Twitter names.

[NameMatters]

As everyone knows, there are tons of Twitter related sites with the word 'Twitter' in their url.. Is Twitter obviously cool with these sites?

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22no...&start=10&sa=N

[nameadvertising.com]

Sai,
Following Twitter closely, You can only get in trouble with Twitter if you use the name for malicious purposes.

I have sold a number of Twit and Tweet names (upwards of $5k each) and those sites are thriving.

Twitter will explode. We have seen nothing yet!

[Acro]

Originally Posted by nameadvertising.com

Twitter will explode

Yes, and it might explode on you.

[nameadvertising.com]

Acro, your fears won't come true. I am too good at what I do.

[Acro]

You're saying that a US trademark registered 2 months ago is not a reason of concern? Then maybe the definition of cybersquatter fits you as well.

[nameadvertising.com]

Nope, it is not of concern to me and those who follow Twitter Inc. You are oblivious to what Biz Stone said and oblivious to the Twitter culture and oblivious to score of venture funded Twitter based launches.

You are an idiot to even define me as a Cybersquatter for owning Twitter based brands. Keep your expertise and your red flags in the confines of your portfolio.

You are clueless on this one.

[Acro]

Originally Posted by nameadvertising.com

Nope, it is not of concern to me and those who follow Twitter Inc. You are oblivious to what Biz Stone said and oblivious to the Twitter culture and oblivious to score of venture funded Twitter based launches.

You are an idiot to even define me as a Cybersquatter for owning Twitter based brands. Keep your expertise and your red flags in the confines of your portfolio.

You are clueless on this one.

I just pointed out two things:

1. Twitter is a registered trademark
2. You ignore the very basic command of delving in domain names.

Now, if the shoe of a cybersquatter fits, you wear it.

[Duncan]

Agreed with acro. The point is if they wanted it they could take it. Enough reason to make me not want to get into the situations described above. You've made money off of the trademark sure, and that can get you in more legal trouble than just owning the site!

I own TM names YES - But all of them I have permission from trademark owners to operate such sites.

[Acro]

Just search for "is twitter a trademark" in Google.
I ran across several items, one of which from July 1st of this year makes it clear: Twitter is about to whack people and sites using their brand. It's ok to invent e.g. HootHowl.com and use it for a twitter related service, but it's not ok to use twittercall.com

[nameadvertising.com]

Acro,
I am not selling "Twitter" terms. Twitter recently TM'd the term 'Tweet' to protect the company from future misrepresentation. Most services which brand themselves as Tweet and Twit are granted use of the Twitter api.

Though Twitter can come after anyone as a means to protect their brand, it will not go after the terms - "Twit" and "Tweet," unless you use the services for malicious purposes or explicitly break their terms.

And Twitter has the right to come after your company even if it bears no reference to any of its company marks, if you intend to cause harm to its brand.

CoTweet.com itself is a TM and was funded over a million dollar by a venture firm just less than a month ago. There are hundreds of more examples.

It is time to wake up folks. Old school set of rules do not apply to every condition and every circumstances.

Hey Acro,
I always feel badly (after the fact) for using the wrong words to address anyone. This is my shortcoming. We all know, you are one of the smartest guys around here and more knowledgeable than most.

My apologies for calling you an "idiot." My bad. Didn't mean no disrespect. Just meant to disagree. Sorry, once more.

Okay, here is a link from WSJ you may find revealing.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/07/...es-real-money/

[NameMatters]

ok..I just found this one..

http://blog.twitter.com/2009/07/may-...-with-you.html

"We have applied to trademark Tweet because it is clearly attached to Twitter from a brand perspective but we have no intention of "going after" the wonderful applications and services that use the word in their name when associated with Twitter. In fact, we encourage the use of the word Tweet. However, if we come across a confusing or damaging project, the recourse to act responsibly to protect both users and our brand is important.

Regarding the use of the word Twitter in projects, we are a bit more wary although there are some exceptions here as well. After all, Twitter is the name of our service and our company so the potential for confusion is much higher. When folks ask us about naming their application with "Twitter" we generally respond by suggesting more original branding for their project. This avoids potential confusion down the line."

[sdsinc]

Twitter is just another fad

[GUA]

Acro is right.

[ksinclair]

A lot of young adults do not yet use twitter and look at it suspiciously. They prefer Facebook. And any large social network will probably build in twitter like functionality.
So its growth might slow.

But saying its a fad is kind of meaningless. Its just another part of the net, it has a certain size, and right now it is growing. Therefore, it represents an opportunity.

Twitter is more flexible than most companies since they want to grow, and I believe you can talk to them and ask for permission for your service/name. I had a question about something related to this, and I talked to them - and instead of just saying no, they asked to see a more detailed proposal. No answer yet but that is a nice process. But I myself would not do anything online without making it all kosher.

I think the risk is fairly low for most areas online if you are making a forum or supportive type of service; even Apple seems to look the other way for that kind of helpful activity; it supports a brand.

Wordpress is TM but specifically allows you to own domains with 'wordpress' in the domain name, if you dont promote it as your primary entity. I forget all the exact conditions but that seems to be very unique. You can read the TOS for Wordpress to find out. So I suppose the owner of WordpressTemplates.com might make some nice money, it has a lot of traffic according to Compete.com.

I personally dont think people should register TM names just to do it. Is it so hard to resist? If you reg such a name and dont develop it, into a useful thing like a forum, then you are squatting. By definition.

A lot of young adults do not yet use twitter and look at it suspiciously. They prefer Facebook. And any large social network will probably build in twitter like functionality.
So its growth might slow.

But saying its a fad is kind of meaningless. Its just another part of the net, it has a certain size, and right now it is growing. Therefore, it represents an opportunity.

Twitter is more flexible than most companies since they want to grow, and I believe you can talk to them and ask for permission for your service/name. I had a question about something related to this, and I talked to them - and instead of just saying no, they asked to see a more detailed proposal. No answer yet but that is a nice process. But I myself would not do anything online without making it all kosher.

I think the risk is fairly low for most areas online if you are making a forum or supportive type of service; even Apple seems to look the other way for that kind of helpful activity; it supports a brand.

Wordpress is TM but specifically allows you to own domains with 'wordpress' in the domain name, if you dont promote it as your primary entity. I forget all the exact conditions but that seems to be very unique. You can read the TOS for Wordpress to find out. So I suppose the owner of WordpressTemplates.com might make some nice money, it has a lot of traffic according to Compete.com.

I personally dont think people should register TM names just to do it. Is it so hard to resist? If you reg such a name and dont develop it, into a useful thing like a forum, then you are squatting. By definition.

[Acro]

Chris, I addressed the issue and the act; did not intend to assign it to you personally. It's probably part of Domaining 101: do not register tm domains.

[nameadvertising.com]

Acro,
You clearly do not understand what is a TM going by what you are addressing. I have dealt with more corporation with my domains bordering on TM infringement than you ever will.

Now let me tell you the ABC of domaining before we go to the 101.

'Twit' & 'Tweet' terms were in use far before Twitter TM'd the specific term 'Tweet.'

I don't own the 'twitter' related names bar 2. The tweet and twit terms are a defined and publicly stated Twitter corporation's objective that companies may use for a mutual beneficial product or service.

Now if you don't get what I said above than you are no better than the Taliban using the shariah as a means to interpret laws.

I run my business by my rules. I have no time to argue with ignorance. You may hold your ground and beat the drums. There are some fools who will listen to you.

Here is where we part.

[Acro]

LMAO I rest my case. Cybersquatting is your business, per your own admittance. Now, call me an "idiot" - then apologize - then a "fool". Apologies are hard to come by twice for the same purpose. Accusing me of ignorance when you fully display it - all while professing knowledge of the trademark law; now that's hilarious.

Again: It doesn't matter what *you* think about the trademarks of Twitter, it's what the USPTO thinks.

[nameadvertising.com]

Acro, my names are at Twitstore.com/indexx.html

I challenge you to wrest any one name from there. Talk is cheap. Any dog will bark on the street and you are doing a lot of barking.

Stay on topic. I once again challenge you to wrest any one of my names. I give you full permission. Don't teach me what is Cybersquatting. There are DNF newbies who will fall for you bull.

Go on now....

[Acro]

Wrest?

And you challenge *me* over twitter domains?

Maybe you don't understand how tm games are played.

I am not Twitter Inc.

Now, who's the dog?

I'll tell you what - show us that you're "right" and sell these domains to Twitter Inc.

Come on big talker, impress me. Twitter's lawyers will squash you like a fea on a 3-legged dog's ass.

[marcorandazza]

Acro, et. al.,

Allow me to correct one small thing here. It is not what the USPTO thinks, but what the marketplace thinks.

In this discussion, there is one thing that seemingly everyone has forgotten -- the potential generic nature of the term "tweet." I don't mean "generic" in the sense that it is mis-used on this forum, but actual genericness.

For the most part, if you say "I'm going to tweet this" you probably mean "post it on your twitter account." However, as other social networking sites start to integrate the same kind of updates, "tweet" could simply become a verb encompassing all social networking short character updates -- even as "Twitter" itself can remain a trademark.

On the other hand, when you say "google it," you sure don't mean "go look on AskJeeves."

Ultimately, it comes down to consumer perception. If the marketplace begins to use "Tweet" the way it started using "Asprin" or "escalator," not as a source identifier, but as a generic term, holders of these domains might have a way out from under the cybersquatter rock.

And, were any of them to get hit with a UDRP or an ACPA claim, they *might* (and I stress the uncertainty of this theory) be able to use a similar theory to evade liability.