Why Is RIM Trying To Block The Trademark On Twitter?
from the twitter-your-answer dept
IP Democracy points us to the news that RIM, the maker of the super popular Blackberry device and service, is apparently trying to block Twitter's trademark application on the name Twitter. Twitter, of course, is the also quite popular online messaging/presence solution. While both the Blackberry and Twitter have been subject of accusation of being addictive, it's difficult to figure out what possible cause RIM could have in blocking the trademark. RIM doesn't appear to have any trademarks on anything similar to Twitter already, and no one seems to have come up with any suggestions on any other reason why RIM might have cause to block the application. Even if RIM has some reason to oppose Twitter, the lack of it being obvious suggests that the whole thing is quite questionable and RIM would be better served letting the matter drop.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It isn't clear to me what is going on, but RIM has done an awful lot of work to support the creation and distribution of 3rd party apps (facebook, msn, yahoo, aol, etc...).
Do you think there is something specific about Twitter's service (different from, say, Facebook) that threatens RIM?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Obvious?
And, really, I'm not sure that "twitter" would even be considered "descriptive" by the fairly low standards of the PTO. So, unless RIM (or anyone really) has use priority for Twitter in the same class of goods/services, I can't see on what basis the TM should be denied.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Obvious?
Sorry, wasn't saying they opposed it based on "obviousness." I was just saying it's not at all obvious what RIM believes it has rights to that conflict with Twitter, and thus it seems odd that they would oppose the trademark. If they have some other service they're planning, it hasn't launched yet (so hasn't been used in commerce) and adding it now, after Twitter is so well recognized doesn't seem sensible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sour Grapes!
This company is a true financial fraud -- but well sheltered by the Canadian auditors (with gov't protection), as it is one of the only remaining Canadian public companies that has not collapsed post-bubble implosion (ala 24-7, Tibco, Nortel, etc.).
Hate this company -- and can't wait to see it fall as all one-trick ponies eventually do!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Sour Grapes!
Hmm. Well, it was over $600 million, not $250 million, and it was on patents that the USPTO then rejected... so I think the company has a legitimate beef.
But, um, honestly... even if RIM were trying to "get even" with the US court system, I seriously doubt it would go about doing that by protesting a trademark of a tiny San Francisco startup with no revenue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Remember, trademark law says that if you do not defend your trademark, you risk losing trademark protection. This encourages trademark lawyers to 'defend' their client's trademark anywhere they can justify it, to justify their existence. It leads to a LOT of BS lawsuits, because of the requirement to proactively defend it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]