Subscribe to RSS Feed

08|19|2009 09:32 pm EDT

Twitter Can’t Twademark “Tweet”

by Chad Kettner in Categories: News

Twitter founder Biz Stone announced in a blog post on July 1 that they “have applied to trademark Tweet because it is clearly attached to Twitter from a brand perspective.” However, after diligent research by Sam Johnston of, it turns out that Twitter had their application rejected by the USPTO that very same day.

This is great news for any blogging related company with the word “tweet” in their domain name as well as Twitter’s microblogging competition who wouldn’t want somebody to have a stranglehold on the name. Unfortunately for Twitter, however, the term was definitely popularized by the company much like the verb “google” was derived from the search engine.

What do you think – should Twitter be able to trademark this term or should it be free for anybody to use?


Tags: , , ,


Idiot Domainer

August 19, 2009 @ 10:23 pm EDT

Name Administration =
I think these domains just increased in value a bit.

Patricia Kaehler

August 19, 2009 @ 10:55 pm EDT

Since their app. was rejected to trademark TWEET…
Then I guess I can develop or SELL mine…


The 3 things I wish Twitter would adopt as policyh

1. that we can have more than one account
2. that the limits be raised from 2k to 5k
3. that we be able to set our accounts to NOT even porcess into us
any profiles / followers — with certain WORDSin their posts or anywhere
on their profile / posting page… like if we wanted to block everyone that
used the “F” word etc…

~Patricia Kaehler

[…] Tweet Trademark I read via Domain Name News that Twitter’s trademark application for TWEET has run into problems. The application has […]

Jerry Nordstrom

August 20, 2009 @ 8:53 am EDT

I’m glad to hear it has been rejected. USPTO needs to take a historical look at all names and the impact of awarding a trademark long term.

Should Tweety bird and Warner Brothers own Tweet, Tweety? Should the 3 stooges own the trademark for Moron? Far too many Flash in the pan companies have won trademarks on Generic terms. The “For Dummies” trademark is classic example. For how many years have people said, That’s for dummies. And these blokes use that popular phrase to promote their books and gadgets and now they own the trademark “xyz for dummies” and defend it rigorously. Understood they invested a ton of money marketing their goods, but just because I invested a ton of money marketing a product “for Kids” should not mean I get to trademark such a generic term. I’m no trademark attorney, but common sense tells me, that yes, Twitter should be able to have a very strict and narrow right to how the term Twitter is used by competing service. But Tweet is out of the question.

Can I trademark “Bark”, “laugh”, “LOL”, “MEOW”? No company should own generic terms as their trademark, and or the trademark awarded should be strictly defined to relate only to that companies specific services provided.

Twitted by DomainerTimes

August 20, 2009 @ 10:35 am EDT

[…] This post was Twitted by DomainerTimes […]

Premium Business Cards

August 20, 2009 @ 10:42 am EDT

what about the RnB artist TWEET? she is around since before twitter ever came to spotlight, this whole trademarking business is ridiculous, and should be abolished

Twitted by globaltweeter

August 20, 2009 @ 12:23 pm EDT

[…] This post was Twitted by globaltweeter […]


August 20, 2009 @ 3:05 pm EDT

I’m glad they didn’t manage to get that name. It’s not they invention so it will be unfain to trademark it…


August 21, 2009 @ 7:53 am EDT

Something that everyone should now thanks for sharing it in net.


August 22, 2009 @ 1:24 am EDT

Great to know that tweet is alive!
But why do people (like above) put links on comments though they know its nofollow everywhere now!

Sam J

August 22, 2009 @ 1:39 pm EDT

Neither “tweet” nor “retweet” are Twitter’s to trademark – everything I’ve seen suggests the users “invented” both terms and even “twitter” isn’t a sure bet given it is an english word meaning approximately the same thing as the service Twitter provides.


[…] decía Biz Stone es que la marca (77715815) la habían solicitado hace meses y el USPTO se la había denegado justo el día en que escribió el post, hecho que conocieron a través de sus […]


August 25, 2009 @ 10:09 pm EDT

Very interesting piece, but I found this Frank’s statement funny that: “if you ask a man on the street who they’d like their daughter to marry, they would place Domainers well above Personal injury lawyers, Politicians and Used car salespeople,” …lol, that would hit some nerves.


August 25, 2009 @ 10:16 pm EDT

Pls..disregard or remove my earlier post… that was intended for another blog comment:

Ed M

August 27, 2009 @ 4:31 pm EDT

The whole rewteet application that samj posted just boggles the mind. But I guess anything is up for protection as long as you can find the right dummy at the patent office.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply