I was always under the impression trademarks came down to a reasonable
expectation that users could be confused as to which was the original
name.
In the example of the "Edge" iPhone game, he was called out against
using Edge as a name since there was a shady software development
house that owned the mark in the gaming industry. There very well
could have been confusion.
"Edge" can safely be used in other industry. If I started "Edge
Clothing" I suspect there would be no confusion and no issue.
"Twitter" makes sense, their only presence being the web. A user who
hears Twitter, downloads a Twitter app by searching for one in their
mobile store, could easily walk away thinking that mobile app is
Twitter. They could easily think they are at the source.
I don't see why they care, they care about service users. Alienate the
3rd part apps and Twitter is going back in time, not forward. It is
the existance of this API that I believe made Twitter what it is.
But tweet, I don't know the history. Is it like hash tags, a user
invented term for an action within the service?
To me, this is as if eBay tries to trademark "selling" because that is
the verb describing what you do within the service. Tweet is the verb
within the service, and likely was user crafted anyway.
All technical and legal issues aside, this boils down to just doing
the right thing. Trademark Twitter, that seems fair and smart. There
will be some fallout while protecting the name, but that is just part
of the process.
Trademark "tweet", and you are doing the wrong thing. From podcasting,
syncing, downloading, IM'ing, DM'ing, texting, etc. Just leave it alone.
They will do far better to allow the word to become more a household
term, than to aggravate everyone.
--
Scott
Iphone says hello.
On Aug 12, 2009, at 5:24 AM, Vision Jinx <[email protected]> wrote:
FYI - mashable.com just posted a story on this here
http://mashable.com/2009/08/12/twitter-not-suing-developer/
Interesting to know that if Twitter gets the trademark for "Tweet"
also what about the apps and businesses that have been using it before
the claim like TweetDeck etc etc? Seems they would have a justifiable
claim to the name also? How does that work?
Not sure about the US but where I am if someone has made a stable
reputation from a name they are also entitled to a trademark clause
for it regardless if they officially trademarked it. (in my own words)
"The owner of a common law trademark may also file suit, but an
unregistered mark may be protectable only within the geographical area
within which it has been used or in geographical areas into which it
may be reasonably expected to expand."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on TV either so seek
your own legal council regarding it.
