From the posting: "Last night an organsation called @GIRLGEEKS contacted Twitter to say they had registered trademark for Girl Geeks and wanted the @girlgeeks account for themselves."
The original owner could have pursued similar protection and avoided the problem.
>The original owner could have pursued similar protection and avoided the problem.
Trademarks cost money - international protection costs quite a lot of money.
Do Twitter accept any registered trademark, like if I've a registered trademark in Afghanistan (say) will they protect me against someone with the same mark registered in the US or in Europe?
It seems that Twitter aren't bound to give a RTM holder the name but the person using it could be sued if they're using it to trade and not making it clear that their goods&services do not originate with the RTM holder.
The dispute should have been settled between the two users. Twitter had no place in this, unless they were forced to do something as a result of court action resulting from a private dispute, which they weren't.
Based on what the new @girlgeeks holder (Mia Chapman) has said [1], it looks like she talked to Twitter only as a first step, and never expected them to just hand it over with no notice to the previous name holder (Morna Simpson). Also sounds as if Mia's trying to resolve things with Morna mano-a-mano (so to speak) now.
In the U.S. at least, I could see reasonable legal action on the part of the original owner, as she seems to have a common law trademark that would supersede any legal trademark. Maybe Twitter would accept that argument, or maybe you'd have to go to the USPTO and contest the filing (costing more money).
Filing is expensive ($3-400), but it's a thought considering how many of us have online identities that are legally unprotected.
The original owner could have pursued similar protection and avoided the problem.