Elsevier unleashes the hounds on @FakeElsevier twitter account for trademark violation
In an amusing twist in the ongoing Elsevier saga, Elsevier are attempting to shut down the twitter account @FakeElsevier for trademark violation.
Just got a trademark violation notice from Twitter (thanks, Elsevier! You stay classy!).Will challenge / attempt to resolve.
— Fake Elsevier (@FakeElsevier) March 26, 2012
It’s always fun when a big bad organisation forgets the Streisand Effect. The fact that the above tweet has over fifty retweets and plenty of ensuing hilarity affirms this:
<tries to look inconspicuous>
— Real Elsevier (@RealElsevier) March 27, 2012
So confused. I thought it was a Dominos Pizza style “yeah, we suck” ad campaign. MT @FakeElsevier Just got a trademark violation notice.
— Lane Wilkinson (@librarianwilk) March 27, 2012
@FakeElsevier Just replace the page with a paywall. Though that might infringe upon their IP even more.
— Adam Hyland (@therealprotonk) March 26, 2012
@FakeElsevier now that you’ve already pissed them off, how about some references to the fake payola Elsevier journal commissioned by Merck?
— Warren G. Lewis(@Luminescer) March 26, 2012
Just think about the $ Elsevier spent to send @FakeElsevier that TM violation notice. You know who paid for that? Libraries.
— Lorie Kloda (@loriekloda) March 27, 2012
@FakeElsevier: do you have permission to redistribute @tomreller tweets? And those derivative MTs just won’t do
— Brian Jackson (@briandjackson) March 27, 2012
..and as many people have pointed out, the account clearly has a water tight case – the clue is in the title:
Trademark infringement generally based on “likelihood of confusion” with holder. Wonder what confusion at issue w @FakeElsevier complaint?
— John Mark Ockerbloom (@JMarkOckerbloom) March 26, 2012
@JMarkOckerbloom Plus, parody is protected speech, and @FakeElsevier is obviously parody.
— Rob Sanderson (@azaroth42) March 26, 2012
.@FakeElsevier Someone needs to do study on which part of “Fake” is the “confusingly similar to” part. It’s sure to earn them a publication.
— Andrew (@_drewski) March 27, 2012
Maybe they want people to think they are the *real* fakes instead of @FakeElsevier
— Lorie Kloda (@loriekloda) March 27, 2012

@FakeElsevier's profile picture elegantly parodies Elsevier's own logo
@FakeElsevier has done a tremendous job drawing attention to the issue at hand through an entertaining stream of satirical tweets, an amusing tumblr, a thoughtful blog and a great little humorous video that sums up everything that is wrong with Elsevier’s business model in two minutes:
As of this morning it seems Elsevier have realised they have opened a huge can of worms (or a huge can of lols?) and are now furiously backpedaling:
Hi, @tomreller of Elsevier. I see you just started following. Did you have something to do with this trademark violation nonsense?
— Fake Elsevier (@FakeElsevier) March 27, 2012
HAHAHAHAHAHA. That’s a good one. RT “@TomReller: Are you sure twitter doesnt police itself for fake accounts?”
— Fake Elsevier (@FakeElsevier) March 27, 2012
To sign the petition in protest against Elsevier’s practices head over to thecostofknowledge.com. In other news the APA recently shut down a blogger critical of DSM-5 for exactly the same reason.
Update:
Elsevier has now denied issuing the takedown order.
@FakeElsevier Elsevier didn’t file a trade mark complaint! We’re calling twitter to see if we can find out who did.
— Tom Reller, Elsevier (@TomReller) March 27, 2012
However @fakeelsevier has stated that:
. @TomReller it looks like making a Trademark complaint on Twitter requires a company email address, reg. number + info, etc. etc.
— Fake Elsevier (@FakeElsevier) March 27, 2012
I’ll post an update if and when more information becomes available.
Update: Elsevier have now officially admitted responsibility for the take-down order (but are no longer going ahgead with it):
Follow Simon on Twitter, Facebook, Google+, RSS, or join the mailing list.@fakeelsevier Upon review, an #Elsevier legal emp. filed this, but it wasn’t a senior legal or mgmt decision. Shouldn’t have been done.…
— Tom Reller, Elsevier (@TomReller) March 30, 2012
-
http://twitter.com/redesign Peter Jones
-
http://neurobonkers.com Neurobonkers
-
Anonymous
-
http://neurobonkers.com Neurobonkers
-
http://neurobonkers.com Neurobonkers
-
Anonymous
Twitter
Facebook
Cookie Compliance
This site contains cookies. If you have ever used the internet before then you probably knew that already and ate them long before you arrived here. If you are allergic to cookies please leave now.