sponsored messages posted through Twitter's social media platform. Furthermore, the complaint calls into question the use of LET YOUR AD MEET. TWEETS as a trademark. At most,. Twitter argued, LET YOUR AD. MEET TWEETS, was a descriptive statement, des
But it is when Webb is on the brink of trial or in the midst of the ... home, âwinning wayâ with juries and judges that sets him apart from other ..... home. She sat down and cried. It wasn't really good living conditions.â Lonely in a strange
upcoming trial in California, sandwiched be- tween two days in New York to meet with a client and attend a bar ... porations like Philip Morris, Microsoft, and. General Electric, and a host of politicians, in- cluding former U.S. ... eral court again
the financial services sector, with investigations of Libor, credit default swaps, municipal bonds and others ... ers are advising long-time client American Express in several antitrust litigation matters, including alleged ... Virgin Atlantic over D
The regulations provide an expansive list of accommodations that may be reasonable, such as modification of duties, work ... to time off for the number of days or hours the employee would normally work within four calendar months (17 1/3 ... position
Exchange Act.] SECTION 308 OF SOX. Under section 308 of the Sarbanes-Ox- ley Act (SOX), the SEC has the power to add disgorged funds to a disgorgement.
stock exchange rules. The defendants moved to dismiss, noting that SPG had received an e-mail confirmation from the New York Stock Exchange (âNYSEâ) staff that shareholder approval of the amendment was not required under NYSE rules. The court hel
must take into account the possibility that Congress will amend. OCLSA, as it did in 2010 to encompass offshore wind farms generally, to include the Jones Act as well. In fact, the US House of Representatives passed a billâH.R. 2360âon December 7
orders and that one of the reasons given for their non-compliance with court orders and CPR provisions was a lack of funds. The ... No reproduction or redistribution is permitted without the written ..... However, it was a different story with regard
Gordon A. Coffee. (202) 282-5741 [email protected]n.com. State of California (In re Lockyer) v. British Columbia Power Exchange. Corp. et al. Secured a decision dismissing a $190 million claim against client Allegheny. Energy Supply Company, LLC. A FERC
âthe purchase or sale of any other security in the. [United States]â20âhas resulted in three potentially inconsistent approaches. The first approach considers whether either the offer or acceptance of the off-exchange transaction occurred withi
to the .XXX TLD for hosting adult entertainment websites.â Plaintiffs' efforts were stymied by their own complaint when they alleged that Manwin's own YouPorn.com was the most popular free adult video website on the Internet. Thus, since the releva
OFFICe: (866) 558-4465 EXT. 204 ... sent, assuming the duties of chief judge, does American Calcar II break navigation system that was allegedly withheld by the lead inventor ..... Judge Prost and Judge Wallach appear to be operating at the fringes o
Anti-Defamation League First Amendment. Freedom Award. Firm Chairman Dan Webb and Chairman Emeritus. Gov. James Thompson were honored by the Anti-. Defamation League for their commitment to the public interest including their contributions during the
Mr. Baker as one of the nation's 40 best ERISA attorneys and Chambers. USA (2007â2011) describes him as âan ERISA ... class involving alleged losses to defined contribution plan accounts has become more difficult. In LaRue, the US .... The Spano
information technology and business process outsourcing, global ... my entire career. It was extremely complicated, involving simultaneous negotiations over several months with multiple vendors. Then I learned. I was pregnant! I was hesitant about ..
24, NO. 4. WINTER 2011. ERISA's Outer LimitsâThe Admissibility of Extrinsic Evidence in Denied Claims for Plan Benefits. James P. Baker. Cue music. Scene: Federal district court, Anywhere, USA. A young lawyer, Steve Jones, .... Congress intended co
Nov 6, 2013 - potential vapor migration or âencroachmentâ impacts. We also discuss EPA's proposed amendments to the all appropriate ... The definition of âmigrationâ has also been revised to include the movement of .... of data or even any ev
Antitrust Cases Have Routinely Applied Daubert Rules. â¢. FRE 703: Basis of Opinion Testimony by Experts .... his conversation with another expert when expected testimony would have shown there was no divergence of .... the underlying basis for an o
Nov 27, 2013 - Regulatory Enforcement. â¢ FCA imposes worldwide freezing order on suspected boiler room, First Capital Wealth Limited â On 15 November 2013, a suspected boiler room (an outbound call centre selling questionable investments by telep
Schwartz also advised UTC subsidiary Rocketdyne in a tie- up with rival GenCorp, which the FTC argued would lead to a monopoly in the market for liquid rocket ..... ular antitrust advice to the likes of IBM and American Express, and is acting in the
United States; (b) most of the preparation for the fraudulent offering of a U.S. issuer's securities abroad occurred in the United States; or (c) the. United States served as a âbase of operationsâ for meetings, conferences, or receipt of bank ac
Jun 11, 2014 - Students of fair lending jurisprudence know that the most significant issue in that area of the law is whether the government's assertion of liability, not just for intentional discrimination on a prohibited basis, but also for otherwi
Dec 20, 2013 - key decisions of the Delaware courts on corporate and commercial issues, .... would be held in escrow until the end of the indemnification notice period. Losses over and above $12 million, could, un- der the Merger Agreement, be withhe
ECLR Vol 11 i 5:august 05
Twitter v Twittad Case No. CV 3:11-4480-EDL (N.D. Cal. 8 September 2011) (Complaint) Twitter filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against Twittad, seeking cancellation of Twittad’s trademark. The dispute was recently settled, and Twittad assigned ownership of the LET YOUR AD MEET TWEETS trademark to Twitter. Background Twitter, Inc. is the founder of the popular ‘real-time’ social networking and communications website Twitter.com, which was first launched in 2006 and has since gained over 150 million users worldwide1. The company claims to own a ‘family’ of TWEET marks, such as COTWEET, RETWEET and TWEETDECK. However, Twitter has been attempting to register ‘Tweet’ since 2009, which the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejected in 2010 based on likelihood of confusion with Twittad, LLC’s ‘LET YOUR AD MEET TWEETS’ registered trademark. Twittad, LLC provides an advertising service whereby advertisers can connect with Twitter users that are willing to promote the advertiser’s brands through ‘sponsored’ targeted ‘Tweets’. A federal application to register LET YOUR AD MEET TWEETS as a trademark was filed by Filmfitti, Inc. in 2008 in connection with online advertising services, and the mark was registered in 2009. The registration was then assigned to Twittad, LLC in March 2011. The USPTO based its rejection of Twitter’s trademark application for ‘Tweet’ on its assessment that ‘Tweet’ was confusingly similar to LET YOUR AD MEET TWEETS ‘in sound, appearance and connotation’ in as much as ‘the marks both contain the term TWEET which is identical in sound, appearance and meaning’. Furthermore, the USPTO stated that Twitter’s goods and services were similar to those of Twittad’s, namely advertising services. Twitter brought a complaint for declaratory judgment against Twittad in September of 2011, seeking to cancel Twittad’s trademark registration. According
to Twitter, the company was unable to come to an amicable solution with Twittad and Twittad continued to claim exclusive rights in the LET YOUR AD MEET TWEETS trademark. Cancellation for failure to service as a mark Twitter sought to cancel Twittad’s registration on the grounds that the distinctive portion of the Twittad’s registered mark, ‘TWEET’, was a direct reference to Twitter’s services and messages posted through Twitter’s platform, more commonly referred to as ‘Tweets’, and exploited the popularity of Twitter’s ‘Tweet’ brand. Specifically, Twitter claimed that LET YOUR AD MEET TWEETS was a generic phrase and incapable of serving as a trademark that identified the source of Twittad’s goods and services. Specifically, Twitter alleged that Filmfitti’s initial application failed to disclose that the online advertising services referred to in its application were sponsored messages posted through Twitter’s social media platform. Furthermore, the complaint calls into question the use of LET YOUR AD MEET TWEETS as a trademark. At most, Twitter argued, LET YOUR AD MEET TWEETS, was a descriptive statement, describing how its advertising services utilized Twitter’s Tweet messages, and had not gained secondary meaning. Cancellation based on Twitter’s prior trademark rights Twitter further claimed that even if Twittad were to establish use of LET YOUR AD MEET TWEETS as a trademark, the registration was invalid and subject to cancellation based on Twitter’s prior established rights in the ‘Tweet’ mark. Under the Lanham Act, a
trademark may be refused registration if it consists of a mark that is likely to cause consumer confusion with another mark or trade name previously used in the United States by another entity2. Furthermore, a petition to cancel a mark can be filed within five years from the date of registration of the mark by any entity that believes that it will or is damaged by the registration3. After five years, a registered mark becomes incontestable, meaning it can only be cancelled under limited circumstances4. Twitter argued that prior to the launch of Twitter’s services, ‘Tweet’ was only known to the general public according to ‘its dictionary meaning relating to birdsong, and it had no association with webbased social networking and communication services’. Twitter stated that the term ‘Tweet’ has only become recognized as messages on Twitter’s social media platform after Twitter’s continued use of and significant investment in the term since 2006, which would pre-date Twittad’s 2008 use. Accordingly, Twitter claimed that Twittad’s use of ‘Tweet’ was in fact virtually identical to Twitter’s ‘Tweet’ mark and was used through identical channels of trade and to an identical consumer audience since it is used solely to provide advertising services through the Twitter platform. Furthermore, Twittad’s use of ‘Tweet’ was likely to confuse consumers in light of Twitter’s family of ‘Tweet’ marks. Thus, Twitter argued, Twittad’s mark must be cancelled to protect the goodwill and investment Twitter had previously made in ‘Tweet’. Protect the brand Twitter and Twittad ended their trademark battle for ‘Tweet’ on 10 October 2011, under a confidential settlement agreement. Twittad e-commerce law reports volume 11 issue 05
ECLR Vol 11 i 5:august 05
assigned the rights in LET YOUR AD MEET TWEETS to Twitter on 13 October 2011, and it appears Twittad continues to use the phrase on its website, presumably with Twitter’s blessing. The lesson learned from this trademark dispute is the importance of protecting a brand early. Although Twitter launched in 2006 and provided a new meaning for the term ‘Tweet’, it only attempted to register ‘Tweet’ in 2009, at which point ‘Tweet’ may have been in danger of becoming generic, given the popular (and continuing use) of ‘Tweet’ as an inclusive term for real time status updates rather than as a direct reference to messages posted on Twitter using the Twitter service. Many other marks have teetered on the verge of genericism (think Xerox and its continued battle against ‘Xerox’ as a replacement for ‘photocopy’), but the owners of such marks, like Twitter, have started reclaiming their marks by establishing appropriate trademark guidelines, preventing the use of their marks as generic terms, and making significant investments in marketing and public awareness programs to increase the strength of the mark. At the very least, Twitter’s failure to protect its marks early opened the door for others to beat them to the Trademark Office when ‘Tweet’ became a more popular part of the public vernacular. Twitter’s battle with Twittad should serve as a reminder to all entities that it is never too early to begin to protect a brand.
Act, a registered mark that becomes incontestable may still be cancelled if it: (a) becomes generic; (b) is functional; (c) is abandoned; (d) was obtained through fraud; (e) is immoral, deceptive or scandalous; (f) disparages or suggests a false association with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute; (g) is a geographical indication; (h) consists of a national flag, coat of arms or insignia; (i) consists of a name, portrait, or signature identifying a living person without consent; or (j) consists of the name, signature, or portrait of a deceased U.S. President during the life of his widow, if any, except with his widow’s consent. Id.
Monique N. Bhargava Associate Winston & Strawn LLP [email protected] 1. Twitter v Twittad, Case No. CV 3:114480-EDL, at (N.D. Cal. 8 September 2011) (Complaint). 2. 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). 3. 15 U.S.C. §1064(a). 4. 15 U.S.C. §1065. Under the Lanham e-commerce law reports volume 11 issue 05