TechCrush Crushed?

Looks like Mike Arrington has fallen into the Tim O'Reilly bind: his lawyers are telling him that the newly-launched TechCrush (a blog on my recommendation, in TechMunch Begets TechCrush) is infringing on the TechCrunch trademark. The TechCrush guys do not want to tangle with Arrington's high-powered legal help.

[from TechCrush Grounded Before It Gets Chance To Fly? by Tony at Deep Jive Interests]

Back to the story: Its only been up for a few days, and it looks like its already been grounded.

With less than 10 posts underneath their belt, covering Flock, iKarma and Jigsaw, the latest post, titled “The Lion Sleeps Tonight (not)“, dated 9/21/06 says the following.

We put down our pencils here at the Crush-Room for the next days due to possible legal issues. Please stay with us, we will see how things are going to work out.

What legal issues do you think? How about the ones mentioned by Mike “Mr. Web2.0″ Arrington mentioned on this website himself:

i think this kind of thing is a good check against techcrunch and will keep us honest…I will say though that when companies start to fail we cover that too. My lawyers are pissy about our trademark and want us to send them a letter. I need to contact them to talk when they launch.

Well, I have no idea if he did, or what they talked about.

Will Arrington fall into the reputation blender like Tim O'Reilly? His words from TechCrunch on the Web 2.0 trademark brouhaha are interesting:

Tom Raftery received a cease and desist letter from the General Counsel of CMP Media, who work with Tim O’Reilly and John Battelle to put on the Web 2.0 Conference each fall. The letter demands that Tom stop his use of the term “Web 2.0″ in a conference he’s putting on. The letter states that the use of the term is under a trademark application in connection with live events, conferences, etc.

My favorite line of the letter: “…the public have come to associate the mark Web 2.0 and the Web 2.0 Conference with CMP and MediaLive.”

I have to say that when I think of web 2.0, CMP is not the first name that pops into my head. O’Reilly and Battelle sure. CMP, no.

I sense that a lynching is about to occur in the blogosphere, and Tim O’Reilly is going to be the person lynched. Bloggers aren’t going to trouble themselves with the fact that this letter is from CMP, not O’Reilly (Tim may not know about it).

They are going to shoot first and ask questions later - Shel Israel, for example, wrote “O’Reilly has just put himself on the fast track to reputation implosion” and he may be right.

I wonder if Mike will face a lynch mob, now?

TechCrush is a spoof, or a fun way to poke fun at the Web 2.0 puffery that a lot of folks associated with TechCrunch -- as Arrington himself stated -- so I wonder if this isn't all just over the top. I know that lawyers will tell you that any infringement has to be battled -- the argument that O'Reilly and CMP used, justifiably -- but it's still sad to see a worthwhile activity sidelined for trademark issues that are possibly immaterial.

tags: techcrush, techcrunch, techmunch, trademark+infringement, tim+oreilly

Comments

[Tony]

That's an excellent point -- I wonder if TechCrush falls under "satire" or something. Not being a trademark lawyer, I wonder if it would make a difference.

Then again, although the name is a bit of a spoof, the content seems pretty serious. Does it matter for a satirical name?

Another example of trademark shennanigans:
Digg --> DiggGames.

http://digggames.com/
http://diggtheblog.blogspot.com/2006/08/digg-trademarks-and-confusion.html

And of course, the irony: TechCrunch covered it:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/08/25/digg-sends-cd-to-digggames/

Cheers
Tony @ dji.

[Nik Cubrilovic]

And O'Reilly ended up just fine.. as will Mike.. nothing to see here, move along

I don't think 10-15 bloggers out of the whole web population is a 'lynching'

[haydn]

Relaunch it called Crunchedtothebrink. Or legalcrunch. But find a way to go again.

[Sour Duck]

I guess it's the lawyers, now, who are "drunk with their own power"...?

It's a shame.

[Edie Barschi]

OReilly ran to the front of a parade and said 'This parade is called Web 2.0.' People went along with it. Then a couple years later it turns out it's his trademark. Oh shit we was had, that's what the crush against Timmy O was about.

Mikey didn't say TechCrunch was anything but the name of his publication. No harm done, no one was misled.

[Alexander Muse]

Mike is a good guy and it is his right to protect his brand. I think the Web 2.0 flap and the TechMunch infringement are fairly different. Perhaps Mike should license his name for use in TechMunch for a nominal fee and let those guys post. It would protect his trademark and let this guys move forward.

[Nik Cubrilovic]

When it comes to trademarks, you don't have a 'satire' clause, you are thinking of copyright

[Lutz.W]

Anyhow, after some emails with Michael, we got the matter sorted out by adding a statement on Techcrush that we are not affiliated with Techcrunch in any way. I am perfectly fine with that, as Techcrush is supposed to be an entity on its own, even if its name is ridiculing the term "Techrunch" (which would have been the case either with Techmunch or Techcrush).
I'm glad everything was settled amicably like this -- the blogosphere is still big enough for all of us, or so it seems.
Lutz

[Stowe Boyd]

Nik - No. This same issue came up with the Niall Kennedy/Technorati imbroglio. Fair use in art/satire/etc. of trademarked logos is covered under free speech interpretation.

[Nik Cubrilovic]

I stand corrected, but then you would need to be making fun of techcrunch - not the companies it features

[Nik Cubrilovic]

Stowe do you have any association with techcrush? If you do, you should disclose it

[Pascal Venier]

Great to hear that the matter is now sorted! :-)

TechMunch could always had been a fall back position, if it had not been the case.

[Tom Raftery]

Stowe,

Tim's reputation took an enormous battering in the Web 2.0 brouhaha for several reasons:
1. It@Cork is a not-for-profit
2. Tim was invited to speak at the it@cork conference
3. Tim himself is from Cork (!)
4. Web 2.0 is a term whose core philosophy is about community building, openness and freedom - the antithesis od trademarking
5. Tim has (had) a reputation as an advocate of open source
6. I brought my wife and new born son home from the hospital on the day the cease and desist arrived from CMP!

None of the above factors come into play in the TechCrush controversy afaik Stowe!

Having said that, the lawlerly approach is always tad heavy handed.

[Lars Plougmann]

It is interesting that on the TechCrunch site, the TechCrunch name is not suffixed by (R) or TM, nor is it stated (anywhere that I can find) that the name is a trademark or a registered trademark. Trademark practice is to place a notice symbol adjacent to the mark so that it "informs others of the owner's trademark rights and discourages them from adopting the same or similar trademarks for their products" (quote from inta.org).
Searching for TechCrunch on uspto.gov doesn't come up with any results, so we may not be discussing a registered trademark (unlike "web 2.0" which is registered by CMP Media LLC in international classes 35 and 41, roughly covering live events, trade shows and conferences).
The TechCrunch team may feel that they have established the trademark through use. I am not a lawyer so I don't know how enforcable that is when TechCrunch and TechCrush are different words. Anyway the parties seem to have come to an agreement and settled the matter which is good.

[Tom Raftery]

Stowe, I left a comment here yesterday and it seems to have disappeared now. Any idea where it went or why?

[Stowe Boyd]

Nik - I have no official or financial relationship with TechCrush. I did sign up to be an occasionaly contributor, just for fun.

Tom - Comments are moderated so there is a delay.

Lars - Thanks for the analysis.

[Tom Raftery]

D'oh!

Sorry Stowe!

*Slaps head*