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.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.
The mere registration of a name means nothing.
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?
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.
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.
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.