6 ms·

Or maybe, you know, nobody knew about this guy's sense of the string "futurestack" and New Relic's marketing people brainstormed for a good conference name (inc

by tedchs 12y ago

Or maybe, you know, nobody knew about this guy's sense of the string "futurestack" and New Relic's marketing people brainstormed for a good conference name (increasingly difficult) and just went with it. You do not have exclusive, global, all-contextual moral rights to the string you happened to choose as your usual internet handle.

toomuchtodo 12y ago
> You do not have exclusive, global, all-contextual moral rights to the string you happened to choose as your usual internet handle. Unless you've trademarked it, which you should probably due to prevent people who are terrible at their marketing job from absconding with something you value. A trademark application is something like $275.
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  Trademarks are heavily contextual, so still nope.
  - paulgb 12y ago
    Especially when they're made up of two common English words.
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    Are you kidding me? It's in the same damn market/space! Its not like someone is promoting Futurestack bouncy houses or lawn furniture.
    - Dylan16807 12y ago
      The same damn market/space as conferences? That's quite a stretch, no matter what the conference is about.
      - 67726e 12y ago
        A developer claiming trademark over a developer conference. It's funny how things can be interpreted to fit one's will.
      - toomuchtodo 12y ago
        A "tech" conference is still in the tech/development sector. Because its a conference doesn't suddenly thrust it into another market.
- Perdition 12y ago
  A trademark is exactly what it sounds like, a mark that is used in trade. It has to be in specific markets, and you use it or you lose it. As this guy doesn't run a tech conference he has zero chance of defending that TM. A guy named Joe Blogs similarly has zero chance of stopping "Joe Blogs(14)" the conference
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    Ahh, good. I'll register Rackspace as my tech conference, because that's a totally separate industry than Rackspace the infrastructure provider.
    - gamblor956 12y ago
      It is a totally separate industry. One Rackspace would be in the industry of technology; the other in the industry of hosting conferences. The likelihood for confusion arising from the conference having technology-related subject matter is merely a factor in determining whether the conference would violate Rackspace's trademark. It's very likely that a trademark violation would be found, but it's still possible that a violation wouldn't be found. Note also that Rackspace only trademarked "Rackspace," so "RackSpace," "Rack Space," and "Rack-Space" are separate marks a tech conference could use those without infringing upon Rackspace's trademark.
      - ghaff 12y ago
        Yes, but tech companies (among others) also run conferences specifically for their users. I suspect Rackspace would take action if you wanted to run the "Rackspace Summit" or something along those lines because people would reasonably assume that such an event was associated with the company in some way. (Companies do often allow quasi-independent organizations to run quasi-associated conferences but this is usually a deliberate decision.)
        gamblor956 12y ago
        I was primarily responding to the comment that they were not separate industries, and supplying an example of similar marks that were not actually trademarked by Rackspace and thus open to potential use even by those in the technology industry. Legally, technology and conferences are entirely separate industries with very different business, legal, and tax considerations. A technology company that makes software for conferences is not in the conference industry; a conference with technology subject matter is not in any of the technology industries. This may be splitting hairs, but the law is always a matter of splitting hairs.
- x1798DE 12y ago
  I'm not a lawyer, but I'm fairly certain that trademarks are not all-contextual, as trademark infringement requires likelihood of confusion. It's certainly possible that there's enough likelihood of confusion here, because it's a web dev conference and the guy is some kind of web dev, but it's certainly not all-contextual. Also, trademark creates a legal right. Whether that creates a moral right likely depends on your take on moral philosophy.
  - yeldarb 12y ago
    There is more than a likelihood of confusion. He showed several examples of _actual_ confusion in the marketplace in his blog post.
    - Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
      As someone who shares a name with a famous person where I have the obvious Twitter username, I'd suggest that this isn't confusion, it's people not understanding Twitter. My photo is me, by bio describes me and expressly says I'm not the musician (and gives their actual username) and yet I get mentions all the time. That's people not understanding, not caring or not bothering but it's not really confusion about our two identities.
    - Dylan16807 12y ago
      Confusion on what twitter handle to use is not marketplace confusion. You can have one twitter in the paper bag industry and another in deep-space fishing and you'll find people tweeting to the wrong ones. People make a guess as to a likely address and don't check.
    - rahimnathwani 12y ago
      The confusion is in the opposite direction to that protected by trademark law. He's not losing customers/whoever because they're going to the FutureStack conference by accident, when they were intending to go to his house.
riffraff 12y ago
but surely checking if the name is taken on twitter and whether someone owns name.com is a decent point to consider in the brainstorming?
- unreal37 12y ago
  It's ideal to get those, but for a good name it's not always required.
- Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
  Given that they registered futurestack.io it seems almost certain they did check this. .io is nice and quirky and all but if .com was available you can be fairly sure they'd have gone for that either instead of or as well as the .io domain.
- eli 12y ago
  I challenge you to come up with a plausible name for a conference series that has an available twitter handle and dot-com domain.
  - clockwerx 12y ago
    https://twitter.com/namechallenge https://twitter.com/namechallenge http://namechallenge.com/ http://namechallenge.com/ I'd go to NameChallengeConf!
    - eli 12y ago
      Damn. OK, you win.
anExcitedBeast 12y ago
Having his twitter account suspended is way out of bounds. Shame on them if they were involved.
- blhack 12y ago
  He literally tried to fake being this conference to steal some of their followers and redirect them to his blog post. That's pretty uncool.
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    Where is faking being the conference? Starting your own conference with blackjack and hookers is not the same thing. Every quoted tweet makes it clear that he's not the conference. Are there other tweets you're looking at?
    - CanSpice 12y ago
      Read the post: > My latest strategy was to pretend to be them on twitter to get some of their followers
      - Dylan16807 12y ago
        I read that a bit more tongue in cheek. 'pretend' in a parody way rather than convincing, considering the picture adjacent to that sentence.
- ayrx 12y ago
  He started to impersonate the conference. Having his account suspended is fair game.
  - perlpimp 12y ago
    Never new free speech was optional. Since times of the middle ages were hectoring kinds with various success.
Fuxy 12y ago
No but suspending someones twitter handle because you accidentally named a conference after their online identity is still a dick move. How hard is it to goggle something before you name a conference after it.
- chiph 12y ago
  He started changing his account to look like theirs. So as far as the Twitter rep knew, he was infringing.
  - Fuxy 12y ago
    Parody is not really impersonation and Future Snack =/= Future Stack =/= Future Shack etc. If they have a problem with it they shouldn't have named the conference after his identity to begin with. It's first come first serve in my book and he definitely got the domain to prove it. Isn't it like branding/marketing 101 get the twitter handle, get the domain, etc?
    - RubyPinch 12y ago
      fair use (parody relevance) only comes into play if it starts getting treated as a legal thing additionally it was more than enough for someone to mistake that account as the conference account at a glance http://futurestack.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Screen-shot-2014-07-23-at-11.04.00-PM.png http://futurestack.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Scree... from this you can see at the time he was using the FutureStack image itself (the line just below the logo is from the original, not his edit), so presumably at the time he got suspended, he was using the original FS logo
      - x1798DE 12y ago
        I think that's definitely his mock logo, not the original. The original logo is anti-aliased and thin, not in that blocky 8-bit style. You can also see the squared-off "NeoFossil" logo above, not the rounded New Relic logo. I think he probably cut it out of a different mock splash page he made that had a line starting with "changing..."
guelo 12y ago
Bullshit. These dipshits looked up the .com and the twitter handle, they knew exactly who he was and decided to screw him.
dreamfactory2 12y ago
Checking for existing trademarks is basic due diligence if you are buying a domain. It is pretty much unusable if someone else has trademarked it.
- tlrobinson 12y ago
  Did this guy actually register FutureStack as a trademark? His post doesn't even mention the word "trademark", so I'm guessing no.
bato 12y ago
Surely doing a lookup for <potential name>.com would be a good first step?
BrandingGuy 12y ago
I hope this kid learns from his mistakes. Clearly he has zero clue how things work. He also claims FutureStack.io stole his identity. I don't see it. A name isn't an identity. He doesn't own rights to the name. If he had a trademark or a copyright to the name then he could do something only if he was in the same space as FutureStack.io is in. Twitter doesn't play around when it comes to this type of stuff. Typically what happens when thinking of a name. You check to see if the .com is available. Then you run a trademark check. If the trademark comes back clean you then have to decide if you need the .com. and if it's needed you would reach out to the .com owner and attempt to purchase the domain. If not you can use .org, .net, .co, .io. That is why if you want full rights to a name you're using you need to purchase all domains and trademark and copyright your shit. If not, don't cry when someone uses it. He should also talk to a lawyer and stop posting negative things about New Relic. He will dig himself deeper in shit.

by tedchs 12y ago

toomuchtodo 12y ago

> You do not have exclusive, global, all-contextual moral rights to the string you happened to choose as your usual internet handle. Unless you've trademarked it, which you should probably due to prevent people who are terrible at their marketing job from absconding with something you value. A trademark application is something like $275.

Dylan16807 12y ago
Trademarks are heavily contextual, so still nope.
- paulgb 12y ago
  Especially when they're made up of two common English words.
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  Are you kidding me? It's in the same damn market/space! Its not like someone is promoting Futurestack bouncy houses or lawn furniture.
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    The same damn market/space as conferences? That's quite a stretch, no matter what the conference is about.
    - 67726e 12y ago
      A developer claiming trademark over a developer conference. It's funny how things can be interpreted to fit one's will.
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      A "tech" conference is still in the tech/development sector. Because its a conference doesn't suddenly thrust it into another market.
Perdition 12y ago
A trademark is exactly what it sounds like, a mark that is used in trade. It has to be in specific markets, and you use it or you lose it. As this guy doesn't run a tech conference he has zero chance of defending that TM. A guy named Joe Blogs similarly has zero chance of stopping "Joe Blogs(14)" the conference
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  Ahh, good. I'll register Rackspace as my tech conference, because that's a totally separate industry than Rackspace the infrastructure provider.
  - gamblor956 12y ago
    It is a totally separate industry. One Rackspace would be in the industry of technology; the other in the industry of hosting conferences. The likelihood for confusion arising from the conference having technology-related subject matter is merely a factor in determining whether the conference would violate Rackspace's trademark. It's very likely that a trademark violation would be found, but it's still possible that a violation wouldn't be found. Note also that Rackspace only trademarked "Rackspace," so "RackSpace," "Rack Space," and "Rack-Space" are separate marks a tech conference could use those without infringing upon Rackspace's trademark.
    - ghaff 12y ago
      Yes, but tech companies (among others) also run conferences specifically for their users. I suspect Rackspace would take action if you wanted to run the "Rackspace Summit" or something along those lines because people would reasonably assume that such an event was associated with the company in some way. (Companies do often allow quasi-independent organizations to run quasi-associated conferences but this is usually a deliberate decision.)
      - gamblor956 12y ago
        I was primarily responding to the comment that they were not separate industries, and supplying an example of similar marks that were not actually trademarked by Rackspace and thus open to potential use even by those in the technology industry. Legally, technology and conferences are entirely separate industries with very different business, legal, and tax considerations. A technology company that makes software for conferences is not in the conference industry; a conference with technology subject matter is not in any of the technology industries. This may be splitting hairs, but the law is always a matter of splitting hairs.
x1798DE 12y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm fairly certain that trademarks are not all-contextual, as trademark infringement requires likelihood of confusion. It's certainly possible that there's enough likelihood of confusion here, because it's a web dev conference and the guy is some kind of web dev, but it's certainly not all-contextual. Also, trademark creates a legal right. Whether that creates a moral right likely depends on your take on moral philosophy.
- yeldarb 12y ago
  There is more than a likelihood of confusion. He showed several examples of _actual_ confusion in the marketplace in his blog post.
  - Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
    As someone who shares a name with a famous person where I have the obvious Twitter username, I'd suggest that this isn't confusion, it's people not understanding Twitter. My photo is me, by bio describes me and expressly says I'm not the musician (and gives their actual username) and yet I get mentions all the time. That's people not understanding, not caring or not bothering but it's not really confusion about our two identities.
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    Confusion on what twitter handle to use is not marketplace confusion. You can have one twitter in the paper bag industry and another in deep-space fishing and you'll find people tweeting to the wrong ones. People make a guess as to a likely address and don't check.
  - rahimnathwani 12y ago
    The confusion is in the opposite direction to that protected by trademark law. He's not losing customers/whoever because they're going to the FutureStack conference by accident, when they were intending to go to his house.

riffraff 12y ago

but surely checking if the name is taken on twitter and whether someone owns name.com is a decent point to consider in the brainstorming?

unreal37 12y ago
It's ideal to get those, but for a good name it's not always required.
Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
Given that they registered futurestack.io it seems almost certain they did check this. .io is nice and quirky and all but if .com was available you can be fairly sure they'd have gone for that either instead of or as well as the .io domain.
eli 12y ago
I challenge you to come up with a plausible name for a conference series that has an available twitter handle and dot-com domain.
- clockwerx 12y ago
  https://twitter.com/namechallenge https://twitter.com/namechallenge http://namechallenge.com/ http://namechallenge.com/ I'd go to NameChallengeConf!
  - eli 12y ago
    Damn. OK, you win.

anExcitedBeast 12y ago

Having his twitter account suspended is way out of bounds. Shame on them if they were involved.

blhack 12y ago
He literally tried to fake being this conference to steal some of their followers and redirect them to his blog post. That's pretty uncool.
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  Where is faking being the conference? Starting your own conference with blackjack and hookers is not the same thing. Every quoted tweet makes it clear that he's not the conference. Are there other tweets you're looking at?
  - CanSpice 12y ago
    Read the post: > My latest strategy was to pretend to be them on twitter to get some of their followers
    - Dylan16807 12y ago
      I read that a bit more tongue in cheek. 'pretend' in a parody way rather than convincing, considering the picture adjacent to that sentence.
ayrx 12y ago
He started to impersonate the conference. Having his account suspended is fair game.
- perlpimp 12y ago
  Never new free speech was optional. Since times of the middle ages were hectoring kinds with various success.

Fuxy 12y ago

No but suspending someones twitter handle because you accidentally named a conference after their online identity is still a dick move. How hard is it to goggle something before you name a conference after it.

chiph 12y ago
He started changing his account to look like theirs. So as far as the Twitter rep knew, he was infringing.
- Fuxy 12y ago
  Parody is not really impersonation and Future Snack =/= Future Stack =/= Future Shack etc. If they have a problem with it they shouldn't have named the conference after his identity to begin with. It's first come first serve in my book and he definitely got the domain to prove it. Isn't it like branding/marketing 101 get the twitter handle, get the domain, etc?
  - RubyPinch 12y ago
    fair use (parody relevance) only comes into play if it starts getting treated as a legal thing additionally it was more than enough for someone to mistake that account as the conference account at a glance http://futurestack.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Screen-shot-2014-07-23-at-11.04.00-PM.png http://futurestack.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Scree... from this you can see at the time he was using the FutureStack image itself (the line just below the logo is from the original, not his edit), so presumably at the time he got suspended, he was using the original FS logo
    - x1798DE 12y ago
      I think that's definitely his mock logo, not the original. The original logo is anti-aliased and thin, not in that blocky 8-bit style. You can also see the squared-off "NeoFossil" logo above, not the rounded New Relic logo. I think he probably cut it out of a different mock splash page he made that had a line starting with "changing..."

guelo 12y ago

Bullshit. These dipshits looked up the .com and the twitter handle, they knew exactly who he was and decided to screw him.

dreamfactory2 12y ago

Checking for existing trademarks is basic due diligence if you are buying a domain. It is pretty much unusable if someone else has trademarked it.

tlrobinson 12y ago
Did this guy actually register FutureStack as a trademark? His post doesn't even mention the word "trademark", so I'm guessing no.

bato 12y ago

Surely doing a lookup for <potential name>.com would be a good first step?

BrandingGuy 12y ago

I hope this kid learns from his mistakes. Clearly he has zero clue how things work. He also claims FutureStack.io stole his identity. I don't see it. A name isn't an identity. He doesn't own rights to the name. If he had a trademark or a copyright to the name then he could do something only if he was in the same space as FutureStack.io is in. Twitter doesn't play around when it comes to this type of stuff. Typically what happens when thinking of a name. You check to see if the .com is available. Then you run a trademark check. If the trademark comes back clean you then have to decide if you need the .com. and if it's needed you would reach out to the .com owner and attempt to purchase the domain. If not you can use .org, .net, .co, .io. That is why if you want full rights to a name you're using you need to purchase all domains and trademark and copyright your shit. If not, don't cry when someone uses it. He should also talk to a lawyer and stop posting negative things about New Relic. He will dig himself deeper in shit.