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

from the really? dept

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.
Hide this

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

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


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    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 thread ]

  2. identicon
    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 thread ]

  3. identicon
    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 thread ]

  4. identicon
    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 thread ]

  5. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2009 @ 2:07am

    Re: Re: Re: One question

    Nope, sorry, two different Anonymi.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  6. icon
    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 thread ]

  7. identicon
    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 thread ]

  8. icon
    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 thread ]

  9. identicon
    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 thread ]

  10. icon
    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 thread ]

  11. identicon
    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 thread ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.