I love Twitter. I’ve also personally met co-founder Biz Stone, and he’s a great guy. That said, it does appear that they’ve strayed from their normal play book and are instead reading from the lesser-known Clue(less) Train Manifesto. 

Twitter is attempting to gain some kind of control of the use of "Twitter" and "Tweet" in a way that reminds me of Google’s attempt back in 2006.

Because copyright and trademark lawyers have had such itchy trigger fingers when it comes to issuing DMCA takedown notices, there’s a lot of confusion out there what exactly constitutes infringement, and what webmasters can and can’t do with intellectual property.

Part of the problem is that websites hosting other people’s content—YouTube, Blogger, eBay, etc.—remove the content at the slightest whiff of a DMCA notice to avoid trouble. This leads, of course, to abuse and to targets without any great recourse.

 The online world is noisy enough as it is. Everyone is trying to get everyone’s attention to sell whatever it is they have.

This June, Google will expand advertiser’s ability to bid on trademarked keywords worldwide in over 200 countries despite a class action lawsuit filed in Texas. The plan to do so illustrates Google’s confidence that trademark bidding is not a violation of trademark laws—apparently anywhere.

In a reversal of what is generally considered the real world and what is virtual, metatags suddenly matter in a court of law, even if they haven’t mattered online for some time now. For one defendant, they matter as much as just under a half-million dollars matters.

Dropping keywords into the metatags of a website is an old school SEO technique. And by old school I mean pre-googlistoric. Stuffing metatags in the age of Google, which ignores them, is about as useful as peacock feathers on an armadillo.

Another court has decided use of trademarked terms in metatags and keyword advertising does not constitute trademark infringement, but the issue is far from settled and only gets more complicated as more courts hear arguments from both sides.

Just when you thought it was over: May 19 was the deadline for the man who would be SEO trademark holder to respond to notices of opposition to his trademark application (which were filed by SEOmoz, Arteworks, Beanstalk Search Engine Positioning, SEO.com, Jonathan Hochman, and Rhea Drysdale). Sarah Bird, Esq., of SEOmoz filed for default judgment in the case on Tuesday.

It appears that US courts are getting more and more savvy about Internet marketing (or US attorneys are getting more and more savvy about their “expert” witnesses in these cases!).

Earlier this month we informed our readers that a guy named Jason Gambert had been running around in the Trademark Office trying to get the term Search Engine Optimization (SEO) trademarked. Well his wish just ran into a brick wall and now things have gotten really nasty.

Trademark lawyers have repeatedly tried to make the case that dropping a competitor’s trademarked terms in website metatags are a violation of trademark law. A new court decision, though, says otherwise.

The argument has rested on traditional tenets like potential for confusion, trademark dilution, use in commerce, and even product-switching. A new court decision, though, doesn’t let those arguments go forward until the plaintiff can prove keyword metatags count for anything at all.

Sarah Bird, Esquire, of SEOmoz, Inc., happened upon the applicant’s request as she was working on some trademarks for SEOmoz. Not only is the applicant actually trying to obtain a trademark for the mark “SEO,” but he is also already on the way to the publication process.

Here’s the understatement of the week: "This wasn’t the best-argued case of the day." New York Law School professor James Grimmelmann was referring to the resurrection of computer repair company Rescuecomm’s lawsuit against Google, which was dismissed in 2006, but is now up for review by a federal appeals court.

It seems the world we live in has recently been relocated to the ‘Twilight Zone’. The reason being, that recently a man named Jason Gambert is trying to register ‘SEO’ as a trademark. The most shocking point in this bizarre event is that he has managed to get all the way to the publication stage of the registration process.

A Conyers, Georgia man has won a legal battle with retail giant Wal-Mart who accused the man of violating its trademark for selling T-shirts and other items that featured the phrases "Wal-ocaust" and "Wal-Qaeda."

We can only expect this issue to be brought before the courts more and more, which might mean it is eventually decided by much higher courts: Does targeting your competitor’s trademark keyword in search ads constitute "use in commerce," and thus a trademark violation.

The issue of whether bidding on a competitor’s trademark keyword for search advertising constitutes "use in commerce" isn’t one that is settled yet, and may not be settled for some time. That’s not going to stop the lawsuits, though.

Or seemingly duplicitous behavior.

There have been several Second Circuit court rulings that it’s okay to bid on your competitor’s keyword in search advertising and that it does not constitute use in commerce.

Call it a unit of knowledge, but beware of calling it a ‘knol’, as Google has applied to trademark the term.

A trademark registration filed on behalf of Fark.com’s owner Drew Curtis generated plenty of attention when news of it hit social media sites.

Google continues its seasonally aggressive Checkout campaign, again offering discounts and special promotions in advance of Cyber Monday.

U.S. blogger Eric Turkewitz, a lawyer who writes a personal injury blog has been told by car rental company Avis to remove an image of its logo from his blog posting or face charges of trademark infringement.