Here's a thought, if Twitter has allowed a specific site to have their application name added to the "posted from" list, is that tacit permission to use the name? They've been happy to show messages as posted from Twitteriffic, which uses their name and, it could be argued, have explicitly allowed this use.
On Aug 12, 4:43 pm, Dossy Shiobara <do...@panoptic.com> wrote: > On 8/12/09 10:14 AM, Dean Collins wrote: > > > So has anyone heard from or know any of the other developers? Did they > > also get an email last night? > > IANAL, but, I think the horse has already left the barn for Twitter. > > Unless someone is building a short-message service called "Twitter" it's > hard to claim dilution here. > > The few years that Twitter hasn't policed the infringing use of their > mark should be reasonable basis for estoppel, too. > > However, all legal issues aside, they can still shut down third-party > services from using their API or otherwise accessing their service, > which is probably "stronger" than the actual legal recourse they may be > entitled to. > > -- > 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)