3 ms·
Twitter is not a neologism, but a word in the english dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/twitter https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
by growt 3y ago
Twitter is not a neologism, but a word in the english dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/twitter https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/twitter ("to utter successive chirping noises"). As is tweet: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tweet https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tweet ("a chirping note").
My knowledge of trademark law is limited, but I guess if someone would like to sell "Twitter"-sausages, they would have to apply for that trademark in the respective category and it could be anyone, as the-company-formerly-known-as-twitter propably doesn't have the trademark for food?
- pclmulqdq 3y agoAs I understand it, some brands are strong enough and globally-applicable enough that you can't use them regardless of what you're trading in. If you were to sell "Nike sausages," I'm pretty sure you would get sued and lose in court. Other times, the brand is more limited and you can get away with re-using it.
- Fomite 3y agoNot sausage, but I'd put money on there being at least one "Nike" greek restaurant out there.
- accoil 3y agoSure, but twitter is a word that doesn't have any other meaning in other languages, and certainly no mythology behind it.
- jarfil 3y agoIt's both. Trademark law requires registering for a series of categories where a product seeks protection, with each category being relatively specific. At the same time, suing someone for Trademark infringement requires a judge to decide whether it could "potentially induce confusion in the user". Could an app be confused for a sausage? Could it be confused for a sneaker?... I'd say not, but I'm no judge!
- rprospero 3y agoAs a slight counterpoint, Bells Labs was selling Nike Missiles before the shoe company ever existed. I imagine that they’d be in a good place legally to continue that brand name.