Yeah. That was fast. For now, it’s speculation whether it was done due to a demand from either SFSE or Deb Stoller, or an internal decision.

Although I’m disappointed to see that Yahoo took the high road and didn’t go with the obvious “k” pun.

This entry was posted in stitch v. bitch, themes. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Handshake

  1. j. says:

    Because of an excess of spam, I’ve closed comments on this post. If you have a comment to leave please find another, more recent post in the stitch v bitch category and leave your comment there.

  2. j. says:

    Oh, no, I didn’t think you were suggesting that there was a tenable claim. I see what you mean, but I suppose I personally don’t have enough respect for Yahoo’s collective marketing intelligence to think that they actually looked before they leapt this time. I could be very wrong.

    Someone in the Free to Stitch Free to Bitch forum reported that the decision to use “Stitch ‘n’ Bitch” was done was “innocent” (so far as the design team is concerned), and that it was changed to “Nifty Knitters” to avoid causing offense, ostensibly to the groups who had been forced to change their name.

  3. Sara says:

    I actually didn’t mean to suggest that the use of “Knifty Knitter” on the Yahoo site would present grounds for even a colorable claim of infringement; I agree, it’s a different arena. That doesn’t mean, however, that the trademark owner (or even third parties purporting to be “helpful”) might not kick up a fuss about the use of a trademarked term even if it wasn’t actually in the arena of the trademark, and as I’m sure you’re well aware, the merits of a claim and the pain-in-the-assness of getting rid of it are not necessarily in anything like direct proportion. Having just finished stepping in one morass around a trademarked term in relation to knitting (and likely a deluge of email on the topic), I can well imagine Yahoo taking an extra look to make sure they weren’t about to step in another one, and concluding that even if a claim would be meritless, they’d just not go there.

  4. j. says:

    There you go–there might have been a perfectly innocent explanation. Drat.

    The goods for use in relation to that “Knifty Knitter” application are for a knitting loom and needle (here’s one place selling it. It’s the old circular knitting loom with a single row of pegs around the circumference. Because that tm application deals with physical goods only, and not any sort of information conveyance, I kinda doubt that Yahoo (even if they checked!) would have been very concerned. (Plus, if it were an issue of potential infringement–say someone else started selling knitting looms called “Nifty Knitter”, simply dropping the silent “k” likely wouldn’t be a defence.)

  5. Kristin says:

    Or it could just be that in hindsight they decided not to have a word that’s considered bad on a site where children can visit.

  6. Folkcat says:

    My guess? The members of all the SnB groups that Yahoo e-mailed with demands to change their names saw that “Stitch & Bitch” heading and bitched back at Yahoo for using what they hadn’t been allowed to.

  7. Scout says:

    This whole thing is ridiculous. I’d love to hear the conversations over at Yahoo…..

  8. Sara says:

    Yes, well, “Knifty Knitter” is someone else’s trademark (not yet registered, but it’s completed final review, so it’s about to be). Maybe they actually looked first this time.

  9. Steph says:

    Okay so my email about this was a tad late. Someone on the legal end might have noticed though.