Cease and Desist1

    Newer Older

    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!

    michaelarrington, and 13 other people added this photo to their favorites.

    1. Joe Drumgoole 96 months ago | reply


      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).


    2. Irish Typepad 96 months ago | reply

      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.

    3. jasoncalacanis 96 months ago | reply

      call it web 2.1

    4. whurleyvision 96 months ago | reply

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


      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
      Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
      Attorney of Record Robert W. Sacoff
      Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
      Register PRINCIPAL
      Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

    5. whurleyvision 96 months ago | reply

      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

    6. rMen 96 months ago | reply

      Bullshit 2.0 is mine, don't try to use it without my agreement ;-).

    7. Pommie 96 months ago | reply

      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". :-)

    8. mamelouk 96 months ago | reply

      OUAW. This is crap.

      We'll just say Web 2.1 now

    9. Photomotion [deleted] 96 months ago | reply

      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"?

    10. Pommie 96 months ago | reply

      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.

    11. Thomas Hawk 96 months ago | reply

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


      It's Creative Commons licensed and all, feel free to use it all you like!

    12. lancefisher 96 months ago | reply

      I invented the Internet. - Al Gore

      I invented Web 2.0. -Tim

    13. titanium22 96 months ago | reply

      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.

    14. Graywacke 96 months ago | reply

      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.

    15. prescottindigo 96 months ago | reply

      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! :)

    16. bootload 96 months ago | reply

      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.

      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.

      edited: 2013MAR18 image is broken, removed.

    17. johnnyryan1 54 months ago | reply

      Wow. Nasty business (2.0).

    18. miles smile ( AWAY ) 13 months ago | reply

      25-05-2006....this photo was your very first photo on explore at rank 344...;)

    19. Tom Raftery 13 months ago | reply

      Thanks Manu - though I don't really consider this a photo ;-)

    keyboard shortcuts: previous photo next photo L view in light box F favorite < scroll film strip left > scroll film strip right ? show all shortcuts