I would assume the logo download is for use in press articles.
On Aug 14, 3:31 pm, Vision Jinx <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I recently got a letter by email from a UK law firm representing > > Twitter claiming that my websitewww.twitlonger.comwasinfringing 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.
