Actually, I recall it perfectly well. MS threatened action against Mike Roe
(a Canadian student as I recall) for his development company. The case was
settled OUT OF COURT, with MS basically having to purchase his domain. The
same could be applied to this product where Twitter can not demand the URL
but they can wait for it to expire and snag it or offer to buy out the
On the "point" about aggressively pursuing because they have to. That's a
complete and total cop-out, if that were the case then Twitter would be
going after ALL offenders and not the select "bad guys", if someone gives
twitter a warm fuzzy they view it as ok. According to your statement (and I
reviewed the laws a while back on trademarks but will go look again) they
can loose their trademark for this action alone.
PS: I'm still not a lawyer, I still hate the product, but I still hate the
thought more. Of course, their C&D order is little more than a notice to
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:36 AM, Andrew Badera <and...@badera.us> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Jeremy
> Darling<jeremy.darl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Funny thing about trademarking a name and trying to utilize that
> > against a URL, can't be done. If so, MicroSoft would have nailed people
> > left and right for infringement upon IE (can we say IE7.com and IE8.com)
> > well as several other websites that utilize trademarked MS product names
> > LOL. Several other companies have tried this as well and failed.
> > As for Twitter TOS and developer rights. Nope, can't sue for voilation
> of a
> > TOS on a public API either. You can suspend "suspect activities" and
> > developer/company rights but you can't actually file suite on a TOS
> > violation of this type. Lots of statuatory presidence on the subject.
> > On point 3, 80% rule along with the fact that you have clearly labeled in
> > valid font size the non-affiliation with Twitter again negates this point
> > most cases.
> > Actually, about the only thing they could get you for would be
> > Slander/Liable if you were spreading bad publicity about the company that
> > was un-true. In that case, they could get you for everything your worth
> > LOL. Then again, being a public entity they would fall under the same
> > as the movie stars and other public figures and would basically have to
> > it up in the end.
> > - Jeremy
> Apparently you fail to recall the "MikeRoweSoft.com" case.
> Twitter can most definitely enforce their trademark here.
> ∞ Andy Badera
> ∞ This email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private
> ∞ Google me: