This is good news. No one will be getting sued over Tweet then. Yet, keep in mind that Twitter probably *could * shut off access to the API to any company they choose, as its their playground and their rules. Not that they'll start doing that at all however.
On Aug 19, 1:57 pm, Sam Johnston <s...@samj.net> wrote: > [refer to the article itself for the inline links - @samj] > > Twitter's "Tweet" Trademark > Torpedoedhttp://samj.net/2009/08/twitters-tweet-trademark-torpedoed.html > > Last month Twitter founder Biz Stone announced in a blog post (May The > Tweets Be With You) that they "have applied to trademark Tweet because > it is clearly attached to Twitter from a brand perspective". This > understandably caused widespread upset as the word "tweet" has been > used generically by users for some time as well as in any number of > product names by independent software vendors. Here's some samples > from the resulting media storm: > > * CNET News: Is Twitter freaking out over 'tweet' trademark? > * TechExpert: Twitter Trying to Trademark "Tweet" > * LA Times: Will Twitter trademark 'tweet' before it’s > genericized? > * PC Magazine: Twitter Trying to Trademark 'Tweet' > * TechCrunch: Twitter Grows “Uncomfortable” With The Use Of The > Word Tweet In Applications > * TechCrunch: Twitter To Developers: “Tweet” Your Heart Out, But > Don’t “Twitter” It > * Bloomberg: Twitter Lays Claim to ‘Tweet’ Trademark in Bid to > Protect Brand > > What they failed to mention though was that according to USPTO records > (#77715815) not only had they actually applied some months before (on > 16 April 2009) but that their application had been refused that very > same day (1 July 2009). > > According to documents from the Trademark Document Retrieval system, > their lawyers (Fenwick & West LLP) were notified of the rejection by > email to tradema...@fenwick.com that day. The USPTO had explained that > "marks in prior-filed pending applications may present a bar to > registration of applicant’s mark. [...] If the marks in the referenced > applications register, applicant’s mark may be refused registration > under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion > between the two marks", referencing and attaching not one, not two but > three separate trademark applications: > > * #77695071 for TWEETMARKS (pending receipt of Statement of Use) > * #77697186 for COTWEET (pending clarification) > * #77701645 for TWEETPHOTO (pending transfer to Supplemental > Register) > > Now I may not be a lawyer (I did play a role in overturning Dell's > "cloud computing" and Psion's "Netbook" trademarks) but given all > three of the marks identified look like proceeding to registration (it > only takes one to rain on their parade), it's my non-expert opinion > that Twitter has a snowflake's chance in hell of securing a monopoly > over the word "Tweet". > > That's too bad for Twitter but it's great news for the rest of the > community as it's one less tool for locking in Twitter's rapidly > growing microblogging monopoly. People do use the word "tweet" > generically (including with non-Twitter services) and if Twitter, Inc. > were successful in removing it from the public lexicon then we could > all suffer in the long run. > > In any case it is neither serious nor safe for one company to become > the "pulse of the planet" and that is why I will be following up with > a series of posts as to how distributed social networking can be made > a reality through open standards (if that stuff is of interest to you > then subscribe and/or follow me for updates). I've also got some > interesting things in the pipeline in relation to standards and > trademarks in general so watch this space. > > Anyway it just goes to show that with trademarks you need to "use it > or lose it". The "propagation delay" of the media has dropped from > months at the outset to near real-time today so companies need to move > fast to protect their marks or lose them forever. As for whether the 1 > July post was a scramble to protect the mark on receipt of the USPTO's > denial, whether the USPTO was acting in response to it, or whether it > was just a coincidence and particularly bad timing I don't know. I > don't really care either as the result is the same, but I would like > to believe that the USPTO is becoming more responsive to the needs of > the community (after all, they revoked Dell's cloud computing > trademark in the days following the uproar, despite having already > issued a "Notice of Allowance" offering it to them).
