Hacker News Reader

Comment by PaulHoule | Hacker News Reader

Since Twitter is a neologism they are in a strong place: if somebody wants to sell “Twitter” sausages at the supermarket Twitter is in a position to do that…. Whereas “McDonalds” really can’t extend its brand beyond hamburger restaurants.

The next question is: “Is he really serious about the super app?”. The horror is that he probably is, but what business wants to deal with a mercurial leader who might stop payments, pay people extra, or impound money in your account for no good reason. What business is going to want to put an “X” logo up by their cash register when it means they are going to have arguments with customers. (I bet it will be a hit for “go anti-woke and go broke” businesses though.)

View on HN

Twitter is not a neologism, but a word in the english dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/twitter ("to utter successive chirping noises"). As is tweet: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tweet ("a chirping note"). My knowledge of trademark law is limited, but I guess if someone would like to sell "Twitter"-sausages, they would have to apply for that trademark in the respective category and it could be anyone, as the-company-formerly-known-as-twitter propably doesn't have the trademark for food?

As I understand it, some brands are strong enough and globally-applicable enough that you can't use them regardless of what you're trading in. If you were to sell "Nike sausages," I'm pretty sure you would get sued and lose in court. Other times, the brand is more limited and you can get away with re-using it.

Not sausage, but I'd put money on there being at least one "Nike" greek restaurant out there.

Sure, but twitter is a word that doesn't have any other meaning in other languages, and certainly no mythology behind it.

It's both.

Trademark law requires registering for a series of categories where a product seeks protection, with each category being relatively specific.

At the same time, suing someone for Trademark infringement requires a judge to decide whether it could "potentially induce confusion in the user".

Could an app be confused for a sausage? Could it be confused for a sneaker?... I'd say not, but I'm no judge!

As a slight counterpoint, Bells Labs was selling Nike Missiles before the shoe company ever existed. I imagine that they’d be in a good place legally to continue that brand name.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com