4 ms·

I don't think so. You want to reference the statute? Domain name conflicts, have to go through a more proper administrative and legal process, for example. T

by mckoss 16y ago

I don't think so. You want to reference the statute? Domain name conflicts, have to go through a more proper administrative and legal process, for example. Twitter could chose to handle it like a domain name challenge, I believe.

Vivtek 16y ago
Do you want to reference the statute? Domain name conflicts are not addressed by any legal statute that I know of; it's simply been the policy of the registrars from the start because everybody knew it was going to be a problem. Twitter didn't have that foresight. The key is this: if this new organization GIRLGEEKS has a trademark, they have a trademark. What's Twitter's motivation to challenge that in court? None whatsoever. If the original @girlgeeks wants to challenge it, she's welcome to do so, but the point is that trademark law does exist, a trademark was granted (even though I think it probably shouldn't have been) and somebody has to foot the bill if it's going to be contested, and as much as I'd like to think it's the person with the money, even I don't think that's Twitter's obligation. Now, if it were me (and it was, for years, at Despammed.com), I'd say, sorry, that name is taken unless you get a court order, leaving the ball in the court where it should have been to start with. Twitter is obviously more craven than I am, but then I was very small and not concerned with paying a staff. The point is, if you want rights to a name, just using it on some free service is sadly not enough to get them, and complaining that a large organization is not being fair is no substitute, even if true.
- tomkarlo 16y ago
  Trademark law does not create a blanket right to use a name in all instances, or to the exclusive right to use a particular string of letters. It creates the right to exclusive use of a mark in a particular "class" of trade so long as you actually use that mark and also show that you have protected it against infringement. (This is also why they're a better system than domain names: it's much harder to "squat" on a trademark.) If the original user of the account was not competing with the organization holding the trademark, not pretending to be them, etc, then the fact they have a trademark is irrelevant. If you have a consulting company named "thisisourname" and I have a muffin bakery called "thisisourname", we can both have trademarks on that name without any conflict.
- mckoss 16y ago
  I dunno about the statute - you're the one who claimed there was a law requiring Twitter's behavior. You now seem to acknowledge that they DO NOT have to surrender account names merely because someone asserts a trademark claim. I was pointing out that the domain name process also does not require that a domain owner surrender a domain merely because someone asserts a trademark claim (I can use another's trademark, in cases where I make it clear I am not causing confusion in the market). I think we are in agreement about a better policy for Twitter; it should let users keep their account names unless required to transfer them via some legal process. I think it would be OK to show some sort of banner on a disputed account's home page, so that visitors are not confused about the true owner - but I don't think it should be just redistributing them.

by mckoss 16y ago

Vivtek 16y ago

Do you want to reference the statute? Domain name conflicts are not addressed by any legal statute that I know of; it's simply been the policy of the registrars from the start because everybody knew it was going to be a problem. Twitter didn't have that foresight. The key is this: if this new organization GIRLGEEKS has a trademark, they have a trademark. What's Twitter's motivation to challenge that in court? None whatsoever. If the original @girlgeeks wants to challenge it, she's welcome to do so, but the point is that trademark law does exist, a trademark was granted (even though I think it probably shouldn't have been) and somebody has to foot the bill if it's going to be contested, and as much as I'd like to think it's the person with the money, even I don't think that's Twitter's obligation. Now, if it were me (and it was, for years, at Despammed.com), I'd say, sorry, that name is taken unless you get a court order, leaving the ball in the court where it should have been to start with. Twitter is obviously more craven than I am, but then I was very small and not concerned with paying a staff. The point is, if you want rights to a name, just using it on some free service is sadly not enough to get them, and complaining that a large organization is not being fair is no substitute, even if true.

tomkarlo 16y ago
Trademark law does not create a blanket right to use a name in all instances, or to the exclusive right to use a particular string of letters. It creates the right to exclusive use of a mark in a particular "class" of trade so long as you actually use that mark and also show that you have protected it against infringement. (This is also why they're a better system than domain names: it's much harder to "squat" on a trademark.) If the original user of the account was not competing with the organization holding the trademark, not pretending to be them, etc, then the fact they have a trademark is irrelevant. If you have a consulting company named "thisisourname" and I have a muffin bakery called "thisisourname", we can both have trademarks on that name without any conflict.
mckoss 16y ago
I dunno about the statute - you're the one who claimed there was a law requiring Twitter's behavior. You now seem to acknowledge that they DO NOT have to surrender account names merely because someone asserts a trademark claim. I was pointing out that the domain name process also does not require that a domain owner surrender a domain merely because someone asserts a trademark claim (I can use another's trademark, in cases where I make it clear I am not causing confusion in the market). I think we are in agreement about a better policy for Twitter; it should let users keep their account names unless required to transfer them via some legal process. I think it would be OK to show some sort of banner on a disputed account's home page, so that visitors are not confused about the true owner - but I don't think it should be just redistributing them.