Cease and Desist1

IT@Cork received a Cease and Desist letter this morning from CMP Media who claim to have lodged a trademark application for the term Web 2.0! They are saying IT@Cork can't use the term Web 2.0 for the IT@Cork Web 2.0 half-day conference!

To take full advantage of Flickr, you should use a JavaScript-enabled browser and
install the latest version of the Macromedia Flash Player.

Comments

Joe Drumgoole says:

Tom,

Cease and desist are standard operating practice. Ignore it and see what happens next. They would have to sue Enterprise Ireland as well as they recently used it (as you are aware). Until they register the mark you are free to do what you please (IMHO).

Joe.
Posted 38 months ago. ( permalink )

Irish Typepad says:

CMP Media have no registered mark or trademark to the term "Web 2.0 Conference" in either Europe or the United States. This boilerplate letter looks like excellent PR collateral to run up the flagpole. It would also make a lovely grab bag stuffer for the 8 June 2006 event.
Posted 38 months ago. ( permalink )

jasoncalacanis says:

call it web 2.1
Posted 38 months ago. ( permalink )

whurleyvision says:

Actually, there is a registered mark for “web 2.0” and CMP is the owner…

tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state =n9jpsj.2.1

Detail:
Word Mark WEB 2.0
Goods and Services IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: Arranging and conducting live events, namely, trade shows, expositions and business conferences in various fields, namely, computers, communications, and information technology. FIRST USE: 20041005. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20041005

IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Organizing and conducting educational conferences, tutorials and workshops in the fields of computers, communication and information technology. FIRST USE: 20041005. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20041005
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Design Search Code
Serial Number 78322306
Filing Date November 3, 2003
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1B
Published for Opposition September 13, 2005
Owner (APPLICANT) CMP MEDIA LLC LTD LIAB CO DELAWARE 600 COMMUNITY DRIVE MANHASSET NEW YORK 11030
Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Attorney of Record Robert W. Sacoff
Disclaimer NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "WEB" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
Posted 38 months ago. ( permalink )

whurleyvision says:

By the way, that marks protection dates back to the November 3, 2003 filing date. i.e. unless you can prove you used it prior to that they have a claim and can probably get an injunction easily.

Now for the whurleyvision ;)

They did not protect it across all classes. Therefore someone (I have no idea who) that may or may not be on the side of good could potentially (I mean probably) register this mark for say their new tshirt brand under a different class. Thereby giving them all the right in the world to use it accordingly wherever they wanted. Pissing off CMP along the way I’m sure. However, I’m not your legal counsel, nor do I recommend that anyone take such action.

That said, paypal me the money and I’ll do it for you if you don’t know how ;)

- whurley
Posted 38 months ago. ( permalink )

rMen says:

Bullshit 2.0 is mine, don't try to use it without my agreement ;-).
Posted 38 months ago. ( permalink )

Pommie says:

IANAL, but something noteworthy is that there are certain limitations of what a company can register. You cannot register certain common english words of lower- or Title-case.

The oldest tech-related stink I can remember is for Microsoft Windows. For example, "Windows" is not trademarked... BUT both "Microsoft" (as the company name) and "Microsoft Windows" (as the product) ARE. You may see "Microsoft(r) Windows(tm)", but this is only made relevant because of the use of the two words together.

NeXT Computers had a slightly different problem. They could not register "Next Computers" (title-case; two english words)... but they COULD register "NeXT Computers" due to its mixed capitalization, and thus its 'uniqueness'.

Their disclaimer of non-exclusive rights to the word "Web" makes sense, as it's an english word in itself. But "Web v2.0", "Web R2", "Web 2+" and such are pretty much fair game, AFAIK.

[edit] Ironically, I think you can even get away with "Web2.0" if you DO NOT USE A SPACE. The Trademark office shows no registration for the 'word' "Web2.0". :-)
Posted 38 months ago. ( permalink )

mamelouk says:

OUAW. This is crap.

We'll just say Web 2.1 now
Posted 38 months ago. ( permalink )

Photomotion [deleted] says:

Web 2.0 Web 2.0 Web 2.0 Web 2.0 Web 2.0 Web 2.0 Web 2.0

now are these 7 Web 2.0's or one "Web 2.0 Web 2.0 Web 2.0 Web 2.0 Web 2.0 Web 2.0 Web 2.0"?
Posted 38 months ago. ( permalink )

Pommie says:

heh... if you really want to send the lawyers into a tizzy...
I believe there's something about revision numbers being a no-no as it relates to the name.

So if CMP's lawyers argue that "2.0 does not indicate a revision, but an integral part of the trademark "Web 2.0", you can legalsleeze "I wasn't using "Web 2.0", I was running the second revision of the "IT@Cork Web" conference. Just be sure to use "IT@Cork Web 2.0" in it's entirety.
Posted 38 months ago. ( permalink )

Thomas Hawk says:

Absolutely ridiculous. Get your own "Tim O'Reilly, Original Web 2.0 Asshole" graphic here:

www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/153656919/

It's Creative Commons licensed and all, feel free to use it all you like!
Posted 38 months ago. ( permalink )

lancefisher says:

I invented the Internet. - Al Gore

I invented Web 2.0. -Tim
Posted 38 months ago. ( permalink )

titanium22 says:

uh-huh, it seems pretty kickup thing. I really know the root of the word "Web 2.0", but O'Reilly should not do this kind of stupid things. BTW, I'm gonna quote this image as a part of my weBlog entry about this "Web 2.0" service mark issue.
Posted 38 months ago. ( permalink )

Graywacke says:

I think "pending" may be the operative term here, like "I'm going to go to work 'pending' I get my lazy ass out of bed" or "gosh, gee I'm too freakin lazy to actually do this right so I'll just threaten everyone else who had the same idea 'pending' my lazy ass lawyers actually earn there blood money and do something.
Posted 38 months ago. ( permalink )

prescottindigo says:

There's a rather spirited debate at radar.oreilly.com, and a pretty lengthy response from Tim O'Reilly asserting that they're not trying to stake a claim on the term Web 2.0 ... just on events called "Web 2.0 Conferences." Even more interesting, someone there posted a link to a 1999 article on Web 2.0 called "Fragmented Future" suggesting that Web 2.0's origins pre-date the brainstorming session between O'Reilly and MediaLive International. Both are worth a read.

Oh, btw, awesome photo! :)
Posted 38 months ago. ( permalink )

bootload says:

Response
The O'Reilly response can be found here. Take the time to read it through. Along with the above letter, It's a recipe of how to shoot yourself in the corporate foot.

Ugg
I've seen a similiar case (but not the same) in australia where a classic piece of footware, the ugg-boot was trademarked, then overturned in Australia against a US firm, Deckers because the term was in such common usage prior to the trademark.
Posted 38 months ago. ( permalink )

aepscqcuDCo says:

Swwwweeeeetttt...
Aztec Riches Poker
Posted 29 months ago. ( permalink )

Would you like to comment?

[?]

	Tom Raftery's photostream
		1,318 uploads

Additional Information

Some rights reserved Anyone can see this photo

Taken on May 25, 2006

14 people call this photo a favorite

Viewed 25,312 times

Add to your map

Yay location removed

...

(Some formats are OK.)

Or, remove it from the map.

Go to the map

You	Sign in \| Create Your Free Account
Explore	Places \| Last 7 Days \| This Month \| Popular Tags \| The Commons \| Creative Commons \| Search
Help	Community Guidelines \| The Help Forum \| FAQ \| Sitemap \| Help by Email

Cease and Desist1

Comments

Joe Drumgoole says:

Irish Typepad says:

jasoncalacanis says:

whurleyvision says:

whurleyvision says:

rMen says:

Pommie says:

mamelouk says:

Photomotion [deleted] says:

Pommie says:

Thomas Hawk says:

lancefisher says:

titanium22 says:

Graywacke says:

prescottindigo says:

bootload says:

aepscqcuDCo says:

Would you like to comment?

Tom Raftery's photostream

Tags

Additional Information