That's true. They're not asking you to drop the domain name or anything like that. I've seen MUCH nastier C & D letters issued. That one indicates to me that they actually do appreciate your service, but simply are trying to defend their brand.
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 18:04, Neil Ellis <[email protected]>wrote: > > Although I have to admit the actual wording from the lawyers is much > more polite than you often see :-) and the demands not unreasonable. > > > > On 14 Aug 2009, at 00:56, Neil Ellis wrote: > > Sorry everyone if this seems off topic, but understanding the legals of >> the >> API are as (actually more) important to me as understanding the tech. >> >> On 14 Aug 2009, at 00:44, Goblin wrote: >> >> >>> 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. >>> >>> >> I get the picture :-) and that seems to be the price of outsourcing the >> legals - i.e. the people enforcing in it have no personal stake in the >> community and relations. As you say later, clarification would be good. >> >> >> 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". >>> >> >> Yeah this really needs to get sorted out 'between' friends, legals stir >> up so much stuff and make people feel quite upset. Better to have a >> friendly - hey we're concerned about your site - from the Twitter team >> (even if it is a standard letter) first rather than lawyers first. >> >> >>> 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. >>> >> >> I suspect after the last huge thread some clarification will wind it's way >> down in the near future. It would seem to be wise, it's like finding out >> your best friend's sweet little 8 year old carries an Uzi in her lunch >> pack >> when a site as community friendly as Twitter starts launching C&Ds. >> >> >>> 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, >>> >> >> :-) I'm at that stage right now :-) Glad you got past it. Site looks very >> clean now. >> >> >> but you'd have to be pretty confused to think the >>> new one and the Twitter homepage are the same people. >>> >> >> Agreed! >> >> >>> On Aug 14, 12:28 am, Neil Ellis <[email protected]> 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. >>>>> >>>> >> > -- Internets. Serious business.
