First of all, I’d like to thank everyone for all the supportive comments and posts on the whole IT@Cork Web 2.0 conference vs. CMP/O’Reilly’s legal dogs. I’d love to respond to everyone but as my son Enrique was born on Tuesday morning, I don’t have as much time to devote to this as I should.
CMP/O’Reilly’s have responded on the O’Reilly website and they have faxed us through a document to sign (below).
Is it just me or are they still not getting it? They are asking us to sign a document saying we won’t hold any future events with the term Web 2.0 in the title. If we run an event on Microsoft Windows, would Microsoft would send us a cease and desist letter for using their trademark in the title? Of course not, how is this any different?
And why should we sign a document tying ourselves to that?
UPDATE: – via Gavin I see that Twenty Major has posted an alternative response to O’Reilly’s C&D – Warning – NOT WORK SAFE.
Comments
49 responses to “O'Reilly's mean-spirited response”
Don’t sign it Tom. Let their stupidity and arrogance be their own punishment.
I admire your dedication to the cause Tom 🙂
I would be inclined not to sign, but I’m no lawyer and not fit to give legal advice.
There is a lot of support out there…. You could make a stand and have an entire global community behind you. Not that I’m asking IT@Cork to be martyrs or anything….
Unbelievable. How can companies get away with trademarking something so generic?
Well done Tom. Keep fighting the good fight.
Well done Tom… It is obvious that they never considered your determination and the huge impact that the blogosphere could generate. Good to see they’re backing off…
When an Irish lawyer contacts you, then assume they’re serious. Until that point, wag your tail feathers in their general direction.
The position they have taken may be a little fragile, considering that the application for ‘Web 2.0’ as a trademark in the EU was not filed until the 23rd March this year (see http://oami.europa.eu). Note that the mark has yet to “acquire distinctiveness” and I’d be intrigued to see how CMP can argue it has distinctive meaning in Europe, even for conferences.
I don’t understand! This issue has certainly raised a storm of comments, but I call your bluff: Why would you choose an event name that was identical to an established, well-known conference if you didn’t mean to cause confusion? And if you truly do not mean to cause confusion between that established conference and your own fledgling event, why wouldn’t you gladly agree to distance your future events from theirs? Would you still call next year’s event “Web 2.0” if the intervening O’Reilly event of that name was a total disaster and a laughingstock in the industry?
Let’s call it straight here. “Web 2.0” can be generic when discussing an web era but non-generic when describing an event. “Computer Dealer’s Exposition” also sounds blandly generic, but you’d never have gotten away with using that name when Comdex was in its heyday.
(Full disclosure: I’m writing two books for O’Reilly, but my post would be identical if I were not).
[…] http://www.tomrafteryit.net/oreillys-mean-spirited-response/ Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]
It gets better.
It seems the organisers were a little unsure as to what they planned to protect and for what they would apply. The USPTO database clearly shows an application for Web 2.0 being made in late November 2003 as a trademark for events. Yet, the following year, MediaLive was claiming that the longer, and arguably fairer version was the claimed trade or service mark:
Even today, the service mark noted on the conference’s website is for Web 2.0 Conference (not just on the phrase ‘Web 2.0’). I cannot find references to service or trade marks other than for O’Reilly in the press releases. If they don’t know what they’re trying to protect, they’re going to have trouble protecting it.
I guess they planned to have Web 2.0 Seminar, Web 2.0 Workshop, Web 2.0 Love-In as follow-ons. But MedaLive (and CMP) then went the wrong way about doing it. This may be an attempt to shut the stable door…
Tom
Tell them politely to shove it. Until their trademark application is accepted at EU level they have zero rights or jurisdiction here. It’s typical of the legal departments of US companies that forget that Europe and Ireland are NOT part of the US and that US law has no jurisdiction here.
Michele
O’Reilly’s mean-spirited response and “Web do.ohâ€?!…
…
Hi tom
Chris Tyler – you are correct, You don’t understand.
Cork IT has a board I assume Tom. Refer this to them – that is what they are there for. Now get back to your family in the real world 🙂
keith
[…] How is anyone else going to have conferences about what is, after all, a popular subject? Well, in this instance, O’Reilly are offering to let the “IT@Cork Web 2.0 conference” go ahead this time, but have requested that they agree not to use the name for future conference. […]
Is O’Reilly One of the good guys? Maybe ……
As an Irish O’Reilly Blogger , I have mixed feelings around the controversy on the Web 2.0 name. The original story is here, about a Web 2.0 conference organised by friends of mine in Cork , Ireland. The O’Reilly response……
Hi Tom – DON’T SIGN. You’ve nothing to defend – Ireland is not the 51st state – not last time I heard anyway.
[…] The backlash has been quite substantial, O’Reilly have responded. Tom has published the letter, not too nice either. […]
[…] Tom Raftery is blogging that CMP/O’Reilly is claiming to have applied for a trademark for the term “Web 2.0″, and therefore using this term is a “flagrant violation” of their trademark rights. […]
As more comes to light it seems that they really planned this memegrab from the outset.
Its a kinda clever hack exploiting goodwill and trust and all – very black hat.
I don’t know. That sounds very fair. Sounds like they passed the jerk baton to you.
Yeah, it looks like to me that the trademark isn’t on “Web 2.0” but, rather, “Web 2.0 Conference.”
So, change your name to “Web 2.0 Symposium” or “Web 2.0 Workshop” and then you’ll stop getting emails.
Or, make it “IT@Cork’s Web 2.0 Workshop.” That definitely removes all confusion (part of trademark fights is whether or not it could potentially confuse anyone).
Get your own “Tim O’Reilly, Original Web 2.0 Asshole” graphic here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/153656919/
It’s Creative Commons licensed and all, feel free to use it all you like!
O’Reilly: “Web 2.0″ is Ours…
IT@Cork is a networking organization for IT professionals. They have an upcoming Web 2.0 half-day conference, which prompted O’Reilly to send a cease and desist letter. O’Reilly is claiming they’ve applied for a trademark for the te…
Guys,
In their original cease and desist notification they said
So it is Web 2.0 which is service/trade marked. They went on to say
That rules out Web2, Web 2.1, and probably rules out Web 2.0 Symposium as well.
It’s pretty generic isn’t it? I’m not an expert in law but it seems too generic to me for a word that is so loosely used. It was all over the place in JavaOne last week. I don’t think that they sent a letter to Sun…
Tom, sounds like your stuck on Web 2.0 because you garnered a bit of popularity from your problem. O’Reilly is letting you use it this year. It’s time to move on. Pick Web 3.0 next year. It’d be a hit, if not at least a laugh. You can even play on the “we’re not Web 2.0 theme.”
I agree with Keith – change the name as Scoble suggests and get on back to enjoying life with your new baby. There are more important things here than getting swept up in this maelstorm.
I have a feeling the event will be well attended now though – wish I could make it over myself but we have prior commitments here in the valley.
Keep fighting the good fight. Someone has to stand up to bullying.
Congrats on the new addition!
[…] Tom, why not use the Irish translation: "Gréasán-a-Dó" *? It has the advantage of having the same cadence as "Web 2.0", and I think it sounds lovely in a Cork accent! […]
On the contrary Randy – right about now with the new baby, I could do without all this hassle. I am stuck on this because I think it is wrong that any company try to trademark a term as generic as Web 2.0 (and anything that sounds like it according to their C&D).
Chris, as I pointed out already – the names Robert suggested are contain the phrase Web 2.0 and therefore cannot be used (except now by IT@Cork).
Darren – thanks
[…] Without seeing the papers enclosed with that, it would be impossible to make even an idle assessment of them. Still, in general terms I’d point out that an application for a trade mark, like an application for anything else, is not proof that you’ve been granted such protection. […]
summer’s comimg, they just want a reason to come to the West of Ireland – do the Ring etc. I would tell them to kiss your Blarney Stone..
Web 2.0 Is not trademarked in Ireland, I suggest you go and trademark it.
http://www.patentsoffice.ie/eRegister/Query/TMQuery.asp
I think your best action with American legal posturing is inaction. CMP is entitled to attempt a global reach on the conference trade but that effort is toothless inside the EU.
Effort might be better spent in focusing some of the noise generated around an alleged trademark infraction to ensuring Irish tech developers actually attend the event.
Not entirely toothless. Both Ireland and the US are signatories of the Madrid Protocol.
That said Robert’s right: just use ‘Symposium’ or something instead of ‘Conference’. Here’s something I posted up on Damien’s blog to explain why I don’t think they’d try and push this to court:
Give ’em hell, and don’t sign!
Tim O’Reilly Don’t Be Evil…
Big discussion on the blogosphere surrounding O’Reilly’s “web2.0” trademark. Tim O’Reilly prevented a not-for-profit organization using the term “web2.0” in its conference title, alleging trademark infringement. Though the dispute has been settl…
And the Web2.0 Fun Continues…
I posted about this yesterday after I was sent a link to the post on Tom Raftery’s blog about O’Reilly sending lawyers after an Irish Conference. I was firstly shocked and secondly annoyed about it so I decided I’d keep an eye on it and see how th…
Put up a Legal Campaign defense fund page with a Paypal account on it and ask every blogger to spread the word. You would have a $200,000 legal defense fund in about 48 hours.
AND file the trademark in Ireland as was suggested above.
And change it to “workshop” from “conference”
This is hilarious. Sorry to hear that it hit at the same time as the new baby. Make your new son proud!
Good luck!
[…] After a small exchange of communications, IT@Cork was allowed to keep “Web 2.0″ in the title of the upcoming Web 2.0 Half-Day Conference, but has been forbidden to use “Web 2.0″ in future conference titles. […]
I think that that what happens when you let lawyers deal with the event.
I wonder if Tim O’Reilly asked to register “Web 2.0” as a trademark.
If he did, then I’ll do my best to buy books from other publishers, because he is definitely not what he makes of himself.
But I am not sure he was even aware to the whole thing. After all, layers writes it. Some of them are both idiots and devilish.
[…] Further to it@Cork’s problems, related here and here, I was mulling over what I might suggest if I had somebody come to me in their situation. […]
Actually – its me that owns the phrase Web 2.0 – and i’d like it back please!
To hell with O’Reily! By all means, just call it Web 2.0.1 or something stupid like that in order to get around their BS games!
[…] Since O’Reilly took web 2.0 and trademarked it, a lot of people have been wondering what it means. It didn’t seem like a big deal until CMP started sending cease-and-desist letters to non-profit organizations doing web conferences. […]
[…] So, before I bore you all with my personal feelings on this great big mess I’ll just bring you up to speed on the facts of what have happened since my post yesterday. Firstly, O’Reilly ate some humble pie and rang IT@Cork and apologised for sending in the lawyers before even talking to the organisers (good!), that was unfortunately followed by what Tom Raftery very sensibly calls “O’Reilly’s Mean Spirited Response“. There also followed some attempts by the O’Reilly PR department to save some face which just seem like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic to me; “Controversy About Our Web 2.0 Service Mark” and “More on Our Web 2.0 Service Mark“. […]
[…] Relax, Tom! I’m on it… […]
[…] other events. Needless to say this slap from CMP was met with a considerable amount of outrage and support for IT@Cork Web. Two days later the threat was withdrawn in a weirdly unofficial way by Cory […]
[…] O’Reilly sued ITCork, an Irish organization for holding a Web 2.0 event (see here and here). His attempt to extract his pound of flesh backfired so badly that he is resorting to questionable […]