Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, designs, info-tech and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate!
The team is Eleonora Rosati, Annsley Merelle Ward and Merpel. E-mail the Kats here!
The team is joined by GuestKats Söğüt Atilla, Jocelyn Bosse, Alessandro Cerri, Oliver Fairhurst and Marcel Pemsel.
SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Rose Hughes (PatKat) and Anastasiia Kyrylenko (Book Review Editor).
InternKats: Simone Lorenzi and Asude Sena Moya.
Home/UDRP/WIPO / (When) a tweet is not enough .. to establish unregistered trade mark rights
(When) a tweet is not enough .. to establish unregistered trade mark rights
Social media and IP: a field of novel arguments and legal creativity. Have you ever wondered whether a tweet may provide sufficient evidence of
unregistered trade mark rights -- for the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(i) UDRP? This
was the question posed in a recent domain name dispute under the UDRP decided by WIPO's Arbitration and Mediation Center: Play
Club by Cipriani, S.L. / Giuseppe Cipriani v. Identity Protection Service /
Amir Zeb / Eyhab Jumean (Case No. D2013-1883):
"The Complainants claim unregistered
rights in the trademarks LA BOMBA IBIZA and BOMBA IBIZAdating from January 2013
when the second Complainant used the phrase “La Bomba Ibiza” in a tweet. The
Complainants do not hold any trademark registrations for (or incorporating)
BOMBA IBIZA."
WIPO's panellist was, however, not persuaded and
decided not follow this novel argument:
"In order to establish this[Merpel: that is unregistered
trade mark rights and in consequence that the Disputed Domain Name is identical
or confusingly similar to one of the Complainants’ trademarks in the sense of
Paragraph 4(a)(i) UDRP],the Complainants have provided evidence of a tweet on
January 12, 2013 which included the phrase “La Bomba Ibiza”. The Panel accepts
the Respondents’ evidence that “Bomba Ibiza” had not been chosen as the
nightclub’s name at the time of the tweet.
The Panel considers it highly
unlikely that “Bomba Ibiza” became a distinctive identifier associated with the
Complainants’ services in the time between the tweet (January 12, 2013) and the
registration of the Disputed Domain Names (February 12, 2013). As such, the
tweet alone is insufficient evidence of unregistered trademark rights to
satisfy the first element of the Policy."
This interesting decision can be found here (via .muepe.de and markenblog.de).
(When) a tweet is not enough .. to establish unregistered trade mark rights
Reviewed by Birgit Clark
on
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Rating: 5
In the mid-2013 case of Robyn Rihanna Fenty and Others vs Topshop and Another the following @Topshop (350,000 followers) tweet was worthy enough for mention by Justice Birss as evidence in support of Rihanna's successful passing off claim against Topshop:
“Ridiculously excited! @Rihanna in our Oxford Circus store as we tweet. Ah, wonder what she'll buy…".
The tweet supported the misrepresentation element of the passing off remedy successfully sought by Rihanna.
I mention the tweet and overview the case in "Passing off, taking goodwill takes business": http://www.dilanchian.com.au/index.php/lightbulb-blog/749-passing-off-taking-goodwill-takes-business
Thanks, Noric, for your comment. so far as I can see, there's no problem with Tweets being admissible as evidence -- and a single Tweet can clearly constitute a misrepresentation, a defamation etc. But establishing reputation or the existence of goodwill is a different matter altogether, whether through a Tweet or any other electronic or conventional medium.
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html
The IPKat: Intellectual Property News and Fun for Everyone!
How many page-views has the IPKat received?
94,944,327
Not just any old IPKat ...
* "Most Popular Intellectual Property Law Blawg" of all time according to Justia rankings, April 2025.
* "Most Popular Copyright Blawg" of all time according to Justia rankings, April 2025.
* "Best UK Intellectual Property blog" of all time according to FeedSpot, April 2025.
* PermaKat Eleonora Rosati has been quoted, and the IPKat has also been hyperlinked on the New York Times, April 2024.
* PermaKat Eleonora Rosati and The IPKat are expressly recommended as sources to follow to get an "unstuffy look at IP issues" according to Legal Business, April 2023.
* PermaKat Eleonora Rosati listed as one of the World Intellectual Property Review's "Influential Women in IP" of 2020.
* PermaKat Eleonora Rosatilisted as one of the Managing Intellectual Property magazine's "Fifty Most Influential People" of 2018.
* IPKat founder and Blogmeister Emeritus Jeremy Phillips listed as one of the Managing Intellectual Property magazine's "Fifty Most Influential People" of 2005, 2011, 2013, and 2014.
* Recommended by the European Patent Office as reading material for candidates for the European Qualifying Examinations, 2013.
* Listed as "Top Legal Blog" in The Times Online, March 2011.
* One of the only two non-US blogs listed in the Blawg 2010 ABA Journal100.
* Court Reporter Top Copyright Blog award winner, November 2010.
* Number 1 in the 2010 Top Copyright Blog list compiled by the Copyright Litigation Blog, July 2010.
* Selected by the United States Library of Congress for inclusion in its historic collections of Internet materials related to Legal Blawgs as of 2010.
* Top Patent Blog poll 2009: 3rd out of 50 in the "Favourite Patent Blog" poll and 2nd out of 50 in the "Most-read" poll.
* ComputerWeekly IT Law and Governance Blog of the Year, 20 August 2008.
* Best of the Blogs, Times Online, 21 August 2008.
Get the Kat in your Inbox!
Over 16,400 readers already subscribe to the IPKat by email.
To subscribeclick here and enter your preferred e-mail address.
Any problems, please let the IPKat team know.
The Kat that tweets! Current followers: 22.6K
To follow the IPKat team's posts and comments on X (formerly Twitter), just click here Follow @Ipkat
In the mid-2013 case of Robyn Rihanna Fenty and Others vs Topshop and Another the following @Topshop (350,000 followers) tweet was worthy enough for mention by Justice Birss as evidence in support of Rihanna's successful passing off claim against Topshop:
ReplyDelete“Ridiculously excited! @Rihanna in our Oxford Circus store as we tweet. Ah, wonder what she'll buy…".
The tweet supported the misrepresentation element of the passing off remedy successfully sought by Rihanna.
I mention the tweet and overview the case in "Passing off, taking goodwill takes business": http://www.dilanchian.com.au/index.php/lightbulb-blog/749-passing-off-taking-goodwill-takes-business
Thanks, Noric, for your comment. so far as I can see, there's no problem with Tweets being admissible as evidence -- and a single Tweet can clearly constitute a misrepresentation, a defamation etc. But establishing reputation or the existence of goodwill is a different matter altogether, whether through a Tweet or any other electronic or conventional medium.
ReplyDelete