop selling spam- o- trons. I can't fault Twitter for their behavior in this matter. On Aug 14, 11:42 am, David Fisher tib...@gmail.com wrote: How are some of you failing to see the difference between Powered by Twitter being something they want you to do and http:// TwitterApplication.com is something they don't want you to do? Why don't they want the latter? Because someone with the email of adultsexdatin...@googlemail.com registered the domain. Not exactly the type of company that Twitter wants to associate itself with. Yet, for applications and sites that DO comply with the ToS, they want an attribution and link back to their site. Aren't some of you self proclaimed SEO/Marketing experts? Everyone wants links back to their site, including Twitter. Making a logo downloadable doesn't mean either that they want you to use it, or their font on your website when doing your own branding. Some people here are confused dave
[twitter-dev] Re: Cease Desist from Twitter
I have used sites with part of twiiter name in it and do not get confused. If you think the bird is just like twtter's bird than maybe change that but i wouldn't go through changing your name unless you feel you would benefit by changing it. But I'm against big, wealthy corps using big lawyers to scare people. Twitlonger sounds nothing like twitter to me. Twitter's name is big enough I doubt people will get confused. If they did, stuff happens. Are you in the same business as Twitter? I don't think 'similar' birds is a valid cause for you to cease and desist. I was married to a lawyer and sometimes they are bullies lol Don't be worried because they are lawyers. They are wrong plenty of times. TyAnne On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Twitlonger stu...@abovetheinternet.orgwrote: I recently got a letter by email from a UK law firm representing Twitter claiming that my website www.twitlonger.com was infringing on their trade mark and was inherently likely to confuse users. The version of the website they were objecting to didn't have a similar font but did use the same birds as the old version of the site (fair enough to be asked to remove them). The timing coincided with a redesign of the site anyway which went live this week. I emailed them back pointing this out and then ended up on the phone with them with the claim being that the site as it stands now could still be seen as potentially confusing. I want to know how different they expect a site to be (especially when it doesn't even include the full word twitter in the name. Compare this to Twitpic, Twitvid etc who are using the same contraction AND the same typeface. This feels so much like a legal department doing stuff that is completely contrary to the Twitter team who have been so supportive of the third party community. Of course, all these applications have been granted access to be listed in the posted from field in the tweets, been granted special access to the API via whitelisting which requires the application to be named and described and, in many cases, been registered with OAuth, again requiring the name and description of the app. Has anyone else received similar letters where they have no problem with the service but can't seem to tell the difference between two sites if blue is present in each? :( Letter copied below. --- TWITTER - Trade Mark and Website Presentation Issues We act for Twitter, Inc. in relation to intellectual property issues in the UK. Twitter has asked us to contact you about your ww.twitlonger.comwebsite (the..Website..).Twitter has no objection to the service which you are offering on the Website. However, Twitter does need you to make certain changes to the Website. We have set out the reasons below. Your Website Twitter owns a number of registrations for its TWITTER trade mark, including Community trade mark registration number 6392997. Your use of a name for the Website which is based on the TWITTER trade mark is inherently likely to confuse users of the ww.twitter.com website into thinking that the Website is owned or operated by Twitter, when this is not the case. You are using a font on your Website which is very similar to that used by Twitter for its TWITTER logo. You have no doubt chosen to use this font for this very reason. You are also using a blue background and representations of blue birds. These blue birds are identical to those which Twitter has previously used on the www.twitter.com website. The combination of these factors and the name of your Website inevitably increase the likelihood of confusion. We therefore ask you to confirm that you will, within seven days of giving the confirmation: 1. incorporate a prominent non-affiliation disclaimer on all pages of the Website; 2. permanently stop any use on the Website of a font which is identical or similar to the font used by Twitter for its TWITTER logo; and 3. permanently stop any use on the Website of (i) representations of blue birds which are identical or similar to the blue bird design previously or currently used by Twitter on the www.twitter.com website; and (ii) a blue background.
[twitter-dev] Re: Cease Desist from Twitter
On 8/14/09 10:56 AM, Ty wrote: I have used sites with part of twiiter name in it and do not get confused. IANAL, but ... in the likelihood of confusion test, I don't think the standard includes us. By the virtue of the fact that we are in this developer group already separates us from the average person. If any Twitter developer ever mistakes a third-party app. being a part of Twitter itself, just stick your head in the oven and breathe deep until you go to sleep. Think of your average person who's only joined Twitter because they heard about it on Oprah and want to follow Ellen Degeneres. They still haven't figured out what retweeting is. Now, they see a third-party app. developers site: is it likely they might be confused? Of course! They're a shade smarter than garden mulch and the words ketchup and catsup confuses them. They believe that pro-wrestling on TV is *real*. And guess what: they constitute probably upwards of 80% of the world's population. Lowest common denominator. Welcome to humanity! -- Dossy Shiobara | do...@panoptic.com | http://dossy.org/ Panoptic Computer Network | http://panoptic.com/ He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on. (p. 70)
[twitter-dev] Re: Cease Desist from Twitter
Hey Stuart, I'm glad someone else posted they were being pursued by Twitters Legal representatives apart from myself. (I'm still waiting for answers to my questions so nothing new to report here). Do you feel that their real beef is using the word Twit in your URL? I put a counter proposal to Twitters legal representative to rename my application www.MyTweetButler.com which as per Biz Stone's blog post of July 1st he indicated he was very happy with 3rd party developers to use the word Tweet http://blog.twitter.com/2009/07/may-tweets-be-with-you.html#links There have also been discussions online that although Twitter inc have applied for a trademark for Tweet (not granted yet) that the term was actually coined by an end user so Twitter would actually have a lot of problems if they decided to pursue people with the word Tweet in their name. Do you think that this will satisfy them? Regards, Dean Collins d...@mytwitterbutler.com +1-212-203-4357 New York +61-2-9016-5642 (Sydney in-dial). +44-20-3129-6001 (London in-dial). -Original Message- From: twitter-development-talk@googlegroups.com [mailto:twitter-development-t...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Twitlonger Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 6:33 PM To: Twitter Development Talk Subject: [twitter-dev] Cease Desist from Twitter I recently got a letter by email from a UK law firm representing Twitter claiming that my website www.twitlonger.com was infringing on their trade mark and was inherently likely to confuse users. The version of the website they were objecting to didn't have a similar font but did use the same birds as the old version of the site (fair enough to be asked to remove them). The timing coincided with a redesign of the site anyway which went live this week. I emailed them back pointing this out and then ended up on the phone with them with the claim being that the site as it stands now could still be seen as potentially confusing. I want to know how different they expect a site to be (especially when it doesn't even include the full word twitter in the name. Compare this to Twitpic, Twitvid etc who are using the same contraction AND the same typeface. This feels so much like a legal department doing stuff that is completely contrary to the Twitter team who have been so supportive of the third party community. Of course, all these applications have been granted access to be listed in the posted from field in the tweets, been granted special access to the API via whitelisting which requires the application to be named and described and, in many cases, been registered with OAuth, again requiring the name and description of the app. Has anyone else received similar letters where they have no problem with the service but can't seem to tell the difference between two sites if blue is present in each? :( Letter copied below. --- TWITTER - Trade Mark and Website Presentation Issues We act for Twitter, Inc. in relation to intellectual property issues in the UK. Twitter has asked us to contact you about your ww.twitlonger.comwebsite (the..Website..).Twitter has no objection to the service which you are offering on the Website. However, Twitter does need you to make certain changes to the Website. We have set out the reasons below. Your Website Twitter owns a number of registrations for its TWITTER trade mark, including Community trade mark registration number 6392997. Your use of a name for the Website which is based on the TWITTER trade mark is inherently likely to confuse users of the ww.twitter.com website into thinking that the Website is owned or operated by Twitter, when this is not the case. You are using a font on your Website which is very similar to that used by Twitter for its TWITTER logo. You have no doubt chosen to use this font for this very reason. You are also using a blue background and representations of blue birds. These blue birds are identical to those which Twitter has previously used on the www.twitter.com website. The combination of these factors and the name of your Website inevitably increase the likelihood of confusion. We therefore ask you to confirm that you will, within seven days of giving the confirmation: 1. incorporate a prominent non-affiliation disclaimer on all pages of the Website; 2. permanently stop any use on the Website of a font which is identical or similar to the font used by Twitter for its TWITTER logo; and 3. permanently stop any use on the Website of (i) representations of blue birds which are identical or similar to the blue bird design previously or currently used by Twitter on the www.twitter.com website; and (ii) a blue background.
[twitter-dev] Re: Cease Desist from Twitter
Man that's sad, your website is unmistakable and there is no doubt you are not Twitter. It sounds like it was potentially confusing before. Hmmm... outsourcing trademark checking seems to have pitfalls (i.e. eating into company goodwill). It makes you really stop and think about building a business around someone's API doesn't it - that's what we're doing right now, but it encourages me to diversify pretty darn fast. I suppose it was naive of me not to consider just how much you can be beholden to the API owner in the first place. It doesn't put me off working with Twitter, but it does make me want to get some more baskets for these eggs :-) Thanks for letting us know your situation and good luck. All the best Neil On 13 Aug 2009, at 23:32, Twitlonger wrote: I recently got a letter by email from a UK law firm representing Twitter claiming that my website www.twitlonger.com was infringing on their trade mark and was inherently likely to confuse users. The version of the website they were objecting to didn't have a similar font but did use the same birds as the old version of the site (fair enough to be asked to remove them). The timing coincided with a redesign of the site anyway which went live this week. I emailed them back pointing this out and then ended up on the phone with them with the claim being that the site as it stands now could still be seen as potentially confusing. I want to know how different they expect a site to be (especially when it doesn't even include the full word twitter in the name. Compare this to Twitpic, Twitvid etc who are using the same contraction AND the same typeface. This feels so much like a legal department doing stuff that is completely contrary to the Twitter team who have been so supportive of the third party community. Of course, all these applications have been granted access to be listed in the posted from field in the tweets, been granted special access to the API via whitelisting which requires the application to be named and described and, in many cases, been registered with OAuth, again requiring the name and description of the app. Has anyone else received similar letters where they have no problem with the service but can't seem to tell the difference between two sites if blue is present in each? :( Letter copied below. --- TWITTER - Trade Mark and Website Presentation Issues We act for Twitter, Inc. in relation to intellectual property issues in the UK. Twitter has asked us to contact you about your ww.twitlonger.comwebsite (the..Website..).Twitter has no objection to the service which you are offering on the Website. However, Twitter does need you to make certain changes to the Website. We have set out the reasons below. Your Website Twitter owns a number of registrations for its TWITTER trade mark, including Community trade mark registration number 6392997. Your use of a name for the Website which is based on the TWITTER trade mark is inherently likely to confuse users of the ww.twitter.com website into thinking that the Website is owned or operated by Twitter, when this is not the case. You are using a font on your Website which is very similar to that used by Twitter for its TWITTER logo. You have no doubt chosen to use this font for this very reason. You are also using a blue background and representations of blue birds. These blue birds are identical to those which Twitter has previously used on the www.twitter.com website. The combination of these factors and the name of your Website inevitably increase the likelihood of confusion. We therefore ask you to confirm that you will, within seven days of giving the confirmation: 1. incorporate a prominent non-affiliation disclaimer on all pages of the Website; 2. permanently stop any use on the Website of a font which is identical or similar to the font used by Twitter for its TWITTER logo; and 3. permanently stop any use on the Website of (i) representations of blue birds which are identical or similar to the blue bird design previously or currently used by Twitter on the www.twitter.com website; and (ii) a blue background.
[twitter-dev] Re: Cease Desist from Twitter
You saw this right? http://mashable.com/2009/08/12/twitter-not-suing-developer/ On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Dean Collins d...@cognation.net wrote: Hey Stuart, I'm glad someone else posted they were being pursued by Twitters Legal representatives apart from myself. (I'm still waiting for answers to my questions so nothing new to report here). Do you feel that their real beef is using the word Twit in your URL? I put a counter proposal to Twitters legal representative to rename my application www.MyTweetButler.com http://www.mytweetbutler.com/ which as per Biz Stone's blog post of July 1st he indicated he was very happy with 3rd party developers to use the word Tweet http://blog.twitter.com/2009/07/may-tweets-be-with-you.html#links There have also been discussions online that although Twitter inc have applied for a trademark for Tweet (not granted yet) that the term was actually coined by an end user so Twitter would actually have a lot of problems if they decided to pursue people with the word Tweet in their name. Do you think that this will satisfy them? Regards, Dean Collins d...@mytwitterbutler.com +1-212-203-4357 New York +61-2-9016-5642 (Sydney in-dial). +44-20-3129-6001 (London in-dial). -Original Message- From: twitter-development-talk@googlegroups.com [mailto: twitter-development-t...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Twitlonger Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 6:33 PM To: Twitter Development Talk Subject: [twitter-dev] Cease Desist from Twitter I recently got a letter by email from a UK law firm representing Twitter claiming that my website www.twitlonger.com was infringing on their trade mark and was inherently likely to confuse users. The version of the website they were objecting to didn't have a similar font but did use the same birds as the old version of the site (fair enough to be asked to remove them). The timing coincided with a redesign of the site anyway which went live this week. I emailed them back pointing this out and then ended up on the phone with them with the claim being that the site as it stands now could still be seen as potentially confusing. I want to know how different they expect a site to be (especially when it doesn't even include the full word twitter in the name. Compare this to Twitpic, Twitvid etc who are using the same contraction AND the same typeface. This feels so much like a legal department doing stuff that is completely contrary to the Twitter team who have been so supportive of the third party community. Of course, all these applications have been granted access to be listed in the posted from field in the tweets, been granted special access to the API via whitelisting which requires the application to be named and described and, in many cases, been registered with OAuth, again requiring the name and description of the app. Has anyone else received similar letters where they have no problem with the service but can't seem to tell the difference between two sites if blue is present in each? :( Letter copied below. --- TWITTER - Trade Mark and Website Presentation Issues We act for Twitter, Inc. in relation to intellectual property issues in the UK. Twitter has asked us to contact you about your ww.twitlonger.comwebsite (the..Website..).Twitter has no objection to the service which you are offering on the Website. However, Twitter does need you to make certain changes to the Website. We have set out the reasons below. Your Website Twitter owns a number of registrations for its TWITTER trade mark, including Community trade mark registration number 6392997. Your use of a name for the Website which is based on the TWITTER trade mark is inherently likely to confuse users of the ww.twitter.com website into thinking that the Website is owned or operated by Twitter, when this is not the case. You are using a font on your Website which is very similar to that used by Twitter for its TWITTER logo. You have no doubt chosen to use this font for this very reason. You are also using a blue background and representations of blue birds. These blue birds are identical to those which Twitter has previously used on the www.twitter.com website. The combination of these factors and the name of your Website inevitably increase the likelihood of confusion. We therefore ask you to confirm that you will, within seven days of giving the confirmation: 1. incorporate a prominent non-affiliation disclaimer on all pages of the Website; 2. permanently stop any use on the Website of a font which is identical or similar to the font used by Twitter for its TWITTER logo; and 3. permanently stop any use on the Website of (i) representations of blue birds which are identical or similar to the blue bird design previously or currently used by Twitter on the www.twitter.com website; and (ii) a blue background. -- Dale Merritt Fol.la MeDia, LLC
[twitter-dev] Re: Cease Desist from Twitter
To be fair, the new version mostly seemed to please the guy I was on the phone with, but I got the impression he was shooting from the hip when he said that I would probably need to change the blue in the logo. It just seems weird that we spend two or three years building sites with the twit/tweet theme running so it is clear they are add-ons to Twitter and *then* the lawyers decide to get antsy. I know Twitter is in the position that if they don't act to protect their trademarks they can lose them, but it would be nice if we were told a few months back Look guys, we're going to need to start enforcing trademark stuff. It might be a hassle for you so we're giving you a heads up. It would be nice to hear from the horses mouth if all the twit*/ twitter* apps were to use tweet instead, would that sort the issue out. I have www.tweetlonger.com (and @tweetlonger) so it would be reasonably trivial to migrate over to the new domain if that would sort things out. The before page wasn't really potentially confusing, especially since I designed it, resulting in it looking like a 4 year old had been let loose with MS Paint, but you'd have to be pretty confused to think the new one and the Twitter homepage are the same people. On Aug 14, 12:28 am, Neil Ellis neilellis1...@googlemail.com wrote: Man that's sad, your website is unmistakable and there is no doubt you are not Twitter. It sounds like it was potentially confusing before. Hmmm... outsourcing trademark checking seems to have pitfalls (i.e. eating into company goodwill). It makes you really stop and think about building a business around someone's API doesn't it - that's what we're doing right now, but it encourages me to diversify pretty darn fast. I suppose it was naive of me not to consider just how much you can be beholden to the API owner in the first place. It doesn't put me off working with Twitter, but it does make me want to get some more baskets for these eggs :-) Thanks for letting us know your situation and good luck. All the best Neil On 13 Aug 2009, at 23:32, Twitlonger wrote: I recently got a letter by email from a UK law firm representing Twitter claiming that my websitewww.twitlonger.comwas infringing on their trade mark and was inherently likely to confuse users. The version of the website they were objecting to didn't have a similar font but did use the same birds as the old version of the site (fair enough to be asked to remove them). The timing coincided with a redesign of the site anyway which went live this week. I emailed them back pointing this out and then ended up on the phone with them with the claim being that the site as it stands now could still be seen as potentially confusing. I want to know how different they expect a site to be (especially when it doesn't even include the full word twitter in the name. Compare this to Twitpic, Twitvid etc who are using the same contraction AND the same typeface. This feels so much like a legal department doing stuff that is completely contrary to the Twitter team who have been so supportive of the third party community. Of course, all these applications have been granted access to be listed in the posted from field in the tweets, been granted special access to the API via whitelisting which requires the application to be named and described and, in many cases, been registered with OAuth, again requiring the name and description of the app. Has anyone else received similar letters where they have no problem with the service but can't seem to tell the difference between two sites if blue is present in each? :( Letter copied below. --- TWITTER - Trade Mark and Website Presentation Issues We act for Twitter, Inc. in relation to intellectual property issues in the UK. Twitter has asked us to contact you about your ww.twitlonger.comwebsite (the..Website..).Twitter has no objection to the service which you are offering on the Website. However, Twitter does need you to make certain changes to the Website. We have set out the reasons below. Your Website Twitter owns a number of registrations for its TWITTER trade mark, including Community trade mark registration number 6392997. Your use of a name for the Website which is based on the TWITTER trade mark is inherently likely to confuse users of the ww.twitter.com website into thinking that the Website is owned or operated by Twitter, when this is not the case. You are using a font on your Website which is very similar to that used by Twitter for its TWITTER logo. You have no doubt chosen to use this font for this very reason. You are also using a blue background and representations of blue birds. These blue birds are identical to those which Twitter has previously used on thewww.twitter.comwebsite. The combination of these factors and the name of your Website inevitably increase the likelihood of
[twitter-dev] Re: Cease Desist from Twitter
To be fair, the new version mostly seemed to please the guy I was on the phone with, but I got the impression he was shooting from the hip when he said that I would probably need to change the blue in the logo. Law firms bill by the hour.
[twitter-dev] Re: Cease Desist from Twitter
I am wondering if this is a case of their legal department getting a bit heavyhanded and running loose. What they asked of you seemed fairly reasonable however, and the name of your application doesn't seem to be the issue. I'm glad you didn't think you were being sued :) It seems that Twitter should develop better UI guidelines for applications using their API, since it seems that there are many potential trademark concerns that their legal department is now bringing up. Happens with every big company at some point I guess- and Twitter is now getting 'big' and probably is just around the corner from hiring their first full time attorney or something at this rate. Hope it resolves well. Sounds like you're handling it well. -dave
[twitter-dev] Re: Cease Desist from Twitter
On Aug 13, 8:44 pm, Goblin stu...@abovetheinternet.org wrote: It would be nice to hear from the horses mouth if all the twit*/ twitter* apps were to use tweet instead, would that sort the issue out. Doesn't this blog post [1] from the big horse's mouth already settle that question? [1] http://blog.twitter.com/2009/07/may-tweets-be-with-you.html It is also interesting that Biz wrote favorable blog posts about TwitterCounter [2] and Twitterific [3]. Wonder how that will impact anything, if at all. [2] http://blog.twitter.com/2008/07/follower-stats-by-twittercounter.html [3] http://blog.twitter.com/2008/06/congratulations-twitterrific.html Dewald
[twitter-dev] Re: Cease Desist from Twitter
Although I have to admit the actual wording from the lawyers is much more polite than you often see :-) and the demands not unreasonable. On 14 Aug 2009, at 00:56, Neil Ellis wrote: Sorry everyone if this seems off topic, but understanding the legals of the API are as (actually more) important to me as understanding the tech. On 14 Aug 2009, at 00:44, Goblin wrote: To be fair, the new version mostly seemed to please the guy I was on the phone with, but I got the impression he was shooting from the hip when he said that I would probably need to change the blue in the logo. I get the picture :-) and that seems to be the price of outsourcing the legals - i.e. the people enforcing in it have no personal stake in the community and relations. As you say later, clarification would be good. It just seems weird that we spend two or three years building sites with the twit/tweet theme running so it is clear they are add-ons to Twitter and *then* the lawyers decide to get antsy. I know Twitter is in the position that if they don't act to protect their trademarks they can lose them, but it would be nice if we were told a few months back Look guys, we're going to need to start enforcing trademark stuff. It might be a hassle for you so we're giving you a heads up. Yeah this really needs to get sorted out 'between' friends, legals stir up so much stuff and make people feel quite upset. Better to have a friendly - hey we're concerned about your site - from the Twitter team (even if it is a standard letter) first rather than lawyers first. It would be nice to hear from the horses mouth if all the twit*/ twitter* apps were to use tweet instead, would that sort the issue out. I have www.tweetlonger.com (and @tweetlonger) so it would be reasonably trivial to migrate over to the new domain if that would sort things out. I suspect after the last huge thread some clarification will wind it's way down in the near future. It would seem to be wise, it's like finding out your best friend's sweet little 8 year old carries an Uzi in her lunch pack when a site as community friendly as Twitter starts launching CDs. The before page wasn't really potentially confusing, especially since I designed it, resulting in it looking like a 4 year old had been let loose with MS Paint, :-) I'm at that stage right now :-) Glad you got past it. Site looks very clean now. but you'd have to be pretty confused to think the new one and the Twitter homepage are the same people. Agreed! On Aug 14, 12:28 am, Neil Ellis neilellis1...@googlemail.com wrote: Man that's sad, your website is unmistakable and there is no doubt you are not Twitter. It sounds like it was potentially confusing before. Hmmm... outsourcing trademark checking seems to have pitfalls (i.e. eating into company goodwill). It makes you really stop and think about building a business around someone's API doesn't it - that's what we're doing right now, but it encourages me to diversify pretty darn fast. I suppose it was naive of me not to consider just how much you can be beholden to the API owner in the first place. It doesn't put me off working with Twitter, but it does make me want to get some more baskets for these eggs :-) Thanks for letting us know your situation and good luck. All the best Neil On 13 Aug 2009, at 23:32, Twitlonger wrote: I recently got a letter by email from a UK law firm representing Twitter claiming that my websitewww.twitlonger.comwas infringing on their trade mark and was inherently likely to confuse users. The version of the website they were objecting to didn't have a similar font but did use the same birds as the old version of the site (fair enough to be asked to remove them). The timing coincided with a redesign of the site anyway which went live this week. I emailed them back pointing this out and then ended up on the phone with them with the claim being that the site as it stands now could still be seen as potentially confusing. I want to know how different they expect a site to be (especially when it doesn't even include the full word twitter in the name. Compare this to Twitpic, Twitvid etc who are using the same contraction AND the same typeface. This feels so much like a legal department doing stuff that is completely contrary to the Twitter team who have been so supportive of the third party community. Of course, all these applications have been granted access to be listed in the posted from field in the tweets, been granted special access to the API via whitelisting which requires the application to be named and described and, in many cases, been registered with OAuth, again requiring the name and description of the app. Has anyone else received similar letters where they have no problem with the service but can't seem to tell the difference between two sites if blue is present in each? :( Letter copied below. --- TWITTER - Trade Mark and
[twitter-dev] Re: Cease Desist from Twitter
I think the blog post actually makes things more confusing: Regarding the use of the word Twitter in projects, we are a bit more wary although there are some exceptions here as well. So, what are these exceptions? Does it come down to the projects @ev and @biz particularly like? What if it's twit*** which obviously isn't using their trademark but uses the same base (heck, by that logic @leolaporte should be on my case)? It would seem odd that mine is the only site to have received a letter. If the primary concern was the twitter bird then why is the new version an issue? When I was on the phone I think he said he was waiting to hear back from California, so there is more than a passing chance that it was personal opinion of a guy in London instead of Twitter's own people. As has been said, some proper clarification and a bit more transparency with the community would go a really long way here (although are Twitter now at the stage they can't comment on legal matters until the lawyers check things over?) On Aug 14, 12:59 am, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: On Aug 13, 8:44 pm, Goblin stu...@abovetheinternet.org wrote: It would be nice to hear from the horses mouth if all the twit*/ twitter* apps were to use tweet instead, would that sort the issue out. Doesn't this blog post [1] from the big horse's mouth already settle that question? [1]http://blog.twitter.com/2009/07/may-tweets-be-with-you.html It is also interesting that Biz wrote favorable blog posts about TwitterCounter [2] and Twitterific [3]. Wonder how that will impact anything, if at all. [2]http://blog.twitter.com/2008/07/follower-stats-by-twittercounter.html [3]http://blog.twitter.com/2008/06/congratulations-twitterrific.html Dewald
[twitter-dev] Re: Cease Desist from Twitter
That's true. They're not asking you to drop the domain name or anything like that. I've seen MUCH nastier C D letters issued. That one indicates to me that they actually do appreciate your service, but simply are trying to defend their brand. On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 18:04, Neil Ellis neilellis1...@googlemail.comwrote: Although I have to admit the actual wording from the lawyers is much more polite than you often see :-) and the demands not unreasonable. On 14 Aug 2009, at 00:56, Neil Ellis wrote: Sorry everyone if this seems off topic, but understanding the legals of the API are as (actually more) important to me as understanding the tech. On 14 Aug 2009, at 00:44, Goblin wrote: To be fair, the new version mostly seemed to please the guy I was on the phone with, but I got the impression he was shooting from the hip when he said that I would probably need to change the blue in the logo. I get the picture :-) and that seems to be the price of outsourcing the legals - i.e. the people enforcing in it have no personal stake in the community and relations. As you say later, clarification would be good. It just seems weird that we spend two or three years building sites with the twit/tweet theme running so it is clear they are add-ons to Twitter and *then* the lawyers decide to get antsy. I know Twitter is in the position that if they don't act to protect their trademarks they can lose them, but it would be nice if we were told a few months back Look guys, we're going to need to start enforcing trademark stuff. It might be a hassle for you so we're giving you a heads up. Yeah this really needs to get sorted out 'between' friends, legals stir up so much stuff and make people feel quite upset. Better to have a friendly - hey we're concerned about your site - from the Twitter team (even if it is a standard letter) first rather than lawyers first. It would be nice to hear from the horses mouth if all the twit*/ twitter* apps were to use tweet instead, would that sort the issue out. I have www.tweetlonger.com (and @tweetlonger) so it would be reasonably trivial to migrate over to the new domain if that would sort things out. I suspect after the last huge thread some clarification will wind it's way down in the near future. It would seem to be wise, it's like finding out your best friend's sweet little 8 year old carries an Uzi in her lunch pack when a site as community friendly as Twitter starts launching CDs. The before page wasn't really potentially confusing, especially since I designed it, resulting in it looking like a 4 year old had been let loose with MS Paint, :-) I'm at that stage right now :-) Glad you got past it. Site looks very clean now. but you'd have to be pretty confused to think the new one and the Twitter homepage are the same people. Agreed! On Aug 14, 12:28 am, Neil Ellis neilellis1...@googlemail.com wrote: Man that's sad, your website is unmistakable and there is no doubt you are not Twitter. It sounds like it was potentially confusing before. Hmmm... outsourcing trademark checking seems to have pitfalls (i.e. eating into company goodwill). It makes you really stop and think about building a business around someone's API doesn't it - that's what we're doing right now, but it encourages me to diversify pretty darn fast. I suppose it was naive of me not to consider just how much you can be beholden to the API owner in the first place. It doesn't put me off working with Twitter, but it does make me want to get some more baskets for these eggs :-) Thanks for letting us know your situation and good luck. All the best Neil On 13 Aug 2009, at 23:32, Twitlonger wrote: I recently got a letter by email from a UK law firm representing Twitter claiming that my websitewww.twitlonger.comwas infringing on their trade mark and was inherently likely to confuse users. The version of the website they were objecting to didn't have a similar font but did use the same birds as the old version of the site (fair enough to be asked to remove them). The timing coincided with a redesign of the site anyway which went live this week. I emailed them back pointing this out and then ended up on the phone with them with the claim being that the site as it stands now could still be seen as potentially confusing. I want to know how different they expect a site to be (especially when it doesn't even include the full word twitter in the name. Compare this to Twitpic, Twitvid etc who are using the same contraction AND the same typeface. This feels so much like a legal department doing stuff that is completely contrary to the Twitter team who have been so supportive of the third party community. Of course, all these applications have been granted access to be listed in the posted from field in the tweets, been granted special access to the API via whitelisting which requires the application to be named
[twitter-dev] Re: Cease Desist from Twitter
Why do they have to spell it out? It's a trademarked name, and they don't have to give any exceptions if they don't want to. If you want to use it, ask permission. They *can* grant it. On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 18:08, Goblin stu...@abovetheinternet.org wrote: I think the blog post actually makes things more confusing: Regarding the use of the word Twitter in projects, we are a bit more wary although there are some exceptions here as well. So, what are these exceptions? Does it come down to the projects @ev and @biz particularly like? What if it's twit*** which obviously isn't using their trademark but uses the same base (heck, by that logic @leolaporte should be on my case)? It would seem odd that mine is the only site to have received a letter. If the primary concern was the twitter bird then why is the new version an issue? When I was on the phone I think he said he was waiting to hear back from California, so there is more than a passing chance that it was personal opinion of a guy in London instead of Twitter's own people. As has been said, some proper clarification and a bit more transparency with the community would go a really long way here (although are Twitter now at the stage they can't comment on legal matters until the lawyers check things over?) On Aug 14, 12:59 am, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: On Aug 13, 8:44 pm, Goblin stu...@abovetheinternet.org wrote: It would be nice to hear from the horses mouth if all the twit*/ twitter* apps were to use tweet instead, would that sort the issue out. Doesn't this blog post [1] from the big horse's mouth already settle that question? [1]http://blog.twitter.com/2009/07/may-tweets-be-with-you.html It is also interesting that Biz wrote favorable blog posts about TwitterCounter [2] and Twitterific [3]. Wonder how that will impact anything, if at all. [2]http://blog.twitter.com/2008/07/follower-stats-by-twittercounter.html [3]http://blog.twitter.com/2008/06/congratulations-twitterrific.html Dewald -- Internets. Serious business.
[twitter-dev] Re: Cease Desist from Twitter
To be fair Goblin, reading the letter they only ask you to make clear you're not affiliated. Not change the domain. However, point taken it's confusing. Take Twitterific's page: http://iconfactory.com/software/twitterrific That bird looks familiar and the blue and there is no disclaimer. I keep wanting apply everyday logic, but in the legal world it just seems to go out of the window :-) Now I really must do some coding :-) On 14 Aug 2009, at 01:08, Goblin wrote: I think the blog post actually makes things more confusing: Regarding the use of the word Twitter in projects, we are a bit more wary although there are some exceptions here as well. So, what are these exceptions? Does it come down to the projects @ev and @biz particularly like? What if it's twit*** which obviously isn't using their trademark but uses the same base (heck, by that logic @leolaporte should be on my case)? It would seem odd that mine is the only site to have received a letter. If the primary concern was the twitter bird then why is the new version an issue? When I was on the phone I think he said he was waiting to hear back from California, so there is more than a passing chance that it was personal opinion of a guy in London instead of Twitter's own people. As has been said, some proper clarification and a bit more transparency with the community would go a really long way here (although are Twitter now at the stage they can't comment on legal matters until the lawyers check things over?) On Aug 14, 12:59 am, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: On Aug 13, 8:44 pm, Goblin stu...@abovetheinternet.org wrote: It would be nice to hear from the horses mouth if all the twit*/ twitter* apps were to use tweet instead, would that sort the issue out. Doesn't this blog post [1] from the big horse's mouth already settle that question? [1]http://blog.twitter.com/2009/07/may-tweets-be-with-you.html It is also interesting that Biz wrote favorable blog posts about TwitterCounter [2] and Twitterific [3]. Wonder how that will impact anything, if at all. [2]http://blog.twitter.com/2008/07/follower-stats-by-twittercounter.html [3]http://blog.twitter.com/2008/06/congratulations-twitterrific.html Dewald
[twitter-dev] Re: Cease Desist from Twitter
Yeah, I think it's a pretty easy going CD, but I don't really want to keep making tiny changes and have a lawyer hhmm and ahh to decide if it's not potentially confusing. If Twitter came out and said they were going to have to ask everyone to stop using twit in application names and move to tweet then at least we'd know where we stand. It's the ambiguity over it all, not to mention the dozens of websites in a similar position to mine that have a look and feel way closer to Twitter (past or present). www.twitterholic.com is my favourite: Styles ripped directly, and we mean directly, from Twitter.com. At this rate, the only app not needing to change it's name will be Seesmic :) On Aug 14, 1:14 am, Neil Ellis neilellis1...@googlemail.com wrote: To be fair Goblin, reading the letter they only ask you to make clear you're not affiliated. Not change the domain. However, point taken it's confusing. Take Twitterific's page:http://iconfactory.com/software/twitterrific That bird looks familiar and the blue and there is no disclaimer. I keep wanting apply everyday logic, but in the legal world it just seems to go out of the window :-) Now I really must do some coding :-) On 14 Aug 2009, at 01:08, Goblin wrote: I think the blog post actually makes things more confusing: Regarding the use of the word Twitter in projects, we are a bit more wary although there are some exceptions here as well. So, what are these exceptions? Does it come down to the projects @ev and @biz particularly like? What if it's twit*** which obviously isn't using their trademark but uses the same base (heck, by that logic @leolaporte should be on my case)? It would seem odd that mine is the only site to have received a letter. If the primary concern was the twitter bird then why is the new version an issue? When I was on the phone I think he said he was waiting to hear back from California, so there is more than a passing chance that it was personal opinion of a guy in London instead of Twitter's own people. As has been said, some proper clarification and a bit more transparency with the community would go a really long way here (although are Twitter now at the stage they can't comment on legal matters until the lawyers check things over?) On Aug 14, 12:59 am, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: On Aug 13, 8:44 pm, Goblin stu...@abovetheinternet.org wrote: It would be nice to hear from the horses mouth if all the twit*/ twitter* apps were to use tweet instead, would that sort the issue out. Doesn't this blog post [1] from the big horse's mouth already settle that question? [1]http://blog.twitter.com/2009/07/may-tweets-be-with-you.html It is also interesting that Biz wrote favorable blog posts about TwitterCounter [2] and Twitterific [3]. Wonder how that will impact anything, if at all. [2]http://blog.twitter.com/2008/07/follower-stats-by-twittercounter.html [3]http://blog.twitter.com/2008/06/congratulations-twitterrific.html Dewald
[twitter-dev] Re: Cease Desist from Twitter
Wow. Twitters legal team thinks twitter owns blue backgrounds. Hehe. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 13, 2009, at 3:32 PM, Twitlonger stu...@abovetheinternet.org wrote: I recently got a letter by email from a UK law firm representing Twitter claiming that my website www.twitlonger.com was infringing on their trade mark and was inherently likely to confuse users. The version of the website they were objecting to didn't have a similar font but did use the same birds as the old version of the site (fair enough to be asked to remove them). The timing coincided with a redesign of the site anyway which went live this week. I emailed them back pointing this out and then ended up on the phone with them with the claim being that the site as it stands now could still be seen as potentially confusing. I want to know how different they expect a site to be (especially when it doesn't even include the full word twitter in the name. Compare this to Twitpic, Twitvid etc who are using the same contraction AND the same typeface. This feels so much like a legal department doing stuff that is completely contrary to the Twitter team who have been so supportive of the third party community. Of course, all these applications have been granted access to be listed in the posted from field in the tweets, been granted special access to the API via whitelisting which requires the application to be named and described and, in many cases, been registered with OAuth, again requiring the name and description of the app. Has anyone else received similar letters where they have no problem with the service but can't seem to tell the difference between two sites if blue is present in each? :( Letter copied below. --- TWITTER - Trade Mark and Website Presentation Issues We act for Twitter, Inc. in relation to intellectual property issues in the UK. Twitter has asked us to contact you about your ww.twitlonger.comwebsite (the..Website..).Twitter has no objection to the service which you are offering on the Website. However, Twitter does need you to make certain changes to the Website. We have set out the reasons below. Your Website Twitter owns a number of registrations for its TWITTER trade mark, including Community trade mark registration number 6392997. Your use of a name for the Website which is based on the TWITTER trade mark is inherently likely to confuse users of the ww.twitter.com website into thinking that the Website is owned or operated by Twitter, when this is not the case. You are using a font on your Website which is very similar to that used by Twitter for its TWITTER logo. You have no doubt chosen to use this font for this very reason. You are also using a blue background and representations of blue birds. These blue birds are identical to those which Twitter has previously used on the www.twitter.com website. The combination of these factors and the name of your Website inevitably increase the likelihood of confusion. We therefore ask you to confirm that you will, within seven days of giving the confirmation: 1. incorporate a prominent non-affiliation disclaimer on all pages of the Website; 2. permanently stop any use on the Website of a font which is identical or similar to the font used by Twitter for its TWITTER logo; and 3. permanently stop any use on the Website of (i) representations of blue birds which are identical or similar to the blue bird design previously or currently used by Twitter on the www.twitter.com website; and (ii) a blue background.
