4 ms·
>>> My thoughts exactly. Why is the trademark so important to them? Because it would protect them from Twitter going after them for infringement on Twitter's t
by at-fates-hands 12y ago
>>> My thoughts exactly. Why is the trademark so important to them?
Because it would protect them from Twitter going after them for infringement on Twitter's trademarks. I'm sure Twitter knew they had no argument for the "Likelihood of Confusion" Test and TwitPic would've been granted its trademark in due time.
From a legal perspective, it looks like Twitter felt if they got trademark protection, they wouldn't have any leverage to sue them to get them to stop treading on their business. Instead of mounting a legal defense in the courts, they simply used what leverage they did have and threatened to cut them off from their API - which is everything for TwitPic.
For you non-legalese folks:
http://marklaw.com/trademark-glossary/confuse.htm http://marklaw.com/trademark-glossary/confuse.htm
"The terms, "confusingly similar" or "likelihood of confusion" both refer to the standard required to prove infringement of a trademark. Specifically, if the relevant consuming public will likely be confused or mistaken about the source of a product or service sold using the mark in question, then likelihood of confusion exists, and the mark has been infringed.
The likelihood of confusion test is also one of several examinations conducted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in determining whether to approve an applicant’s trademark application. It is worth noting here that even if there is no likelihood of confusion, i.e. no trademark infringement, you may still be liable for using another company's trademark if you are blurring or tarnishing their mark under the state and/or federal dilution laws."
- squeaky-clean 12y ago>I'm sure Twitter knew they had no argument for the "Likelihood of Confusion" Test and TwitPic would've been granted its trademark in due time. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but are you saying it's not confusing that TwitPic is not owned by Twitter? (At least from a legal standpoint)? I always assumed Twitpic was owned by Twitter, and it seems many other HN members did too. I'm amazed they lasted more than a month with that name.
- adventured 12y agoAt the time, Twitter gave specific guidance that ecosystem applications with the term "tweet" in it would not be allowed, but twit was OK. That was specifically covered. I know for a fact because I ran a site with "twit" in the title, and cleared it with Twitter. Dozens of modestly popular sites (around data, retweets, images, etc) were using "twit" at the time.