Home Criminal Defense Twitter Opposes ‘Tweet’ Trademark Application For Bird Food Company

Twitter Opposes ‘Tweet’ Trademark Application For Bird Food Company


Way again within the easier time of 2010, Mike wrote up an interesting piece on Twitter’s trademark enforcement insurance policies and the way it handles third events that work together with Twitter utilizing Twitter-related phrases. In quick, Twitter constructed a repute for itself in freely licensing these phrases to be used by third events, believing that instruments that made Twitter extra helpful have been good for the platform general. It was a sensible, productive approach of defending logos in order to not lose them to genericide.

Which is a part of what makes it kind of weird that Twitter seems to take the opposite tact with regards to completely unrelated enterprise entities making an attempt to trademark phrases like “tweet.”

On Friday, Twitter filed a discover of opposition earlier than the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in opposition to applicant Puerto Rican firm B. Fernandez & Hnos.’s utility for the TWEET mark, asserting that will probably be harmed if the applicant’s mark is registered.

Twitter identified that the messages on its platform are referred to as tweets. The marks are utilized in reference to the aforementioned items and companies, together with different items and companies. Twitter argued that it has established in depth widespread regulation rights within the TWEET mark in reference to its items and companies and that the TWEET mark is distinctive.

There’s little doubt that “tweet” has taken on fame because of Twitter’s platform, logos, and advertising of itself. But there may be nonetheless a matter of precise or potential buyer confusion on particular makes use of to cope with and the issue with that is that B. Fernandez & Hnos. is a maker of fowl things to eat. In that context, the time period “tweet” doesn’t call again to Twitter in any respect, as a result of it suits naturally in with the character of the product in query.

For some cause, Twitter’s opposition appears to suppose the alternative.

Twitter claimed that the applicant seeks to register the TWEET mark in International Class 31, overlaying fowl things to eat. However, Twitter alleged that “consumers will likely associate Applicant’s TWEET Mark with Twitter and the TWEET Goods and Service and will assume there is a relationship between Applicant and Twitter. Twitter asserted that the applicant’s TWEET mark is identical to its TWEET mark, would be “advertised and/or sold in identical or similar channels of trade as Twitter’s and Services”, and would “conflict with Twitter’s lawful and exclusive right to use the TWEET Mark nationwide in connection with Twitter’s Goods and Services.” Consequently, Twitter averred that this similarity is more likely to trigger shopper confusion, mistake or deception relating to the supply, origin, or sponsorship of the respective items and companies.

In different phrases, Twitter’s “tweet” is so well-known {that a} kind of fowl things to eat that features “tweet” shall be seen as related extra with Twitter than with fowl things to eat. And that’s plainly ridiculous.

And so, once more, we’re left with an organization that acts fairly good on one set of trademark points, however is, not less than, a bit overly aggressive on others.

Twitter Opposes ‘Tweet’ Trademark Application For Bird Food Company

More Law-Related Stories From Techdirt:

Federal Legislators Take Another Run At Ending Qualified Immunity
Washington State Also Spits On Section 230 By Going After Google For Political Ads
Another Game Developer DMCAs Its Own Game In Dispute With Publisher


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here