I am in no way defending CMP or any other party. I just want to get the story straight. CMP filed for the US trademark in 03 and its ‘first use’ was in 04. I am not a trademark expert. Basically I think what happened here was some kind of edgy marketing technique where CMP allowed Web 2.0 to grow ‘virally’ with the hopes to harvest the profits at a later date. I am sure someone somewhere used the term Web 2.0, but CMP is clearly the party who provided the stimulus for it to become as popular as it did. Clearly, they did not anticipate the negative publicity that arose from this incident.

everyone was using the term publicly.

Enterprise Ireland, an Irish Government agency, held a Web 2.0 conference in April of 2006. They received no C&D.

Word Mark WEB 2.0
Goods and Services IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: Arranging and conducting live events, namely, trade shows, expositions and business conferences in various fields, namely, computers, communications, and information technology. FIRST USE: 20041005. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20041005

IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Organizing and conducting educational conferences, tutorials and workshops in the fields of computers, communication and information technology. FIRST USE: 20041005. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20041005
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Design Search Code
Serial Number 78322306
Filing Date November 3, 2003
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1B
Published for Opposition September 13, 2005
Registration Number 3110027
Registration Date June 27, 2006
Owner (REGISTRANT) CMP MEDIA LLC LTD LIAB CO DELAWARE 600 COMMUNITY DRIVE MANHASSET NEW YORK 11030
Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Attorney of Record Susan L. Heller and Joseph Geisman
Disclaimer NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "WEB" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

I think the confusion here is that CMP was intending to register for the trademark in the UK/Ireland (not really sure how it works over there). From my information, if someone uses a term publicly then you lose the right to trademark, and this was the issue that CMP had.

CMP Media has held the US trademark for ‘Web 2.0′ since 2004

Sorry JJ - I’m afraid you are mistaken there. They applied for the trademark in 2004. The application was still pending in May 2006 when it@cork received the C&D.

By the way, just as a matter of fact, there was no trademark granted anywhere for the term Web 2.0 in May 2006 when CMP and O’Reilly’s sent the C&D.

not true. CMP Media has held the US trademark for ‘Web 2.0′ since 2004. The fact is that O’Reilly was well aware that Web 2.0 was a trademark, but they were trying to promote the campaign ‘virally’. Unfortunately, for O’Reilly the thing blew up in his face.

Thanks for stopping by and commenting.

You said:

if they don’t defend their trademark from little indignant punks, they lose it.

ROFL, it has been a long time since anyone called me a little punk, never mind an indignant one!

There is no such thing as “Web 2.0″ or “Web 50.0″, it is a concept name that they came up with for what is coming NEXT.

Ah no, it is not a name they came up with. The term Web 2.0 was coined and first used online by an Italian researcher (see earlier comments for link). O’Reilly/CMP merely took his term and popularised it. If I coined a phrase and CMP/O’Reilly popularised it and then trademarked it, I’d be pissed off!

By the way, just as a matter of fact, there was no trademark granted anywhere for the term Web 2.0 in May 2006 when CMP and O’Reilly’s sent the C&D.

And finally, I still believe that CMP/O’Reilly’s would have been far better served if they had trademarked the term “Web 2.0 Conference”. No-one would have had an issue with that. The fact that they have tried to trademark “Web 2.0″ has reflected extremely poorly on them. And, to be honest, it is an indefensible trademark which will fall at the first legal challenge.