Twitter implemented the blue check originally due to impersonation issues. You can read the history on wikipedia, but Tony La Russa sued Twitter over it and the blue checks where the outcome. I'm not an attorney, but it seems not black and white.
This is conflating two separate concerns: a private company can do whatever it wants with its own user handles. Sell them, seize them, delete them. Impersonation, on the other hand, can be challenged in the court of law.
Twitter will certainly prioritize the sale of short handles, single word handles, common name handles, and not something like @apple (just because of the volume of squatted and unused handles that can be easily monetized). If they seize and sell @apple, and the new account will impersonate the company Apple - that's a totally different legal situation. If the sold account will just post pics of apples, I don't think the crime of impersonation would be relevant.
The problem is peoples handles aren’t arbitrary placeholders. Musk may want to resell NPR’s old accounts to some sock puppet, but that runs into criminal impersonation etc.
They are exactly arbitrary placeholders absent branding and use. The National Pumpkin Resellers could make use of an NPR handle just fine. If National Public Radio came back onto X with the NPRorg or NPRadio handle, they’d get no shortage of followers and quickly exceed the follower count of the pumpkin mongers.
Wouldn't the pumpkin folks (or the broadcaster) have a broader problem than just the Twitter handle? I worked for Jama Software, and it was determined that the word Software was required in all communication to avoid (further?) legal action by JAMA (the medical journal one). If one of the two has a claim, they deal with the other one directly, not with Twitter?!
You’re saying the legal name was Jama Software, correct? Had they registered a business name / DBA for the name “Jama”? Representing themselves as a different name in legal documents does seem ripe for issues. I’d imagine that even with the word “Software” the JAMA organization was still not too pleased about that name. Might get uglier if the software produced was for the medical industry. However, just because someone brings up a trademark infringement issue doesn’t mean they’d win. As a lawyer always asks, “you may be right, but is it worth a million dollars to prove it?” Often it’s better for all parties to not go to the mat on such issues and come to terms privately.
But I’m not sure that’s a good analogy for a Twitter/reddit/discord handle. A better one though not great is the domain name dispute resolution process. If JS owned and used Jama.com, I think they’d survive the domain dispute resolution process if they were serious about defending it.
A better analogy still might be Reddit. If they were using Jama as their official Reddit account, they’d likely be in a good defensible position legally so long as they billed themselves openly as the software org and took other steps to surface their branding to make it obvious that there was no association with the journal.
Again, legally, but Reddit the org is a different matter. Let’s say JAMA approaches Reddit and says they want the Jama username because they think the current user is creating confusion amongst customers, etc. There’s a slight undertone of taking action against Reddit if it doesn’t get resolved. Now Reddit has an interest in telling you, look - we got this asshole saying he wants ur username because trademark. Can you give it up or do you think you have a valid reason to keep it? Reddit will probably stay involved for exactly two rounds of back and forth before they make a summary decision turning on politics, commerce, and risk mitigation (do I want to piss off Amazon the corp or Beavis McMurdle in Iowa who has u/Amazon? Is it good to have Amazon corp engaged on my platform? What benefit does Beavis bring?). If the decision isn’t easy, I imagine Reddit will try to redirect the parties to work directly with each other (leave me out of it) or they’d give it to whichever party offers them solid indemnification (okay Amazon I’ll give you the username but send me a letter saying you believe you have legal claim to it and that you’ll pay all legal costs arising from Beavis McMurdle suing us).
It’s slightly more interesting if Beavis paid $20k to Reddit for the u/Amazon username. Is Reddit going to indemnify Beavis against any and all trademark claims as part of the sale? Absolutely not! Guaranteed part of that sales agreement will be something to the effect of the buyer attesting that they have a legal right to use the name, will indemnify Reddit(!) against any and all claims, and to not do so will be considered breech whereupon buyer forfeits purchase cost, etc., etc.
Reddit would likewise attempt to bind other parties (Amazon corp) by saying that as a condition of using the platform they’d agree to this dispute resolution policy, leave Reddit out of it where possible, etc. It would be pretty weak sauce, however, because Amazon mega corp could certainly bring a claim in court against Reddit claiming that they were aiding in trademark infringement, especially if Beavis started selling books with that username.
So it’s a pain threshold issue. How long will Reddit tiny corp go to bat for Beavis against Amazon mega corp? Not long. Their primary defense is some judo to redirect Amazon and Beavis to resolve their issues directly and leave Reddit out of it.
Elon of course is a different matter. Elon may go to the mat for some rando user cuz he likes to slay dragons - didn’t he say he would cover legal costs of users who get fired for a tweet or some such?? — but he may as quickly decide that having mega corp Z engaged on the platform is in X’s best interest. He has the money to stand up to mega corp plaintiff, but you can see with a private org how much the outcome is really just up to their pain tolerance. Ordinarily all orgs will operate in their own financial interest at end of day.
I just assume that this would only be resolved at the Supreme Court level. Any local court decision would be challenged by Twitter.
Re: @Microsoft. I am not convinced that’s the case. If I build a public website with user handles it doesn’t automatically give all trademark owners the right to the matching handle.
> I just assume that this would only be resolved at the Supreme Court level. Any local court decision would be challenged by Twitter.
That's not how the Supreme Court works. The Supreme Court only agrees to consider a small number of cases every year, which are usually cases that could have a significant impact on constitutional law. If the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case, the decision of the lower court (federal appeals court) would stand.
That maybe true - I don't know much about the legal system. However, my guess is that the implications of being able to lock down vs seize and sell user handles in private companies are more far reaching than some of the recent cases the Supreme Court did agree to consider, e.g. whether "Trump too small" can be trademarked.