Trademark is the normal legal foundation for protecting a name. But trademarks are limited by industry and geography, so attempting to enforce them on a single global namespace like Twitter or DNS is always going to end up with conflicts.
However, this is probably the best way to protect a name you use on Twitter: register a trademark and let them know that you're using your registered name as a Twitter handle and want it maintained for your business/organisation.
Given how often this happens with Twitter, Facebook and ever other Corp-owned namespace the more I appreciate the clear ownership status afforded by DNS, despite it's many flaws.
It's also why I put my domain on my business card but not my Twitter, all it'd take is an account hack and some spam or a backhander from some firm and it would't be mind anymore with no recourse whatsoever.
Linking to your twitter profile as a "url" is something I've never understood. I'll see really awesome web sites, want to see what else the person has done and I have to go through the extra clicks of first going to a twitter profile, then to the site.
Granted, it's one extra click, but I'm not particularly interested in your timeline of tweets. I want to see your work.
Twitter on business cards is mostly as a form of connection (same as an email address). For many people it's a dumb idea, but in some circles (a good example being tech marketing) it can be useful. If someone who actively uses twitter follows you, and you're an active user too, it's a constant reminder that they know you, and they won't forget who you are.
In the example you gave (and it was a very good one, it makes sense), wouldn't it be more prudent to link to a github profile or something otherwise reduces the layers necessary to obtain access to what makes you relevant to the viewer's interests?
It's a great point you bring up. When using a static business card, you can always put a link to a dynamic site that updates your presences online, like you do with something like flavors.me and all the similar services.
I wonder if my very general Twitter handle is a boon or a risk.
On DNS, if you squat on someone else's trademark, ICANN will give it to its rightful owner.
The only difference is cost and delay. That is to say, due process don't come cheap. On Twitter, the seizure happens instantly and no one pays legal fees. Within ICANN arbitration, it can get bloody.
Sadly this is common for twitter to do without contracting the party.
For over a year I ran a bot called @amazon which when messaged would look up the price of a book using the amazon api and respond to the user.
When amazon decided to join twitter, they contacted twitter who simply deleted my account and gave it to them without contacting me. After contacting amazon as I would have gladly given them the bot, they informed me they didn't ask for it to be deleted but to contact me.
At the time twitter made some excuse about how it is against their TOS to give my email to another party (yet acceptable to delete with even contacting me)...
This is pretty brazen. They can be bullies if they want with their own space, but the lack of communication is amazingly rude. However, I remember experiencing exactly the same thing when my undergrad email was changed, without any notification whatsoever, because some TA had joined who had the same last name. The admin was completely unapologetic when I shared my irritation. So maybe it's to be expected in the culture.
Reading this new account's 15 tweets, it's clear that it is being run by someone who fancies themselves as a bit of a social media expert, but who is rather awful at it.
Ironicly, I can't see them ever getting nearly as many followers as the bot ever had.
Obviously, the whole "intentional misleading" does not apply here. In general, I think it would benefit Twitter or at least the trademark holders, if Twitter introduced the opposite of a "Verified" badge: a "Unofficial" badge - which the user in this case can activate without needing approval from Twitter, if Twitter does not beat them to it.
Of course, the adverse effect is that it would also serve to point out how ruthlessly Twitter enforce their ToS, once one of the accounts are seized.
I commented on the post but will post it here as well;
I had a similar thing with @apress a few years ago, I set up an automated twitter feed to post the daily book deal to a twitter account, a couple of months afterwards I checked and realized @apress was just given to Apress without any email or notice (everything I posted too was lost)
Fair play to apress I contacted them and they got back to me within half an hour, they had no idea twitter hadn’t contacted me they were just given the account and they apologised to me..
I very much doubt its the TB more likely to be the TB search, marketing or social media agency who want to control the brand rather than embrace and engage (ironic eh) infact I’d doubt that TB is fully aware of what has happened (until they get into the office on monday morning and see the hundreds of @ replies they've had)
"follow our new Twitter account for Tower Bridge.... @TowerBridgeExh"
@TowerBridgeExh is invalid, so if this is the same one, then they didn't originally go with the stolen account. I also see several similar accounts (like @tower_bridge), so this might not be related.
I don't think we should start blaming the marketing agency for what has happened (even if they did start the process). It is Twitter who should take responsibility for silently transferring ownership of the @towerbridge account and then effectively deleting it.
Though I feel little sympathy for an agency who looks at an already active twitter account, sees it has 4000+ followers, and makes the determination that "Hey, what we should do is take over this account and send marketing crap to all these followers rather than continue to send them what they originally signed up for. I mean, it's just a feed of what time the bridge will open/close, it's unlikely any of these people live near by."
The followup post was basically "ell, we should have had a conversation about it, rather than just yanking it". Certainly a decent claim. However, per the old @towerbridge name holder, twitter did contact him via email, and he'd just overlooked it.
I'm not in a position now to see what the old account info had on it, but I know there's been plenty of people I've wanted to reach out to for a number of reasons, and it's sometimes damned near impossible to get ahold of someone without doing it publicly. I can 'tweet' someone publicly, but can't DM if they don't follow me. I can publicly blog post, perhaps, but often there's no 'contact form' (or it may just get ignored as spam). Usually blogs or other info have no phone number or email on them. Facebook? Do I post "hey, please call me!" on your wall?
Ugh - the web's become entirely far too 'one way', and then we wonder why stuff like this happens? It's pretty damn hard to make a connection to someone without it being public, and not every conversation should be made in public.
"Trademark: We reserve the right to reclaim user names on behalf of businesses or individuals that hold legal claim or trademark on those user names. Accounts using business names and/or logos to mislead others will be permanently suspended."
How they handled it might have sucked, but it was fairly clear what they would end up doing in situations like this.
except that Twitter has a global namespace, and trademarks are what, national?
Say, as an example, I own Tim's Bike Shop in Australia, and have @timsbikeshop on Twitter. What happens if there's a US Tim's Bike Shop that decides it wants that Twitter id? To me, both have the same 'right' (I use quotes because it's obviously not a right) to the id, but I win because I was in first. Does Twitter assume because the second claimant is legit the first is not?
Well, its Twitter. What were you expecting? You ride on their network for free, you can't be surprised when they opt to kick you off it without warning. Yes, the courtesy would be nice, but...
Perhaps what's most galling is that, without users creating good content (users like the original @towerbridge) twitter would be nearly worthless.
"You ride on their network for free" as if users were leeching off of content twitter itself had made, when it's possible to just as easily argue that it's twitter who is leeching off of its users.
Musicians will often credit their "fans" as vital (e.g. [1]). Great music is still great even if only heard by a few people, making the fans impact at best indirect. Yet in the case of social networks, users and their participation are all the network has, period.
I'm surprised Twitter hasn't tried to monetize this ala domain names. For handles that I want to keep, I (and no doubt many others) would fork over the cash to permanently secure it.
Please note the sole purpose of trademarks is consumer protection. Protection from counterfeit goods and services, where `counterfeit' means coming from different source than the one the consumer expects due to branding the goods or services bear.
Now ask yourself (or even better, Twitter), `were consumers being deceived, or at risk of being?' `Is account name an instance of use of any brand?'
I believe Twitter should just follow the standard practice of using ™ and ® (TM and (R)) symbols for visual identification of accounts that are representing trademarks.
>> Please note the sole purpose of trademarks is consumer protection
Not true at all, although it's easy to understand why someone would wish that this were the case. The sole purpose of trademarks (really trademark law) is to protect the holder of the intellectual property.
Market confusion is a test used to determine whether a trademark infringement has taken place, but it's only one of several possible tests.
the problem being that "Tower Bridge Exhibitions" is not a trademark owner for "Tower Bridge". It actually seems like they are stomping on other companies trademarks by claiming the base name"Tower Bridge" when they don't have it as a registered trademark in any field of endeavor.
I should probably look around for a new name then, I'm DanishBacon on twitter, which puts me in the danger area for being deleted outright and replaced by a bacon marketing scheme..
1. The account was already popular (i.e., it served a purpose): 4000+ followers.
2. The account was already active with plenty of tweets.
3. No warning. No notice.
4. No back-up of the tweets.
5. The new account is clearly some useless social media expert bullshit.
6. In their defence, the new user claims not to have been informed of how this was going to be handled.
I perfectly understand the general concept of fighting user name squatters, but this just makes no sense to me from any point of view.
Is there any nasty legislation that can penalize Twitter for having accounts misrepresenting the official namesake?