Exactly. Common sense helps. Avoid Twitter|Twit and/or violating terms of service. Blue, birds, fonts, etc, depends on context Microsoft doesn't sue for orange; Oracle doesn't sue for red. Orange is in the common domain. But if you use fonts, birds, colors, these, and so forth, such that you look like Twitter, that could tip the scales.
If you don't charge for money and follow TOS, Twitter probably wouldn't care about Twit; again, it's context. But that's my 2 cents. Can Microsoft control "soft"? No, it's software. Twit wouldn't mean anything without Twitter, but Twit is analogous to soft, and morphing things in a positive way is why spam exists in Cyberspace. On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Dale Merritt<mogul...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have been through something very similiar to this with a trademark dispute > I had with a major cable television network. I understand the dispute > process pretty well, as well as what you can or (not supposed to be able to) > and can't trademark. There is a window of opportunity that you have to > dispute it, which is after the mark has been approved for publication. The > only thing with the dispute is that you are going to spend some pretty good > money just to do that. What you may do is put together a package of > documents (Stone's post), and some hard proof, hopefully coming from Twitter > folks directly that admits that Tweet was coined by users, along with info > that shows screenshots of old twitter pages that show there is no indication > of the word tweet anywhere. > Turn in the package of docs to the examiner assigned to this trademark > application and make contact with them about it after you sent it registered > mail. This may save you tons of money. > > Tweet is generic, and there is no way that Tweet can't be seen as a form of > the mark Twitter. Twit, sure that's pretty staight forward, but tweet I > dont think so. > Good luck. -- Patrick Kennedy TweetAloha.com