PR Firm Accused Of Setting Up Fake Twitter Account Of Competing Firm

from the really? dept

Thu, Jul 16th 2009 8:19pm — Mike Masnick

We've all heard about the various fake accounts on Twitter, and even Tony La Russa's misguided lawsuit over a user who put up a fake profile. However, in what appears to be a slightly more serious case of "brandjacking" on Twitter, the Citizen Media Law Project alerts us to a lawsuit involving two PR firms, with one accused of hijacking the identity of the other on Twitter. While it's a bit amusing that the PR firm who was hijacked claims its expertise is in brand management and yet didn't notice that someone else was using its brand on Twitter for two months, the fact that the IP address of whoever signed up for the account came from a competing PR firm suggests questionable intent, and certainly has the potential to be a real trademark issue.

Filed Under: brandjacking, fraud, impersonator, pr firm, trademark, twitter
Companies: twitter

11 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2009 @ 9:53pm

One question
Who do you(mike) support on this issue and what do you think THINK the verdict should be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2009 @ 11:19pm
  
  Re: One question
  Mike won't express such a specific opinion. It doesn't leave him wiggle room later.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chunky Vomit, 16 Jul 2009 @ 11:29pm
    
    Re: Re: One question
    Why do I get this feeling in my belly that both of these cowards are the same coward?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2009 @ 11:40pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: One question
      He should feel flattered that he has his very own Troll Club.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2009 @ 2:07am
      
      Re: Re: Re: One question
      Nope, sorry, two different Anonymi.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - res2 (profile), 17 Jul 2009 @ 5:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: One question
        wow, this reply totally makes me believe you. NOT.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - stat_insig (profile), 17 Jul 2009 @ 7:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re: One question
      I forgot to login before posting my question (i.e. I am the author of first post).
      
      I think it was a valid question as this is a fairly complex issue.
      
      BTW, why does questioning/opposing mikes view should always amount to trolling?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 17 Jul 2009 @ 12:55pm
  
  Re: One question
  Who do you(mike) support on this issue and what do you think THINK the verdict should be?
  
  From the facts given, it sure looks like a classic trademark infringement situation (i.e., people would be confused). But I didn't think that part was all that interesting, which is why I didn't discuss it. I just found it interesting that a company would mimic a competitor on Twitter.
  
  Not sure what the other anon person is complaining about. I've never been shy about stating my opinions.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2009 @ 1:44am
    
    Re: Re: One question
    You are only shy about stating your absolute position on things. Slippery as always.
    
    "From the facts given, it sure looks like a classic trademark infringement situation (i.e., people would be confused). But I didn't think that part was all that interesting, which is why I didn't discuss it. I just found it interesting that a company would mimic a competitor on Twitter."
    
    Even at that, you can't say anything definte, you just get slippery and deflect. Congrats.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
CleverName, 17 Jul 2009 @ 7:20am

Simple Solution
Contact Twitter and inform them of the problem.

Somehow I doubt this has happened, more likely the first thing done was lawyer up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2009 @ 7:57am

chirp chirp go the crickets.

I am the AC #2 here. Notice that Mike has totally ignored this thread? I wonder why? Maybe he doesn't want to get pinned down by actually putting HIS opinion in black and white.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]