Hacker News Reader

Comment by axod | Hacker News Reader

Sure, they have similar UI elements, but everyone knows it's a terrible risk to take not having <your product name>.com I don't understand why anyone would do it.

I'd hate a world where people claim they "own" certain UI layouts. It reminds me a little of when 37 signals were up in arms about huddlechat copying campfire, because both of them looked like chatrooms :/

Definitely if twitvid.io have a legitimate claim to the trademark, they might have a case, although afaik owning the .com counts for a fair amount. If it was me, I'd just change the name, knuckle down, and out maneuver the competition.

View on HN

Everyone copies everyone else. That's just the way this business works, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it.

I agree they should just change the name and try to out hustle these guys. If they didn't have the $ to buy the .com domain in the first place, they certainly can't afford to pay lawyers to wage a protracted trademark battle.

Does anyone know who posted the original entry? Was it someone at twitvid.io/fliggo, a friend, or just someone random?

There's a difference between copying individual elements, and making a knockoff of something. That's why there's a distinct word "knockoff" for that case.

To me, the only thing that makes twitvid.com wrong is choosing the same name. Some of the features and accompanying copy are the same, but the layout is basically a combination of any ugc site and Twitter. These two both look a lot like justin.tv and okcupid.com.

Also, twitvid.com looks better, which makes this situation more painful, I'm sure.

In my experience, that line is pretty fuzzy in this business. E.g., take all the various mafia games on facebook, myspace, iphone, and now twitter. They're more or less all knockoffs of one another, but nobody seems to care. In fact, consumers seem to love them all.

In this case, shame on twitvid.com for using the exact same name (and filing a trademark application for it), but I think copying features and design elements is fair game. Ultimately the one that provides the best service will win.

Both sites took a ridiculously generic template for designing their page. Bubbly letters, Twitter colors, show users, 1-2-3 list. The designers for both products lack imagination and created products that fail to stand out. Maybe that works because they're making such a "widespread use" product, but you can't accuse people of stealing genericism. Not when every Twitter site works the exact same.

I definitely see what you're saying and still remember 37signals' outraged people are outraged ordeal. But...look at the Twitvid.com before and after shots, they changed to look like Twitvid.io.

I don't know if Twitvid.io has a case or not, but Twitvid.com is treading in the bush league.

>> " they changed to look like Twitvid.io."

That's usual competition :/ Company A does something, company B copies. Just a fact of life :/

The websites are different enough to avoid confusion IMHO, and the .com holds the .com name so has a fair advantage. To the unaware, they'd likely consider .io to be the ripoff, as users trust .com

It's just a raging asshole move online. If you were talking about cars, it might be okay for GM to copy something by Toyota, feature for feature -- because they'd still have to invest a billion dollars or so in reverse-engineering, designing, manufacturing, distributing, and advertising it.

But if you can just apple-C, apple-V your way into stealing someone else's brand value, it's a sleazy trick that adds no value. At best, this means that the next time someone has an idea like this, they'll be more likely to go after the dot-com -- and if they can't afford the dot-com, they may move on to their second-best idea instead.

If they copied HTML code, or graphics, then sure. But if they looked at the site and incorporated similar elements and wording, which seems to be what happened, I'd say "meh - it happens".

IMHO not getting the .com is a really bad idea. The best case scenario is you start paying adwords a ton of money to get the traffic. Worst case is probably what happened here.

Outside of 3rd party app integration, I think this will be a big determining factor:

http://www.google.com/search?q=twitvid

And in a funny twist, neither twitvid.com or twitvid.io are showing in position #1. If people really want to help out, they should link to twitvid.io with the anchor text twitvid.

That's going to be a losing battle IMHO. Also google likes .com and so do users. Change the name and take it as a lesson learnt.

I haven't seen any evidence that extensions matter one way or the other. Backlinks/keywords/content play much larger roles.

You're right about the user part. However, Twitvid could end up like Twitter in that the majority of people end up using it via 3rd party apps.

"That's usual competition ... Just a fact of life"

Not really. Some of us choose to operate ethically, helping others in our business communities and the public at large. There are plenty of things you can do without screwing over another small business.

They tried to buy twitvid.com, but they couldn't afford the asking price. But "Twitvid" (not .io or .com) is what both parties are claiming a trademark on, and there Twitvid was clearly first.

twitvid.com Created : Mar 30 2008.

twitvid.io Created : May 12 2009.

I think it would be a mistake to ignore those facts, and according to http://venturebeat.com/2009/05/23/twitvidcom-lets-you-tweet-... they 'launched' within days of each other.

Also http://traffic.alexa.com/graph?&w=400&h=220&o=f&...;

I'm no lawyer, but I think the launch is too close to award anyone anything. I'd expect you have to have a clear established customer base to claim they will be confused - not a couple of days usage.

Trademark protection doesn't apply to names themselves, but to names used for particular purposes. You could start an apiary called Apple Honey Co, and you'd be fine. Start a computer company called Apple, though, and you'd be infringing Apple Computer's trademark.

The mere registration of a name means nothing.

Right. But surely you also have to be able to demonstrate that you have been active in that space for a while, and that people associate that name, in that space, with you. And, that the issue is causing widespread customer confusion.

I'm just skeptical that can be done when both services launched within days of each other. Seems like not enough data to draw any meaningful conclusions.

If bing.io had launched a few days before ms unveiled bing.com do you think they'd have a hope in hell?

True, but it does make it much easier to make the case that they registered the domain a year ago with the intent of launching that brand and have been working on the idea ever since, while we know that Twitvid.io just spent a few days throwing this together a couple weeks ago. Hardly an airtight case for trademark protection.

I'm not saying what they did is right, as it clearly isn't, but I agree with axod; Twitvid.io should just change their name and move on. They're going to fight a losing battle otherwise.

the domain twitvid.com was created earlier but may have been bought from the original owner just recently.

They didn't register the domain a year ago. They bought it from a squatter after Twitvid launched.

What I simply cannot understand, is why twitvid.io would launch, knowing that twitvid.com was out there. What did they think it would be used for? Selling flowers?

It's obvious that twitvid.com would become a competitor, and due to the service they both copied - twitpic.com - would look very similar to twitvid.io.

How do you guys know this?

Because (as I said in the post) the Twitvids also tried to buy twitvid.com from the guy who'd registered it, but couldn't afford his asking price.

Sorry for the ambiguity...I meant to say: how do you know that they bought it after Twitvid.io launched?

True, but that cuts both ways. Twitvid.io xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx see below xxxxxxxxxxxxx hasn't been in existence very long, so there is no way they can argue their domain is an established mark. Twitvid.com could point to the early registration (and possibly the date of their purchase of it) as evidence that they planned to move into this space and had to move up their launch schedule in response to twitvid.io.

Trademarks are quite different from copyright, where proof of authorship is all; given the relative youth of both sites, I wouldn't rely on a legal remedy if I were twitvid.io. If nothing else, one would have to ask whether the cost of defending the mark would exceed the cost to buyout the .com, and indeed if/why not this was budgeted for.

Just noticed that twitvid.com (not .io as I mistakenly noted above) actually has an active trademark application on the name Twitvid. Specifically, it's their parent eatlime.com, an existing video-sharing service that has done the filing. So I don't see much hope for twitvid.io leveraging their < 1 week launch advantage into a defensible trademark.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com