The battle in question centers on the word ?tweet?.? It is interesting to consider, from a linguistic standpoint, whether or not a word that is in the dictionary, but whose meaning has changed in the popular lexicon, should be allowed to be trademarked in the first place, especially considering it is not actually the name of either of the companies looking to gain exclusive legal rights to its use in advertising.? But the point is moot, interesting or not, because ?tweet? has in fact been trademarked ? but not by who you think.? Twitter apparently arrived a little late to the powwow, because Twittad (amongst others) has already trademarked a slogan that includes the word ?tweet?.
Third-party develop Twittad provides extended services for Twitter users by which sponsored advertising can be used to promote a brand via tweets, which no doubt led to their offending slogan, ?Let Your Ad Meet Tweets?.? Twitter, it seems, is tired of allowing others to profit from the words associated with their service, ?tweet? in particular.? Although they have not exactly stopped third-party software developers from using the word in the past, they seem to have become distressed over its rampant use in recent months, making their displeasure known by entering into disputes with companies that use the word ?tweet? in their advertising (even if they have the legal right to do so because of a prior trademark).? In short, big brother Twitter is trying to strong-arm third-party contributors to their service into submitting, mainly by making a big stink and cancelling their Twitter accounts (@Twittad has gone the way of the dodo).
Twittad, however, is not backing down.? For one thing, Twitter does not have a trademark for the word ?tweet?, nor are they likely to receive exclusive rights.? The word is too common to be trademarked on its own, which is why so many companies have had to trademark it as part of a slogan rather than a stand-alone word.? Twittad has held its trademark on the word in question since 2008, which was before the word ?tweet? became widely associated with Twitter?s service.? So the company doesn?t see why they should give up their rights to their slogan just because Twitter came on the scene and commandeered one of the words therein.
Twitter, for their part, allegedly requested that Twittad turn over their trademark rights to Twitter, which Twittad declined to do.? Hence, the lawsuit.? Twitter?s complaint reads as follows: they claim that Twittad ?unfairly exploits the widespread association by consuming public of the mark ?tweet? with Twitter, and threatens to block Twitter from its registration and legitimate uses of its own mark?.? However, there doesn?t seem to be any evidence that Twittad is trying to stop Twitter from using the word ?tweet? ? in fact, that?s what Twitter seems to be doing to everyone else by filing for trademarks in both the U.S. and Europe (although it has failed to acquire them thus far on both counts).
The real question is whether or not Twitter should be allowed to pursue this course of action.? While they may ?deserve? the trademark more than third parties simply because it is associated with their service, their feelings of entitlement on the matter really don?t enter into it.? The question of trademarking is a legal one, and Twitter simply cannot stop a company that legally owns a trademark from using it, especially since the trademark preceded their own attempts to gain it.? They can, however, hold the company up in costly legislation until they relent, a tactic that is underhanded, to be sure, but will probably work nonetheless.
Sarah Danielson is a writer for Borghese Legal, which is a Las Vegas Business Attorney. It focuses on transactional law and intellectual property.
This article was written by a guest author. Would you like to submit a guest blog post?
Source: http://www.legalbugle.com/twitter-in-trademark-tweet-battle
quarantine quarantine frederick douglass john john span span
No comments:
Post a Comment