Twitter Opposes 'Tweet' Trademark Application For Bird Food Company

from the chirp dept

Way back in the simpler time of 2010, Mike wrote up an interesting piece on Twitter's trademark enforcement policies and how it handles 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 tools that made Twitter more useful were good for the platform overall. It was a smart, productive way of looking at protecting trademarks so as not to lose them to genericide.

Which is part of what makes it sort of strange that Twitter seems to take the opposite tact when it comes to totally unrelated business entities attempting to trademark terms like "tweet."

On Friday, Twitter filed a notice of opposition before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board against applicant Puerto Rican company B. Fernandez & Hnos.’s application for the TWEET mark, asserting that it will be harmed if the applicant’s mark is registered.

Twitter pointed out that the messages on its platform are called tweets. The marks are used in connection with the aforementioned goods and services, along with other goods and services. Twitter argued that it has established extensive common law rights in the TWEET mark in connection with its goods and services and that the TWEET mark is distinctive.

There's no doubt that "tweet" has taken on fame as a result of Twitter's platform, trademarks, and marketing of itself. But there is still a matter of actual or potential customer confusion on specific uses to contend with and the problem with that is that B. Fernandez & Hnos. is a maker of bird food. In that context, the term "tweet" doesn't call back to Twitter at all, because it fits naturally in with the nature of the product in question.

For some reason, Twitter's opposition seems to think the opposite.

Twitter claimed that the applicant seeks to register the TWEET mark in International Class 31, covering bird food. However, Twitter alleged that “consumers will likely associate Applicant’s TWEET Mark with Twitter and the TWEET Goods and Service and will assume there is a relationship between Applicant and Twitter. Twitter asserted that the applicant’s TWEET mark is identical to its TWEET mark, would be “advertised and/or sold in identical or similar channels of trade as Twitter’s and Services”, and would “conflict with Twitter’s lawful and exclusive right to use the TWEET Mark nationwide in connection with Twitter’s Goods and Services.” Consequently, Twitter averred that this similarity is likely to cause consumer confusion, mistake or deception regarding the source, origin, or sponsorship of the respective goods and services.

In other words, Twitter's "tweet" is so famous that a brand of bird food that includes "tweet" will be seen as associated more with Twitter than with bird food. And that's plainly ridiculous.

And so, again, we're left with a company that acts quite good on one set of trademark issues, but is, at least, a bit overly aggressive on others.

Filed Under: bird food, confusion, dilution, trademark, tweet
Companies: twitter

Copyright Office Rejected My Attempt To Copyright A Tweet

from the a-bit-of-data dept

Back in January, I had a brief exchange on Twitter prompted by this news story. The gist is that A. O. Scott, film critic for The New York Times, posted a tweet about the film Inside Llewyn Davis. The film's promoters took out a full page ad in the Times displaying the tweet (or more accurately, the last two sentences of the tweet).

The linked article's discussion assumes that Scott "own[s] the copyright to his tweets," but notes that by tweeting, Scott could be presumed to be granting an implied license for reuse of the tweet elsewhere.

But can you even copyright a tweet? I did some research and was unable to come up with a clear answer. There was some academic discussion of the issue, and occasional instances in which Twitter users claimed others were infringing their tweets, but I could not find a clear instance in which someone had actually registered a copyright in a tweet.

So, 7 months and $35 later, I have my answer: no, you cannot copyright a tweet.

That, at least, is what the registration specialist at the Copyright Office decided to send me in response to my attempt to register this tweet as a literary work entitled "Tweet #452″:

Monkey bar fallacy: a bad person using something makes it bad. E.g., users of monkey bars include: children, TERRORISTS #tor

Of course, the rejection of this particular tweet does not imply that no tweet can be copyrighted. Perhaps the registration specialist did not feel my tweet was valuable or creative enough, and thus did not pass the (very low) threshold of originality.

This makes me wonder whether short poems like haikus are eligible for copyright protection. Browsing the Copyright Office's registration database, I can find a number of registered literary works labeled "haikus" that are no longer than one page. Perhaps I would have had more luck if I had instead tweeted a haiku:

Monkey bar fallacy:
A bad person using something
Makes it bad.

(For sticklers, yes, I know it's not 5-7-5, but it is 17 syllables.)

Ultimately, I wonder if the Copyright Office applies more scrutiny to short literary works than it does to photographs. In the U.S., we work under the assumption that every photograph taken by a human being is copyrighted. But I take a lot of photos, and many of them take far less time, effort, and creativity to compose than a tweet. Here's an example:

Other countries have found that some photographs simply aren't creative enough to warrant copyright protection. Wikipedia has a brief summary and link to the German text of a Swiss case in which a reporter's photograph of a man holding record books was ruled ineligible for copyright.

It would be a fun, albeit expensive, experiment to try and register a variety of liminal works: handfuls of sentences, short quines, run of the mill photographs, "sculptures" made of a few Lego pieces, etc. I would contest the office's decision about my tweet, but I don't want to pay $250 out of pocket to do so, and I also don't really want to write a funding proposal to try and convince someone else to give me the money.

To wrap up this little experiment, the Copyright Office's online registration process allows registrants to submit comments with their registrations. I submitted the following text, although I have no way of knowing whether it was ever read:

In Ashleigh Brilliant v. W.B. Productions, Inc. (Civ. No. 79-1893-MBM, S.D. Cal Oct. 22, 1979), a U.S. District Court found that Brilliant's copyrights on three epigrams were valid and enforceable. The epigrams were 12, 15, and 10 words respectively. Each was a single sentence, lacking rhyme or meter; rather, their originality consists of their pithiness. Tweet #452's originality is similar: using 20 words and two sentences, it exposes the logical fallacy inherent in blaming tools, using humor and topical examples to communicate the point.

Circular 34 states that "copyright law does not protect names, titles, or short phrases or expressions." Tweet #452 is clearly not a name or title, leaving only the question of whether it is a short phrase or short expression. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a phrase as "a small group or collocation of words expressing a single notion, or entering with some degree of unity into the structure of a sentence; a common or idiomatic expression." Expression is similarly defined as "A word, phrase, or form of speech."

Tweet #452 cannot be classified as either a "phrase" or "expression," since it contain two complete sentences (i.e., two subject-verb pairs). Thus, Tweet #452 does not fall within the scope of Circular 34. Even if Tweet #452 were considered a phrase or expression, phrases or expressions as such are not necessarily ineligible for copyright, since Circular 34 specifies that only "short phrases or expressions" are ineligible for copyright, thereby suggesting that longer phrases or expressions are eligible.

This post and the included image are licensed CC BY-SA 4.0, and may be shared and reposted with attribution. When reposting, please include a link back to the original story, which will contain the most up-to-date version.

Filed Under: copyright, registration, tweet

Is Twitter Worried About Losing Control Over The Word 'Tweet?'

from the one-of-a-million-things-to-worry-about-when-you're-pushing-$18B-of-'pape dept

IPKat points out a rather interesting concern listed by Twitter in its IPO documents. Apparently, the company is worried about the word "tweet" becoming a generic term.

Among the stated risks was the concern that its trade marks could suffer genericide and become unenforceable. Specifically, Twitter stated in its filing, "[t]here is a risk that the word 'tweet' could become so commonly used that it becomes synonymous with any short comment posted publicly on the Internet, and if this happens, we could lose protection of the trademark." How great is this risk? This Kat has yet to hear anyone refer to short messages posted anywhere other than Twitter as a Tweet.

Like IPKat, I've yet to hear anyone use the word "tweet" as anything other than in Twitter or bird-related contexts. The future may bring some watering down of the term, but it's highly unlikely that "tweet" will become the next "xerox," "kleenex" or "google."

Google genericide is an interesting case, at least as much a product of the search engine's ubiquitous use as anything else. It's definitely less of a mouthful than telling someone you'll "perform an internet search" or other words to that effect. The IPKat points out that Google's genericide was anticipated by the search giant, which made a few clumsy efforts to head it off.

Google comes to mind as a company that faced such a risk as its popularity skyrocketed. It launched media campaigns reminding consumers that they were "searching the web on Google" or "Googling, but only on the Google platform," and they were never, ever, "googling."

Of some comfort to Google (other than its billions of dollars) is the fact that if someone says they're "googling," they're almost certainly doing it "on the Google platform." Google's market share in search is dominant enough that "googling," while being used in a generic way, is actually not a generic term. Googling happens on Google at least two-thirds of the time. Without a doubt, some people may be "googling" using other platforms, and I'm sure that somewhere, at some time, someone has uttered the completely feckless phrase, "I'll google it on Bing." Presumably this speculative person was promptly subjected to a corrective beating by horrified bystanders, unless said conversation took place within shouting distance of Redmond. (In which case, a beating still occurred, but the speech error being corrected was completely different.)

Is Twitter truly concerned that any truncated internet missive will be genericized as a "tweet" in the near future? I would say it's about 100% not concerned about this eventuality. However, the nature of mandatory financial filings like these (along with 10-Qs, 10-Ks, etc.) is that every potentially negative eventuality, however unlikely, must be conveyed to purchasers in order to stave off hordes of angry shareholders wielding pitchforks and lawyers should the unlikely occur and severely devalue their holdings.

Twitter's major problems are the patent battles it faces. Its own patent policy is groundbreaking in terms of allowing the inventors to retain their rights to their inventions (unlike most companies). The added stipulation that these patents cannot be used offensively sets a standard few companies are likely to follow. The concern about the potential cost of patent battles is in the filing as well, and IBM has already decided to coattail ride Twitter's innovation by slapping it with a frivolous infringement suit. Success paints a big target on your back, as Twitter points out in its filing.

...we are presently involved in a number of intellectual property lawsuits, and as we face increasing competition and gain an increasingly high profile, we expect the number of patent and other intellectual property claims against us to grow…

So, will Twitter become a trademark bully? Probably not. (Although its tendency to aggressively control usage of its API is somewhat concerning…) It has real problems to deal with, and if "tweet" goes generic, it will just be sign that it's thoroughly dominated a market -- not an indication that its brand has been weakened.

Filed Under: genericide, trademark, tweet
Companies: twitter