Twitter could be banned from distributing Audio Video content | Twit LLC vs Twitter Inc Lawsuit

[AlTech]

Twit LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company which provides audio and video services/products,and it's founder Leo Laporte is suing Twitter Incorporated, also a Delaware company, for Trademark Infringement.

 

The mark "TWiT" is substantially similar to the mark "Twitter" and in 2008, Twit LLC and Twitter Inc agreed to co-exist alongside each other with respect to their marks due to their substantially different business models and products. As part of this agreement/contract, Twitter Inc agreed not to distribute Audio or Video content so as to avoid confusion with respect to the different brands and marks.

 

In 2009, Twit was concerned that Twitter would distribute Audio or Video content and Leo Laporte sent a letter to a high level executive at Twitter who he had talked to previously.

Twitter Inc responded that there was no reason for concern and that the journalistic media had been "overzealous".

 

In May 2017, Twit LLC wrote a letter for Twitter to cease distributing Video and Audio content. There was informal back and forth communication and the dispute was not resolved.

 

And thus, Twit LLC has sued Twitter inc for Trademark Infringement. 

They claim that they were damaged and/or harmed due to Twitter offering Video and Audio content and they claim that the mark infringement causes confusion regarding the brands.

 

Twit LLC and Leo Laporte are suing Twitter because of the Breach of Contract and the Trademark Infringement.

If Twit wins, Twitter could be banned from distributing Video and/or Audio content.

 

So yeah, good on Twit for standing up for what's right I guess.

 

Source:

 

[RollinLower]

i mean, if he has the contract that states that twitter isn't allowed to do all that it would be pretty interesting to see what happens.

 

i don't think twitter is just outright going to stop their audio/video content tough.

[JoostinOnline]

Do you get a dollar for every word you use in that title?

 

Here's a shorter version: "Twit LLC Sues Twitter, Could Prevent A/V Distribution"

[AlTech]

3 minutes ago, RollinLower said:

i mean, if he has the contract that states that twitter isn't allowed to do all that it would be pretty interesting to see what happens.

The case is fairly airtight from what the source has said.

 

The question is about what charges they are found guilty and not if they are guilty or not.

 

They are guilty but the law needs to determine how guilty they are.

Quote

i don't think twitter is just outright going to stop their audio/video content tough.

They will either have to or they will have to pay damages and fines to Twit.

2 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

Do you get a dollar for every word you use in that title?

 

Here's a shorter version: "Twit LLC Sues Twitter, Could Prevent A/V Distribution"

I was trying not to go for a Clickbait title like "Twitter could be banned from Audio Video Distribution".

[JoostinOnline]

2 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

I was trying not to go for a Clickbait title like "Twitter could be banned from Audio Video Distribution".

I can respect that.  Your new title is better.

[ItsTheDuckAgain]

"Twitter could be banned"

Hell yes! Make it happen. I don't care how just make it so :-)

[sof006]

What the hell is Twit? Thats what you call someone who does something stupid

[AlTech]

38 minutes ago, sof006 said:

What the hell is Twit? Thats what you call someone who does something stupid

Twit is an online video and audio platform created by Leo Laporte. They produce and distribute videos and audio to users. Said content is primarily technology based content however they also produce and/or distribute law, food and other non tech content.

[Guest]

Looks like revenue collecting again officer

[AlTech]

13 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

Looks like revenue collecting again officer

Well, yes and No.

 

In the hilariously funny Twit side of the story, they claim that irreparable damage has been done to Twit by Twitter.

Irreparable damage is for when a company cannot be financially compensated in order to fix their complaint or problem.

 

In other words they're being hypocrites and saying they were financially damaged and yet they were also damaged but not financially and there's no way to fix the latter so i don't even know.

[Bananasplit_00]

well, if they agreed that Twitter would not distribute A/V then this should be pretty clear shouldnt it?

[AlTech]

3 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

well, if they agreed that Twitter would not distribute A/V then this should be pretty clear shouldnt it?

Well yes, but again as mentioned earlier, the court needs to determine how guilty they are which can be a little bit difficult.

[Cyberspirit]

1 hour ago, ItsTheDuckAgain said:

Hell yes! Make it happen. I don't care how just make it so :-)

But I need Twitter for my lewds and cosplay addiction. 

[Sniperfox47]

2 minutes ago, Cyberspirit said:

But I need Twitter for my lewds and cosplay addiction. 

Isn't that what Tumblr is for?

[Cyberspirit]

35 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Isn't that what Tumblr is for?

Not sure I never used it before.

[Master Disaster]

So where's Twitch in all of this?

[AlTech]

10 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

So where's Twitch in all of this?

Twitch is not involved at all. It's just between Twit and Twitter. 

 

You could argue that it would be very hard for Twitch to be confused with Twit.

[Ryujin2003]

Being a fan of TWiT, I really am on Leo's side. When I started getting into tech make moons ago, I worked a security job. And after watching and listening to everything Linus had put out at the time, I was looking for more content. I found Leo's sir, and started listening to his podcasts. I can really like the content. Don't give a rats ass about Twitter.

[ItsTheDuckAgain]

2 hours ago, Cyberspirit said:

But I need Twitter for my lewds and cosplay addiction. 

use facebook - the other shitty site nobody asked for

[Guest]

10 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Well yes, but again as mentioned earlier, the court needs to determine how guilty they are which can be a little bit difficult.

There’s a big difference to audio and video upload and a audio and video distribution service. Think like Netflix vs FaceBook etc. 

[mvitkun]

12 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

You could argue that it would be very hard for Twitch to be confused with Twit.

Could you elaborate on why it's harder for them to be confused?

 

I know that personally the first time I'd heard of TWiT was when Ryan Shrout from PCPER mentioned that he'd be in a TWiT podcast called This Week in Computer Hardware, initially I'd thought it'd be on Twitch and that I'd simply misheard him or something since that's what PCPER streams their podcast on.......and, you know, since Twitch is one of the most well known streaming platforms.

 

I guess they could've used Periscope to stream from Twitter if they'd really wanted to.......but why? Nobody does podcasts on Periscope. It's mostly just IRL streams.

[Inkz]

Lol @LinusTech is reading this topic right now.   

 

Anyways, while I can't see a giant like Twitter lose video this case is very interesting. Having in contract that they would not do video is in clear violation of what they do, so Twit has a very valid argument. I am sure Twitter will have better lawyers, despite their worse position in this case, so I can see it ending up either way.  

[Commodus]

The practical reality : this is probably going to lead to a settlement.  Twitter obviously isn't going to drop video, and TWiT does have an agreement as well as their earlier presence online to back them up.  And I think a settlement is really what Laporte and crew want -- they don't want to wreck Twitter, they're just in a use-it-or-lose-it position where they either enforce the terms of the agreement or risk having no clout in future disputes.

[Kherm]

I love Twit.tv and I'm honestly shocked to hear this.

[Derangel]

So, Twitter acknowledged the potential confusion prior to the written agreement. And then in violation of the agreement they decided to expand into audio and video content using the Twitter brand that they already acknowledged could be confused with TWiT. Depending on the wording of their contract this sounds like a pretty open and shut case. Twitter is clearly in violation of their agreement and since they already acknowledged the potential for confusion that indeed could open them up to trademark infringement.