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!

  • Joe Drumgoole 9y


    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).

  • Irish Typepad 9y

    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.
  • jasoncalacanis 9y

    call it web 2.1
  • whurley 9y

    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
  • whurley 9y

    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
  • Richard Menneveux 9y

    Bullshit 2.0 is mine, don't try to use it without my agreement ;-).
  • Pommie 9y

    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". :-)
  • mamelouk 9y

    OUAW. This is crap.

    We'll just say Web 2.1 now
  • Photomotion 9y

    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"?
  • Pommie 9y

    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.
  • Thomas Hawk 9y

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

    Tim O'Reilly by Thomas Hawk

    It's Creative Commons licensed and all, feel free to use it all you like!
  • Lance Fisher 9y

    I invented the Internet. - Al Gore

    I invented Web 2.0. -Tim
  • titanium22 9y

    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.
  • Graywacke 9y

    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.
  • Prescott Indigo 9y

    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! :)
  • Peter Renshaw 9y

    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.
  • Johnny Ryan 6y

    Wow. Nasty business (2.0).
  • manu (catching up) 2y

    25-05-2006....this photo was your very first photo on explore at rank 344...;)
  • Tom Raftery 2y

    Thanks Manu - though I don't really consider this a photo ;-)
14 faves
Uploaded on May 25, 2006
  • Show EXIF

Additional info

  • Viewing this photo Public
  • Safety level of this photo Safe
  • S Search
    Photo navigation
    < > Thumbnail navigation
    Z Zoom
    B Back to context