Thanks for this post! I am wondering when Twitter trademarked "Twit",
Blue and Birds?

Maybe Twitter should be considered an offensive word when making apps
and use Twi***r instead? Makes me really question making apps using
this service. :(

Additionally, I also don't get the dual stance on things, why it's OK
for some and not others?

Maybe people/companies who are using "Tweet" in their apps prior to
Twi***rs claim to the name should challenge it and do the same back?
(If they want to keep the name) If Twi***r trademarks it then then
encourage ppl to use it anyways, then why bother trademarking it in
the first place, unless they plan on being selective or whatever (or
being able to change their mind later or charge licensing fees for its
use). Just a thought.

The other thing that comes to mind is from what I am able to gather
(maybe I'm wrong here) Twi***r is a privately funded company (http://
twitter.com/about#about) and does not have the ad revenue or a hefty/
unlimited source of income ("we spend more money than we make.") like
say Google does so if people challenge these law suites and go the
distance how long is Twit***s funders going to want to donate their $$
$ to pay for these legal battles? If I was investing in the company I
would want my dollars going somewhere productive not to launch legal
battles with half the internet.

Also (last thought here), why do they allow people to download and use
their logo then? What am I missing here? >> "Download our logo"
http://twitter.com/about#download_logo

I'm just confused by most this :(

Thank you for your time dev community! :)

On Aug 13, 4:32 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.

Reply via email to