Brandjack News

By Quentin Langley

For years Tom Armitage has been tweeting as @towerbridge. To be strictly accurate, he created ‘bot which tweets on that account. That means the ‘bot – a specially written program – turns up stories and matters of interest relating to Tower Bridge, London, and the immediate vicinity. The bridge opens and closes to allow river traffic to pass. This is all according to a publicly announced timetable, and Armitage’s ‘bot put out tweets announcing the movements of the bridge. All perfectly harmless.

In past cybersquatting controversies, arguments have focussed on whether or not there was ‘passing off’. Did the fake web page or Twitter feed earn money by pretending to be someone else? Or was there genuine confusion? But Armitage was not doing it for the money, and never claimed to be representing the bridge or the associated exhibition.

Nonetheless, the City of London has successfully evicted Armitage from the handle. He admits he got an e-mail about it and failed to respond. Perhaps if he had challenged the proposed eviction, he would have been successful.

But shouldn’t the genuine Tower Bridge and its exhibition have ownership of the Tower Bridge Twitter handle?

As with much in the digital world this raises issues for which there are no direct parallels off line. You would be committing an offence if you set up a hamburger restaurant called McDonalds and marketed it with golden arches and sesame buns. But many Twitter accounts are run non-commercially. Serving burgers under golden arches to your friends is not passing off.

In reality, Armitage has no cause for complaint. (And it seems is not doing so, though others are taking up his cause). He only owned the Twitter handle because he acted promptly and registered it before the Corporation of London. Had he acted promptly when they challenged his ownership, he might well have kept it.

For another view on the subject, click here