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 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.

Reply via email to