On Friday, Twitter filed a notice of opposition before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board against applicant Puerto Rican company B. Fernandez & Hnos.’s application for the TWEET mark, asserting that it will be harmed if the applicant’s mark is registered.
Twitter noted that since at least 2006, it has “offered a platform that allows users to send, receive, post, share and access messages, photos, music, videos and other information and engage in real-time sharing of information and social networking.” Moreover, Twitter claimed that in April 2009, it filed an application for the TWEET mark, which was issued in May 2013 with the first date of use as May 2008; the TWEET mark primarily covers telecommunications, online messaging and is in International Classes 38, 41, and 45. Twitter added that in 2010 it filed for the TWEET mark covering its software for its messaging platform and advertising and marketing services. Twitter contended that it owns other TWEET marks or TWEET-related marks, such as TWEETDECK, COTWEET, SUBTWEET, TWEETSTORM, thus it purportedly has a “broad scope of protection in its family of TWEET marks.”
Twitter pointed out that the messages on its platform are called tweets. The marks are used in connection with the aforementioned goods and services, along with other goods and services. Twitter argued that it has established extensive common law rights in the TWEET mark in connection with its goods and services and that the TWEET mark is distinctive.
Twitter claimed that the applicant seeks to register the TWEET mark in International Class 31, covering bird food. However, Twitter alleged that “consumers will likely associate Applicant’s TWEET Mark with Twitter and the TWEET Goods and Service and will assume there is a relationship between Applicant and Twitter. Twitter asserted that the applicant’s TWEET mark is identical to its TWEET mark, would be “advertised and/or sold in identical or similar channels of trade as Twitter’s and Services”, and would “conflict with Twitter’s lawful and exclusive right to use the TWEET Mark nationwide in connection with Twitter’s Goods and Services.” Consequently, Twitter averred that this similarity is likely to cause consumer confusion, mistake or deception regarding the source, origin, or sponsorship of the respective goods and services.
Additionally, Twitter contended that the registration of the applicant’s mark with “cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of” its mark. Twitter also pointed that its registration of the mark predates that of the applicant, thus it has prior rights over the applicant.
Twitter alleged that it will be harmed and damaged by the registration of the applicant’s mark. Twitter has sought for the opposition to be sustained and the applicant’s application to be denied registration. Twitter is represented by Polsinelli.