Source on them not being legally binding? They have a mixed track record but I’ve never seen anyone flat out say they aren’t legally binding. Sometimes they are; sometimes they are not.
I am no lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that something pre-dating the trademark is grandfathered in. Hence why Steam uses steampowered.com and not steam.com
Utility bills aren’t binding because they’re subsidized. They’re binding because they are contracts, and contract law is a thing that exists.
It’s a complicated thing and there are many restrictions and conditions on what makes a valid contract and what kinds of things are and aren’t allowed. Many Terms of Service violate contract law and thus wind up not being enforceable, but it is absolutely not correct to say that Terms of Service are in general not binding.
Looks like they’re binding if they follow very specific criteria; I don’t know if TwitterX’s qualify, but I’ll accept that my above statement is probably wrong.
That said, they do have a carveout for trademark violations which technically this is, because X is trademarked, just not by Twitter.
It’s also specifically about a trade. If I had a vitamin company called X and a vacuum cleaner company called steam, neither of those companies could legally have anything to say about it.
Source on them not being legally binding? They have a mixed track record but I’ve never seen anyone flat out say they aren’t legally binding. Sometimes they are; sometimes they are not.
I am no lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that something pre-dating the trademark is grandfathered in. Hence why Steam uses steampowered.com and not steam.com
Don’t you love it when people just make grand statements about law with zero evidence or sourcing to back it up?
Apparently, if I don’t pay my bills, utility companies can’t actually do anything because terms aren’t legally binding. Who knew!
Bad example, because utility bills usually are legally binding, as utilities are often subsidized by local governments.
Utility bills aren’t binding because they’re subsidized. They’re binding because they are contracts, and contract law is a thing that exists.
It’s a complicated thing and there are many restrictions and conditions on what makes a valid contract and what kinds of things are and aren’t allowed. Many Terms of Service violate contract law and thus wind up not being enforceable, but it is absolutely not correct to say that Terms of Service are in general not binding.
Looks like they’re binding if they follow very specific criteria; I don’t know if
TwitterX’s qualify, but I’ll accept that my above statement is probably wrong.That said, they do have a carveout for trademark violations which technically this is, because X is trademarked, just not by Twitter.
This stance is only valid if Twitter gave the handle to one of those other x-trademarks, and probably only if one of them demanded it.
It’s also specifically about a trade. If I had a vitamin company called X and a vacuum cleaner company called steam, neither of those companies could legally have anything to say about it.