Well, probably it`s the best solution and the right one.
MichaelApproved
· 3 months ago
Just because they managed to GET the trademark on Twitter doesn't mean they'll be able to keep it. Much like a patent, trademarks can be challenged.
Even worse than a patent, trademarks must actively defend against improper use. I think having so many companies out there with Twitter in their name makes it difficult to defend Twitter as a trademark.
it surprises me that such an informal, almost baby-language word as Tweet has been adopted so readily in the language. Its as though the world had suddenly become much less stiff and formal. Like getting rid of collars and ties.
Doug Champigny
· 3 months ago
What? What government was so stupid as to pretend Twitter could trademark the word twitter when it was in dictionaries long before the web was born? What's next, trademarking the word money and demanding all governments turn it all over to them and stop using the term?
This assault on the English language has to stop - no intelligent being would allow an existing word in common usage to be trademarked. Seems any fool can open a dictionary, pick a word at random and trademark it in the US - perhaps other countries should stop honouring any US trademarks until this nonsense stops!
MichaelApproved
· 3 months ago
You're not understanding the way trademarks work. While Apple Computer can trademark the word "Apple" it's important to note it's context. The way the word is used is part of the trademark. You must describe the context of the word you're trademarking and then you are protected for that context ONLY.
Apple can't go around suing farmers because they have the word Apple trademarked BUT they can sue and stop another company if they create computers with the name Apple.
Take a moment and relax, it's all about context.
Doug Champigny
· 3 months ago
I would relax, Michael, except I received an e-mail from their lawyers today demanding I turn over my domains containing the word twitter, which I use to promote the Advanced Twitter Marketing book I wrote. If how-to guides are prevented from using a product's name, what then happens to the How-To publishing industry?
Oh, and they also discuss "our client's trademarks, including TWITTER and TWEET.' Still think they're playing by the rules?
catchmikey
· 3 months ago
I think these series of comments demonstrate how cloudy the IP area is. It's very tough to understand when, how and if companies can trademark their name or action.
Twitter is interesting because it's a common word or verb referring to "giving a call", but the company (Twitter) has given this word new meaning by literally "calling" on the web. Does Twitter have a case? It might, but I think this would draw negative attention and worsen their public standing...maybe they should avoid this?
They can ask all they want, it doesn't mean that you have to turn it over. Admittedly, the problem with that is you have to be willing to fight which will cost time and money.
The question is, are *you* playing by the rules? I'm willing to bet that your website is doing something else that they don't like. Maybe you have an autofollow bot or something that they've shown in the past they want to actively stop.
samj
· 3 months ago
Doug,
Indeed it is unfair that Twitter have allowed rampant abuse of their trademark and are now taking action when it's too late for others to change. Fortunately for you your book isn't dependent on Twitter accounts or APIs - otherwise they could just turn you off like they did for @retweet (though not necessary in compliance with their own terms of service).
IANAL but you may be well advised to stand your ground in this instance, and in any case your book is in a different class and simply references Twitter - imagine if it were not possible to write books about Ferraris for example, or Microsoft software?
Sam
samj
· 3 months ago
Twitter has more to worry about than "Tweet" - as Michael astutely pointed out below the Twitter trademark itself looks to be on very shaky grounds and their behaviour around it doesn't help one bit.
CSM
· 3 months ago
The difference between the words google, twitter and tweet is that the first of those words was made up by the company and did not appear in the dictionary. Twitter and tweet are English words that precede the company by several centuries.
I am reminded of the use of the word Kleenex to denote any brand of facial tissue. In my home, Kleenex denoted tissues both brand name and generic. Many people use Aspirin the same way.
That Twitter has trademarked an existing word is interesting. That there is any consideration of allowing the trademarking of a common English verb is ridiculous.
Batman
· 3 months ago
I don't know what dictionary you're using, but google has been a word denoting 10^100 since at least 1972, when I first heard it in Mr. Hyland's math class....
Dr Nick
· 3 months ago
Ah, that was where it came from, but that's spelt 'googol'...
Batman
· 3 months ago
Well, that was 37 years ago, so, I'll bow to your superior knowledge.... You may be right, but at this point, it doesn't matter....
Dr Nick
· 3 months ago
Er, actually google *is* in the Oxford English Dictionary, with first citation from 1907, as a verb relating to the ability to bowl a 'googly' in cricket (for US readers, a blindsider: pitching overarm to bounce with spin in one direction when appearing to spin the other).
Batman
· 3 months ago
Yes, the intellectual property door swings both ways, again!!!
Jessica
· 3 months ago
Good one Stan. I think Twitter is going too far with this trademark thing. Tweet as word has been used for several years before Twitter even came into existence. http://savvysponds.co.uk
Mike Dammann
· 3 months ago
very smart decision IMO. Looking at how much power the USPTO has awarded the national association of realtors at one point.
Liz
· 3 months ago
Good! Soon, Twitter will go the way of Xerox & Kleenex, just become a generic way to describe some forms of communication. I can see where they'd like to trademark their company name but they shouldn't be able to control the use of common words. Just imagine if AT&T owned the rights to "telephone" or "phone"!
iHouse
· 3 months ago
I was always been fascinated by the IP laws, though never understood how they really work. I think Twitter should obtain the rights to register the word "tweet" as their trademark, because it was they who really promoted this word.
So far as I can tell Twitter were NOT the ones who "really promoted this word" - the grassroots community and media did and until very recently Twitter used the term "updates" and distanced themselves from the term "tweet". The real question now is not whether they get to have "tweet" (it was never theirs to trademark) but whether they get to keep "Twitter".
Sam
iHouse
· 3 months ago
But "Twitter" is already registered by Twitter, right?
samj
· 3 months ago
Yes, just recently (in May), but that doesn't make it enforceable. More on that point soon...
Sean Boone
· 3 months ago
What's your opinion then for the term "retweet" being trademarked?
samj
· 3 months ago
"retweet" is not trademarked but it would be covered by a successful trademark of "tweet" anyway.
Paul_Cometos
· 3 months ago
I want to trademark a word "GO". Where must I apply?
John Trademarker
Hostwisely
· 3 months ago
There are many languages had been adopted by the people, I think that it really depends on how they choose this,but how could this happen if they already have twitter as a trademark??
jb
· 3 months ago
Just to clarify, the PTO records merely indicate "A non-final action has been mailed. This is a letter from the examining attorney requesting additional information and/or making an initial refusal. However, no final determination as to the registrability of the mark has been made" It's not unusual for a trademark application to initially get refused, although they still may face problems. So they still may get a registered trademark.
Also, tweet was previously known word (as was Apple and many other powerful trademarks). In fact, there are several registered trademarks for "tweet", but for different products/services. Twitter also filed for "retweet". You can take a known word and brand it for a particular product or service. You are not removing that word from public use. Instead, you are excluding others from using that mark on confusing similar products/services (e.g., Apple can exclude other electronics manufacturers from using "Apple", but not the farmer or pie maker or shampoo manufacturer, etc.).
Also, Google has several registered trademarks.
Finally, a trademark owner can try to revive a trademark that has gone "generic". I think "Jeep" spent a lot of money the past decade trying to rebrand and recapture Jeep as a trademark.
Twilightred
· 3 months ago
It's much more important for them to own the trademark on "Twitter" than "Tweet". I can see the former helping them challenge shady webservices trying to pass themselves off as the real thing, while the latter could potentially stifle the growth of apps and services enhancing the service.
some people can't live without updating their tweet.. tweet is a mark of get together again or a simple friendly approach ..
lancer
· 3 months ago
some people can't live without updating their tweet.. tweet is a mark of get together again or a simple friendly approach ..
danielle
· 3 months ago
so, uh, what are birds who talk to each other doing now? I hate to think that word is forever associated with banal non-thoughts instead of lovely chirping.
Lauren Sheet
· 3 months ago
Blog is ill informed. A likelihood of confusion office action can easily be overcome (not to mention the mark was filed in a different class of goods. services than conflicting marks – and we could have another whole conversation on dilution of famous maeks). It is a non-final action and the company has until January 1, 2010 to respond to it. Nothing to see here, move along.
Michael
· 3 months ago
I'm pretty sure that Tweet, Tweeps, Twitterati and most of the rest of Twitter's Twittacular vernacular came from users. So, from a legal standpoint (I'm not a lawyer) and a perception standpoint, it'd be bad form for them to trademark phrases created by Twitter's loyal users. As far as trademarking the word Twitter, I here by trademark the words "Internet", "Enterprise", "Love", and "Me".
Gaby
· 3 months ago
Google don't like "google" being used as a verb though. Which is kind of odd really, because I know from a chat room I moderate that many people use "googling" to mean "do a search" and then they end up using Google anyway. Ie they want to look something up and someone instantly says "google it" rather than "yeah, let's look that up somewhere"
I do hope Twitter don't start going after businesses for using "tweet" because there are a lot out there using it. Still, it Twitter get "tweet" trademarked they will be able to use it to take down annoying twitter apps.
Michael
· 3 months ago
I was at an entrepreneurs round table last night discussing Google not wanting "google" to be a verb. Funny thing is all the marketing effort they spent trying to get people to do just that.
Lauren Sheet
· 3 months ago
Michael, there are currently 4735 "internet", 4146 "enterprise", 9324 "love", and 7705 "me" live trademarks on file witht he US Patent & Trademark Office.
Michael
· 3 months ago
So how much does a trademark in Internet mean if it has been trademarked that many times. How can that be defensible even within the same industry?
Lauren Sheet
· 3 months ago
Different goods & services; different words used in conjuction with "internet" within the mark, etc. Not uncommon to have multiple marks with the same wording on different products as long as the consumer would not assume they were from the same source.
tanacea
· 3 months ago
tweet
Kyocera Cartridges
· 3 months ago
At least they manage to choose the right decision. Not bad at all!
All Comments
Even worse than a patent, trademarks must actively defend against improper use. I think having so many companies out there with Twitter in their name makes it difficult to defend Twitter as a trademark.
Just have a look at http://TwitterVampire.com
This assault on the English language has to stop - no intelligent being would allow an existing word in common usage to be trademarked. Seems any fool can open a dictionary, pick a word at random and trademark it in the US - perhaps other countries should stop honouring any US trademarks until this nonsense stops!
Apple can't go around suing farmers because they have the word Apple trademarked BUT they can sue and stop another company if they create computers with the name Apple.
Take a moment and relax, it's all about context.
Oh, and they also discuss "our client's trademarks, including TWITTER and TWEET.' Still think they're playing by the rules?
Twitter is interesting because it's a common word or verb referring to "giving a call", but the company (Twitter) has given this word new meaning by literally "calling" on the web. Does Twitter have a case? It might, but I think this would draw negative attention and worsen their public standing...maybe they should avoid this?
While studying IP, I used the WIPO site because it has some great content that I could actually follow: http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/multimedia/
The question is, are *you* playing by the rules? I'm willing to bet that your website is doing something else that they don't like. Maybe you have an autofollow bot or something that they've shown in the past they want to actively stop.
Indeed it is unfair that Twitter have allowed rampant abuse of their trademark and are now taking action when it's too late for others to change. Fortunately for you your book isn't dependent on Twitter accounts or APIs - otherwise they could just turn you off like they did for @retweet (though not necessary in compliance with their own terms of service).
IANAL but you may be well advised to stand your ground in this instance, and in any case your book is in a different class and simply references Twitter - imagine if it were not possible to write books about Ferraris for example, or Microsoft software?
Sam
I am reminded of the use of the word Kleenex to denote any brand of facial tissue. In my home, Kleenex denoted tissues both brand name and generic. Many people use Aspirin the same way.
That Twitter has trademarked an existing word is interesting. That there is any consideration of allowing the trademarking of a common English verb is ridiculous.
http://savvysponds.co.uk
http://trustler.com
Sam
John Trademarker
Also, tweet was previously known word (as was Apple and many other powerful trademarks). In fact, there are several registered trademarks for "tweet", but for different products/services. Twitter also filed for "retweet". You can take a known word and brand it for a particular product or service. You are not removing that word from public use. Instead, you are excluding others from using that mark on confusing similar products/services (e.g., Apple can exclude other electronics manufacturers from using "Apple", but not the farmer or pie maker or shampoo manufacturer, etc.).
Also, Google has several registered trademarks.
Finally, a trademark owner can try to revive a trademark that has gone "generic". I think "Jeep" spent a lot of money the past decade trying to rebrand and recapture Jeep as a trademark.
As far as trademarking the word Twitter, I here by trademark the words "Internet", "Enterprise", "Love", and "Me".
I do hope Twitter don't start going after businesses for using "tweet" because there are a lot out there using it. Still, it Twitter get "tweet" trademarked they will be able to use it to take down annoying twitter apps.