Back in 2010 when it was easiest, Mike wrote Interesting piece Regarding Twitter’s trademark enforcement policy, and how to deal with third parties who use Twitter’s relevant terms to interact with Twitter. In short, Twitter has earned the reputation of freely licensing these terms for use by third parties, and believes that tools that make Twitter more useful are beneficial to the entire platform. This is a smart and efficient way to protect trademarks so as not to be generalized.
This is the part of what makes it a little weird Twitter seems to have adopted the opposite strategy When it involves completely unrelated business entities trying to use trademarks such as “tweet”.
On Friday, Twitter challenged applicant Puerto Rican B. Fernandez & Hnos at the Trademark Trial and Appeals Committee. The TWEET trademark application filed an opposition, claiming that if the applicant’s trademark is registered, it will be damaged.
Twitter points out that the messages on its platform are called tweets. These marks are used in conjunction with the aforementioned goods and services and other goods and services. Twitter argues that it has established extensive common law rights in the TWEET trademark and its goods and services, and that the TWEET trademark is distinctive.
Undoubtedly, thanks to Twitter’s platform, trademark and its own marketing, “tweet” became famous in one fell swoop. However, there are still problems that actual or potential customers are confused about specific uses, and related problems. that It’s B. Fernandez and Hnos. It is a manufacturer of bird food. In this case, the term “tweet” will not go back to Twitter at all, because it naturally coincides with the nature of the product in question.
For some reason, Twitter’s opponents seem to be the opposite.
Twitter claimed that the applicant seeks to register the TWEET trademark in the international Class 31, involving poultry food. However, Twitter stated that “consumers may associate the applicant’s TWEET trademark with Twitter and TWEET goods and services, and assume that there is an association between the applicant and Twitter. Twitter asserts that the applicant’s TWEET trademark is the same as its TWEET trademark and will “Advertising and/or selling on the same or similar commercial channels as Twitter’s services” and “contradicting Twitter’s legal use of the TWEET trademark exclusive rights” are related to Twitter’s goods and services nationwide.” Therefore , Twitter concluded that this similarity may cause consumers to confuse, mistake or deceive the source, source or sponsorship of the corresponding goods and services.
In other words, Twitter’s “tweet” is so famous that bird food brands that contain “tweet” will be seen as more associated with Twitter than with bird food. This is obviously absurd.
Therefore, we are left with another company that has performed well on a series of trademark issues, but at least in other areas a bit too aggressive.
More legal-related stories from Techdirt:
Federal legislators re-elect to end qualifying exemptions
Washington State also attacked Article 230 by hunting down Google’s political ads.
Another game developer DMCA’s own game has a dispute with the publisher