What’s a Tweet?
posted by Jon Siegel
Twitter’s application for a trademark registration on the word “tweet” was recently rejected, which led to a discussion among some colleagues and myself as to whether the word is a generic term. The argument in favor is that the word “tweet” has become a common term, which has entered dictionaries and even the AP style guide, as the linked article shows.
A basic principle of of trademark law is that no one can trademark a “generic” term, which is to say, the common term for article or service being sold. Thus, no one could own the exclusive right to sell toothpaste under the name “toothpaste.” That would hardly be fair to competing sellers of toothpaste, and the generic term also doesn’t perform the basic function of a trademark, which is to tell consumers the source of the product, not what the product is.
Nonetheless, I would say that “tweet” is not generic. Yes, “tweet” has become a common term, but with what meaning? To me, “tweet” means, “a short message carried via the Twitter service.” It doesn’t mean, generically, “a short message,” or even “a short message carried via some social networking service.” It is specific to Twitter. I don’t think of the short messages I send to my Facebook friends as “tweets.”
This usage is confirmed by that eminently reliable source, Wikipedia, which defines “tweet” as “A micro-blog post on the Twitter social network site, or the act of posting on it.” And urbandictionary.com says that a “tweet” is “A post on Twitter, a real-time social messaging system.”
So I would say that “tweet” still performs a trademark’s source-indicating function. It tells you that the thing named is associated with Twitter specifically. Perhaps people will soon start referring to any short message as a “tweet,” but it hasn’t happened yet. So I say that “tweet” is not generic.
September 2, 2009 at 6:22 am
Tags: Intellectual Property
Posted in: Uncategorized
Print This Post
Responses (3)
JT - September 2, 2009 at 9:53 am
Twitter will ruin the English language. I cannot wait until it is replaced with some other newer, hotter technology. That said, isn’t “tweet” actually a term that describes the sound a bird makes?
Jon Siegel - September 2, 2009 at 10:24 am
Yes, before “tweet” became a term associated with Twitter, it was already an English word with a meaning. But so are a lot of trademarks, such as “Crest,” “Ivory,” “Tide,” and “Bold.” So there’s no rule against taking an English word and appropriating it as a trademark for a particular product, so long as it is not the generic term for the product in question (e.g. “toothpaste” for toothpaste) or a term that merely describes the product (e.g. “cotton” for clothing). Everyone is still entitled to use the words “Crest,” “Ivory,” etc.; we just can’t use them on competing products or in other commercial ways that would cause customer confusion.
James Grimmelmann - September 2, 2009 at 12:48 pm
And we’re also allowed to use the word “Tweet” to describe posts on Twitter.
Leave a Reply