Twitter opposes the “Tweet” trademark application of Bird Food

529 points

Going back to the simpler time of 2010, Mike wrote a An interesting piece On Twitter’s trademark application policies and how it interacts with third parties that interact with Twitter using Twitter-related terms. In short, Twitter built a reputation for itself in freely licensing these terms for use by third parties, believing that the tools that made Twitter more useful were beneficial to the platform in general. It was a smart and productive way to look at trademark protection so that it wouldn’t lose it to a public murder.

Which is part of what makes it kind of weird Twitter appears to be taking the opposite approach When it comes to completely unrelated commercial entities trying to trademark terms like “tweet”.

On Friday, Twitter filed a notice of opposition to the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board against the Puerto Rican company B. Fernandez & Hnos’s application for the TWEET trademark, confirming that it would be harmed if the applicant’s mark was registered.

Twitter indicated that the messages on its platform were called tweets. Marks are used in connection with the goods and services mentioned above, along with other goods and services. Twitter has argued that it has created widespread public law rights in the TWEET brand in relation to its goods and services and that the TWEET brand is distinguished.

There is no doubt that “tweet” has gained fame as a result of the Twitter platform, its brands and its marketing of the same. But there is still an issue of actual or potential customer confusion about specific uses to deal with it and the problem Which – which That is B. Fernandez & Hnos. Bird food maker. In this context, the term “tweet” does not refer to Twitter at all, as it naturally corresponds to the nature of the product in question.

For some reason, opposition to Twitter seems to believe the opposite.

Twitter claimed that the applicant is seeking to register the TWEET brand in International Class 31, which covers bird food. However, Twitter claimed that “consumers will likely associate the applicant’s TWEET brand with Twitter and TWEET goods and services and will assume that there is a relationship between the applicant and Twitter. Twitter has confirmed that the applicant’s TWEET tag is identical to his TWEET tag, and will be” announced and / or Sold in identical or similar commercial channels such as Twitter and services, “and would conflict with Twitter’s legal and exclusive right to use the TWEET brand nationwide in relation to Twitter’s goods and services.” Thus, Twitter confirmed that this similarity is likely to cause consumer confusion, error, or deception In relation to the source, origin or custody of the goods and services concerned.

In other words, Twitter’s “tweet” is so popular that a bird food brand that includes a “tweet” will be seen as more related to Twitter than it is to bird food. This is clearly absurd.

And so, again, we have a company that does very well on one set of trademark issues but is, at the very least, overly aggressive towards others.

Twitter opposes the “Tweet” trademark application of Bird Food

More stories related to the law from Techdirt:

Federal lawmakers take another round of ending eligible immunity
Washington State is also spending Section 230 by following Google’s political ads
Another game developer DMCAs his own game in dispute with the publisher

Like it? Share with your friends!

529 points


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *