Mr. Open Source Sues IT@Cork

This is just too bizarre.  Tim O'Reilly is either the father of the term "Web 2.0," or he gets credit or blame for popularizing the term. For better or worse, the phrase has caught on.  IT@Cork in fact is holding a conference about it the week after next.

Now Tim O'Reilly's lawyers have claimed they have filed copyrights on the term and have sent a cease and desist letter to Tom Raftery whose producing and promoting the event.  Perhaps this is Tim's surprise gift to Tom who should be celebrating today with his 72-hour-old baby.

This just has to be one of those bone-headed things lawyers do when no one is looking.  If it isn't, than I would predict that O'Reilly has just put himself on the fast track to reputation implosion.

Comments

[Andrew]

Does Tim O'R have an evil twin... or just a lawyer?

[John Norrer]

You might want to take a closer look at the letter. It's from CMP Media who holds the trademark application, not O'Reilly.

However, whomever sent it is on deep waters. Beyond being distasteful, their US trademark is no good in Europe.

[Roger Jennings]

I'm not an attorney, but I've been the plaintiff in some large-scale registered trademark and copyright cases (not IT-related).

I don't understand how an _application_ for registration of "Web 2.0" as a service mark grants the applicant exclusive rights on Web 2.0 pending grant of registration. "Web 2.0" by itself doesn't imply a service to me.

It's amazing to me the extent to which the print publishing industry engenders greed on the part of its execs.

--rj

[Chris Heuer]

I wonder if they are trying to get in on Web2point1 and Web 3.0 as well? This is very disappointing news for us all, but not untypical of traditional publishers - I imagine Mike Arrington and TechCrunch are next.... Though I understand that Dave Berlind et al also has a trademark filed on Camps stemming from the MashupCamp event. Do you know anything about that one? Is it even true?

[Liam @ Web 2.5 Blog]

This is CMP's blunder, not O'Reilly's! The letter from the CMP lawyer is right there in the original post. You of all bloggers should know to read the fine print before opening fire. I think you owe your readers and Tim O a correction. See my blog for more on this story...

[Liam @ Web 2.5 Blog]

I beg your pardon, sir, it was indeed O'Reilly's blunder. I couldn't imagine they could be so foolish. Fire away.

[Eric Weaver]

Personally? I think you should trademark the phrase "reputation implosion." It's priceless. :)

[Kal]

In response to John Norrer:Trademark and Service mark rights can arise out of USE and registration. Marks do NOT need to be registered in order to be protected. If it were discovered today that Nike had neglected to trademark it's Swoosh, Reebok would NOT be able to start producing sneakers with the Swoosh because, registration aside, Nike has established its trademark rights through years of usage of the Swoosh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark

CMP's service mark is only for "Web 2.0" as it relates to conferences and events.
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=lclroo.2.1

I agree with much that has been written here, but I also feel that everyone has the right to protect his intellectual property. But it appears that O’Reilly may not have protected his. A genericized trademark is “a trademark or brand name which is often used as the colloquial description for a particular type of product or service as a result of widespread popular or cultural usage.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark
I have read that in America and other countries, for years, there have been numerous conferences and other events with “Web 2.0” in the name. http://blog.softtechvc.com/2006/05/the_web_20_lega.html
If this is true, then since O’Reilly and his company did not previously enforce their rights and send Cease & Desist letters to *those* conference organizers, it seems to me that “Web 2.0” has been allowed to become a genericized trademark. Hence, trademark rights may no longer be enforceable or at least it may be difficult for O’Reilly and crew to now legally enforce their rights. A long list of other genericized trademarks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks
Also, see the very brief opinion of The Trademark Blog on this topic: http://www.schwimmerlegal.com/2006/05/web_20_v_web_20.html

[Shel Israel]

Amusement

I took your comment down, not because I didn't like it, but because you choose to be anonymous. If you choose to stop hiding in the shadow and identify yourself, I would let it stand--even though I don't like it.