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):

@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