Your personal and corporate reputation and popularity on these networks pivot on an identity known as your username. The role of usernames as brand identifiers is following a similar pattern as domain names but without any of the protections that trademarks owners enjoy.

Social networks are at a crossroads in terms of balancing the free spirit of their community and embracing the rights of brand owners. The relationship can either be adversarial or cooperative. Everyone wins if it is cooperative. Besides, for a new type of social network, trademark protection is going to happen anyway.

Even before its publication, over a hundred proposed groups have announced their plans to apply for their own TLD. This includes communities oriented around cities, countries, ethnic groups and special interest groups based on sports, games and entertainment. Microsoft, Nokia and IBM are all rumored to be exploring the idea of their own TLD. In reality, most of these new TLDs will resemble what we think of as a social network with communities of members with shared interests.

Since a community username will essentially be the same as a domain name, these social network TLDs will be applying ICANN's trademark protection policies to usernames. The result will be predictability for the end-user and predictability for trademark owners. And the policies represent good business practices for these social networks too.

These policies include:

1. A trademark dispute policy for ownership of domain names: A trademark dispute policy helps the Social Network TLD stay out of any legal disputes that occur between the network member and the trademark owner. It minimizes legal costs for Social Network TLDs, just as it has for existing domain registry operators.
2. A sunrise period and/or monitoring service: A sunrise period for trademark owners allows trademark owners to secure their brands before the general public. This will generate goodwill among the trademark community for the Social Network TLD.
3. A Whois database of usernames: The Whois database allows trademark owners to look up who has registered a domain to help determine if it’s someone with legitimate rights to the name.

Social network TLDs will likely have some additional privacy controls in place compared to today’s typical Whois, but nonetheless ownership of the user's domain name would likely be disclosed to rights owners and law enforcement that provide bona fide requests for such disclosure.

Overall, adopting these rules will help the Social Network TLD’s lower their legal costs, avoid distractions to their business model and enlist the very business partners they need to create a viable business. It is a win-win for social network operators and brand owners.

Integrating trademark rights into business strategy is not so bad. In fact, Facebook already experimented with this last year when they allowed trademark owners to reserve vanity Facebook names ahead of the general public. The move prevented the legal headache of dealing with thousands of irate trademark owners finding their brands snatched by whimsical members. Facebook also created some good will among a group of corporate sponsors that will likely be a primary source of revenue for their business.

So, the question arises: Isn’t it just good business practice for today’s social networks to treat usernames by the same rules as domain names? Should existing social networks voluntarily start adopting a trademark dispute policy and other brand policies even if they are not required to?

But in what seems to follow on a rather unfortunate series of events for Twitter's developer ecosystem, the announcement may not bode well for startups that have thus far associated themselves - in name and in logo - with Twitter and its Tweets.

The list of guidelines is designed, according to Twitter, "to help you use our marks without having to worry about negotiating an agreement with us or talking to our lawyers." So here's what you can do, according to Twitter, without having to call in legal counsel. How companies like Twitterific, with its iconic blue bird, will need to respond, remains to be seen.

Apparently we're not supposed to use screenshots of people's Tweets without their permission (but here's a link to my boyfriend's recent Tweet where he totally checked in via Foursquare without my permission. I am definitely going to sue.)

Twitter wants to retain control of its mark on merchandise, which is understandable, as far as the "Twitter" logo goes. But it goes one step father, saying that "if mentioning 'Tweet,' you include a direct reference to Twitter (for instance, 'Tweet with Twitter') or display the Twitter marks with the mention of 'Tweet.'"

Impact on Developers?

The new guidelines also say that using Tweet in the name of an application is only acceptable if the app is designed to be used exclusively with Twitter, something that, as Techcrunch's MG Siegler notes, doesn't bode too well for Tweetdeck. Twitpic, and other services that start with Tw- or Twit- are, however, "generally okay with us."

And the T on "Tweet," just so you know, should always be capitalized - because Tweeting is Important, much like the googling and facebooking we all undertake.

Since it's original posting on Friday afternoon, Siegler's post has been updated multiple times with clarifications from Twitter, suggesting that the initial guidelines may not have been penned with the utmost precision -- small consolation for developers who are working within the Twitter legal and linguistic ecosystem.

Augmented reality is a popular technology for new media advertising, allowing images, logos and markers to become triggers for 3D experiences on computers and mobile devices. It also could create 21st century legal dilemmas. Who has the right to create AR experiences from trademarked brand logos? Is the age of "augmented reality trademark infringement" rapidly approaching?

"This repurposing of corporate icons will offer future artists and activists a powerful means of expression which will be easily accessible to the masses and at the same time will be safe and nondestructive," they say.

Nondestructive in what sense? Yes, virtually spilling oil is safe for the planet, but the use of BP's own logo is destructive to their brand and the company has the right to protect it. It is true that BP's brand has already been irrevocably damaged due to the spill, and it is also true that augmented reality is a niche technology not likely to be a strong vehicle for further brand damage (yet), but BP still has the right to control how its logo is used.

Would BP actually benefit from defending their trademark in this way? Erik J. Heels, a trademark lawyer with the Clock Tower Law Group in Maynard, Massachusetts, says BP would be better off simply letting it go.

"The analysis falls in two categories," Heels told ReadWriteWeb. "First, what does the law allow a rights holder to do? And second, what is the smart thing to do from a business and public relations perspective? Even if BP wanted to take action against them, I don't think they would win the battle of public opinion, it could backfire on them."

Trademark law, Heels says, was created to protect similar products and services from being confused with one another, and it is unlikely a person using this app would be unsure of whether it was or wasn't officially endorsed by BP. Free speech, parody and commentary are other areas of law that overlap with this issue, which makes any action from BP even more unlikely.

If any entity is going to challenge the existence of the application, it is likely to be Apple, which has had no problem keeping any app they deemed questionable from passing inspection. It is unlikely that this application will get by Apple in its current state, but an updated version using a different logo most certainly would. In the future, however, if augmented reality takes off and is part of our everyday lives, an application like this could attract more legal attention from a popular brand.

Should brands have the same protections over the use of their logos in augmented reality (or specifically as the marker to launch an AR experience) as they do in actual reality? Who has the right to use trademarks as AR triggers? These are questions brands will be faced with as AR continues to expand its presence in digital marketing.

In an interview with UgoTrade author Tish Shute, AR developer Anselm Hook discussed what he calls the "imageDNS" - a name space for images - which could potentially be used to solve some of these issues.

"When an image becomes a kind of hyperlink - there's really a question of what it will resolve to," said Hook. "Will your heads up display of McDonalds show tasty treats at low prices or will it show alternative nearby places where you can get a local, organic, healthy meal quickly?"

Trademark laws and image disputes aside, the potential for augmented "ad busting" and virtual activism is promising on the augmented reality platform, and more mobile apps will certainly surface in this space. I can even see an app in the future that will let activists spill virtual blood on fur coats, so developers, please get to work on "Fur is MurdAR."

The name "Nexus One" was ruled too close to Portland, Oregon based Integra Telecom's own registered trademark for its Nexus fixed bandwidth integrated voice and internet T1 product.

"We appreciate that the PTO is protecting our trademark rights. Integra has over $60 Million in annual revenue associated with our Nexus brand and it represents millions of new revenue for the company each year. Google hasn't contacted us since the PTO issued its objection but we hope we can work together to achieve our respective business goals."

Does that mean Google will rename the Nexus One, or that it will end up paying the trademark holder for the privilege of using the name? Google just expanded the Nexus One onto the AT&T network today.

Either way, we wouldn't be surprised if the hunt for a new name is already on. What would you suggest, readers?

It's tempting to say this is another example of the Patent and Trademark Office moving too slow, but note that Integra was granted its trademark in December 2008. The Nexus One was just release January 5, 2010.

Meanwhile, the open Android operating system marches on. XML co-creator Tim Bray announced this weekend that he has joined Google to work on Android. He called the iPhone in a blog post "a sterile Disney-fied walled garden surrounded by sharp-toothed lawyers. The people who create the apps serve at the landlord's pleasure and fear his anger."

As of this posting, if you head to the FreshAirapps site you'll see a note from James Whittaker noting that Whittaker's usage of the word "AIR" in his domain name poses a problem with Adobe. No matter how obscure this may seem, rules are rules and Adobe explicitly states the following in its list of trademarks:

"Adobe® AIR™" is a trademark of Adobe that may not be used by others except under a written license from Adobe. You may not incorporate the Adobe AIR trademark, or any other Adobe trademark, in whole or in part, in the title of your Developer Application or in your company name, domain name or the name of a service related to Adobe AIR."

Is Adobe Just Being a Bully?

Is Adobe jealous of the publicity and potential that FreshAIRapps has compared to its own directory for AIR apps? It shouldn't be. If you were to do a search on Google for "adobe AIR apps", FreshAIRapps isn't even on the first page. On the other hand, there are several reasons why I'd visit FreshAIRapps over Adobe's AIR showcase. For one, I like FreshAIRapps site design better. It's cleaner and more refreshing for me. Two, there are reviews from both a technical and user perspective about each app. This keeps me from having to download apps just to find out whether or not they'd be worth my time.

Whittaker ends the note with his reasons for starting FreshAIRapps in the first place, while expressing his disappointment in Adobe:

I have been in communication with members of the Adobe evangelist team who truly believe that I am helping the community and promoting the use of the AIR runtime and subsequent applications built on the platform. I started this site because I have a genuine interest in AIR and other Adobe technologies.

I feel that Adobe has let me and the community down by trying to block sites that appear to challenge their marketplace, even though none of the apps featured on this site are hosted by me.

Is Adobe in the Wrong?

In the end, FreshAIRapps is free publicity for Adobe and they're going after the wrong guy. This isn't the first incident where big companies hit the supporters of their products with take-down notices or anything similar. In this case, FreshAIRapps doesn't even host the applications. Whittaker simply reviewed and promoted the apps, something numerous sites already do. Yet, Adobe blames the problem on the "AIR" trademark that's registered in the domain name. This all seems ridiculous at the end of the day. With a new domain name and a sour after-taste, is Adobe in the wrong here?

Red Hat alleges that the infinity sign on the blue suitcase of DataPortability.org and the green and white infinity sign at the top of the site are "identical to the Fedora Infinity design logo owned by Red Hat."

Believe it or not, the above are not the logo for Red Hat's Fedora product, the following is.

Ok, so if those look alike it's because they all use the symbol for infinity. Red Hat isn't going to claim to own the symbol for infinity, is it? A request for comment hasn't been responded to yet, we'll see if the company has anything more to say. Meanwhile, a discussion concerning how to respond has begun on the DataPortability.org mailing list.

Outlaw pretzel image above used by, apparently illegitimate, CC license from Flickr user Oskay.