discuss Let @x be a cautionary tale

[Nick]

This is exactly why businesses shouldn't be run solely on social media handles. A domain name should be the FIRST destination for customers.

 

[Gabriel360]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure how you determined that I support Elon Musk's or xitter's move. And if it wasn't already evident from my use of the term "xitter" pronounced as "shitter", I hope it is more evident now. I do not agree with or support this move. But that's not my point at all.

Irrespective of whether I dislike or do not support this move, it is "allowed" by xitter's ToS (IANAL). And that was my only point. You can assume whatever you want about me, I don't really give a shit. But the ToS is still enforceable and it does (potentially) allow xitter to commandeer a user's handle.




Yes, it is a terrible precedent. Does not make it illegal


If it is allowed, yes he can (and probably will). But what this incident does is reduce users trust in him.


Again, I'm not sure why this is relevant. Can you qualify what financial loss the user has suffered that they need to be compensated for? Was there a financial arrangement between the user and twitter for the use of that "premium" handle? And, importantly, Twitter has not violated any laws. It is a shitty situation, the twitter handle is super premium (I'm even jealous) but irrespective of all our opinions, from a legal perspective, Twitter does not owe the user anything. Look at the who incident without emotion or bias. Ethically, twitter's move is wrong, in extremely poor taste and kills user trust in them. But legally, I believe, it is kosher.


Showboating. This is a bad move on Twitter's part. They're not idiotic enough to not understand that. To try to salvage some PR, they offer these shit "compensatory items" as a sign of good faith. No one is fooled.


Absolutely. It is an extremely weak attempt.

Not disputing whether it's legal or not. Although, it's not completely impossible for a lawyer to find laws that supercedes Twitter's TOS.

That said, estimating the financial loss is not going to be as difficult as you imagine. Someone already posted that there's a whole forum like Namepros dedicated to the sales, purchases and discussion of SM handles.

Plus, there are claims that Mr. Hang received offers up to a $100K. There's that, too.

The question still remains:

Why bother to compensate him if he suffered no loss?

The unsolicited compensation makes Elon/X look guilty to me. They might as well make the compensate commensurate to the quality of the handle.

By the way, here's an article about Elon/X possibly selling user handles:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcr...er-selling-usernames-via-online-auctions/amp/

Will they still snatch those when it suits them?

P.S. Great to read you're not a fanboy.

 

[QUAD DOMAINS]

Greetings! Thanks for starting this thread.

The @x situation is not only a cautionary tale about linking a digital identity solely to a social media handle. It's about "the illusion of control" some people are hypnotized by when linking their digital identity to ANY system and/or platform they don't truly control/own. The same applies to centralized domains. For example, UDRPs have been weaponized by companies in the domain space to "seize" names that some folks having been renewing, and in many cases using, for years. This is one clear indicator of "a deeply flawed system/industry".

Some here in the comments are using the @x handle seizure as a springboard for spreading the notion centralized domain names are an asset with a blissful "holding" experience. (Extra emphasis on "holding".) No matter how long folks pay renewals, their names remain at the mercy of ICANN's policies, UDRPs, TLD owners and registrars. These players have obviously been culprits in more name seizures than one. The point here is that we're all gambling whenever we build/operate within "someone else's platform/system". Even here on NamePros.

The Downvote Gang will likely come out swinging because the correlation has been made; but truth is truth regardless of whether we care to acknowledge it or not.

Mel
QUAD Domains

 

[Gabriel360]

Greetings! Thanks for starting this thread.

The @x situation is not only a cautionary tale about linking a digital identity solely to a social media handle. It's about "the illusion of control" some people are hypnotized by when linking their digital identity to ANY system and/or platform they don't truly control/own. The same applies to centralized domains. For example, UDRPs have been weaponized by companies in the domain space to "seize" names that some folks having been renewing, and in many cases using, for years. This is one clear indicator of "a deeply flawed system/industry".

Some here in the comments are using the @x handle seizure as a springboard for spreading the notion centralized domain names are an asset with a blissful "holding" experience. (Extra emphasis on "holding".) No matter how long folks pay renewals, their names remain at the mercy of ICANN's policies, UDRPs, TLD owners and registrars. These players have obviously been culprits in more name seizures than one. The point here is that we're all gambling whenever we build/operate within "someone else's platform/system". Even here on NamePros.

The Downvote Gang will likely come out swinging because the correlation has been made; but truth is truth regardless of whether we care to acknowledge it or not.

Mel
QUAD Domains

Valid observations.

But ICANN, Verisign or whatever CANNOT forcefully take over a domain name you've used for over a decade and stick you with an atrocity of a domain name and some merchs.

In the event of a UDRP, you will have the right to defend your domain name. For instance, you can get a bad ass IP Lawyer and also request for an increased number of panel members.

Consider the case of Lambo and Nissan .com. As wealthy as those companies are, they could NOT just snatch the domain name from the registrant.

Domain names are not on the same level as SM handles.

For context, DotDB shows 1,019 active domain names that contain VERISIGN. You can rest assured that the Verisign does not control them all.

 

[poweredbyme]

poweredbyme said:
Users may try to claim compensation for their losses from service providers.

On the basis of what? What loss did the user of @x suffer? And what is the contractual relationship between the user and xitter?

poweredbyme said:
Based on my finance knowledge, one party is not allowed to make profit knowingly from financial losses of other party

What is the financial loss that the user of @ x suffer? What exactly is it based on? And further, what is the financial contractual relationship between the user and xitter?

What's contract?
Do you know any contract could be invalid under some situations and anything that isn't included in a contract could supersede the contract? Contracts aren't always valid like a constitution. Main purpose of laws is to protect rights of weaker party. Stronger party doesn't need protection. Even if the weaker party signed a contract laws will protect his rights and will supersede signed contracts. That's the main purpose of laws. I am not a lawyer, just know some basics.


Financial losses could include but not limited to time, expenses, loss of communication means (one may claim they use the account for communication. Communication is a right protected by constitutions in many countries), loss of commercial or personal prestige, loss of anything one could claim.

Service provider may disable using an account if user breaches some rules. But taking over an account from user for commercial profit without any payment to the user is a bad faith. It's a bad faith because the purpose, the main drive is to make profit from losses of user. It doesn't matter what is written in TOS or contracts.

poweredbyme said:
Those examples are irrelevant. If online providers shut down the service completely, they stop making profit from users.

Well, a lot of online platforms don't make a profit despite not being shut down. What is your point?

If online platforms don't make profit then they go bankrupt or in some countries governments shut them down forcefully. In some countries if a company declares loss for multiple years governments don't allow those companies to operate. Online service providers make profit or they can't continue. So they make profit, most of the time.

If you agree so far, then the question is that can a forum, a social media site with zero user account make profit?

Start a social media site or a forum site today, can you make profit from the day one with no user account and traffic?

Social media sites, forum sites and any user generated content sites make profit from user activity and user generated content. That's the basis of profit-loss relation between users and platforms.

 

[Amit V]

Exqueeze me?

What do you think I do for a living? You think food magically falls onto my table?

I got a letter from my HOA that my deck is in bad shape and they are going to fine me if it is not fixed. Now, when I bought my place, I was told that the deck is part of the outside fixtures that the community maintains. Well, gee, they changed that on me somewhere along the line.

So, I've been calling around trying to get someone out here in the middle of the g-d-mmed summer to see if I can get my deck fixed and NOT ONE of them cares about the great injustice done to me. They just want to get paid to fix my deck. I had a guy quote me $3000 a while back, I agreed, and he's been a no-show ever since.

Well, s--t, I guess he found something that pays better than solving my problem.

I have NEVER had an auto mechanic, plumber, or any other service provider do a thing for me because, gosh, I deserved to have it done for me. Every damn one of them wants to make sure they get paid first. It was really unfair that my car broke down when it did, or my pipes burst, or whatever.

Back in 1989, I was sitting out on the side of a snow-covered road in the middle of the night in Indiana with an engine that quit on me. I'd finished by doctoral work and was on my way to my first job clean across the country from Delaware to Utah in a 1972 VW bus that gave out in Indiana. I was alone in the cold in the middle of the night. My first son was born two weeks earlier, my wife was recovering from the C-section, I had maybe $500 to my name, and my first paycheck after years of graduate school was another three weeks away, but I needed to get to that job. Tow truck showed up and the guy wanted CASH before he'd back it up to my front end. Can you imagine? If I didn't have money, he'd have left me out there to freeze.

Hell, I was wheeled into an ER with a heart attack five years ago and the first thing THEY wanted to know how they were going to get paid.

I'm supposed to be up in arms about this guy losing his Twitter handle, and give two s--ts of my time so that HE can get paid?

YOU said you'd "even contribute money to this guys case" - that's how the subject of money came up.

I don't know what you do for a living but how about this. Quit doing whatever it is you do, go around helping other people make money for free, and let me know how that works out for you.

This is the United States of America. If I want to give away services for free - like Twitter does - then I can make any danged rules I want. Any business has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason or no reason at all - provided it is not among a short list of prohibited reasons (i.e. public accommodations based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, advanced age, or disability). If I don't want to do business with you because your name is "Kevin" and I don't like people named "Kevin", then I'm free to do that. Maybe next week, I won't do business with anyone named "Bryan" and I can do that too.

If I don't like your attitude, I can kick you out of my bar, my shop, my club or whatever else I'm running that you're using. If walk into my restaurant and I want to use your table for something else, I'll re-seat you somewhere else or you can leave. It's my restaurant and I'll run it my way.

I mean, can you imagine?

How about if I give everyone a free picnic out on my deck every Saturday, if I ever find someone I can afford who feels like actually showing up to fix it. Now, one of my deck chairs rocks and the rest of them just stay in one position, so that chair is more comfortable than the others. Every weekend you show up and you sit in that chair that I provide you for free. One weekend, I decide, you know what, I'd like to sit in that chair instead. You get all worked up at me and say you're going to sue me because I'm not going to let you use the chair that I provide you, for free, on my damned deck? GTFO of here.

I've done a lot of work for people who couldn't pay, and quite a bit for people who didn't pay. But nobody is entitled to freebies - including their Twitter handles.

Oh, yeah, I forgot, one thing you ARE entitled to get for free in the US is a lawyer if you are criminally charged and can't afford one. You can't get a doctor, a plumber, an optometrist, or a chicken dinner for free, but you can get a lawyer.

Anyone who wants to pitch in to get my deck fixed, please DM.

God, You sound like a sorry soul! Ya bring on the anonymous -ve's you cowards. My opinion!

 

[Maggie Mae]

The Artist Formerly Known as @X

Personally, I think Elon should have offered some monetary compensation for rebranding purposes. Just basic human kindness. The Photog was loyal to twitter since 2007; there is value in that.

 

[pb]

Personally, I think Elon should have offered some monetary compensation for rebranding purposes. Just basic human kindness. The Photog was loyal to twitter since 2007; there is value in that.

Wouldn't *that* set a precedent, given that twitter's terms forbid selling and buying handles?
"Attempts to sell, buy, or solicit other forms of payment in exchange for usernames are also violations and may result in permanent account suspension."
Imagine Elon attempting to buy @x and getting his account suspended.

Anyway, I think @x would have had a better chance at retaining his name and/or getting some reasonable compensation if he was actually using it. From what was said, the account was set to private and he only waited for offers. While it might not be a bad thing by itself, it made it awfully easy for twitter/X to reappropriate it.

 

[anantj]

Not disputing whether it's legal or not. Although, it's not completely impossible for a lawyer to find laws that supercedes Twitter's TOS.

That said, estimating the financial loss is not going to be as difficult as you imagine. Someone already posted that there's a whole forum like Namepros dedicated to the sales, purchases and discussion of SM handles.

Plus, there are claims that Mr. Hang received offers up to a $100K. There's that, too.

Look, the financial loss that you're citing is on the basis of the user selling their twitter handle which is expressly forbidden by Twitter. This is like saying that if a piracy network was shut down, they'd have a case for financial losses . Again, from a strictly legal perspective.

Why bother to compensate him if he suffered no loss?

A very weak attempt at generating some positive PR

By the way, here's an article about Elon/X possibly selling user handles:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcr...er-selling-usernames-via-online-auctions/amp/

Will they still snatch those when it suits them?

Well, they can. Should they? I don't think so.

 

[anantj]

Users may try to claim compensation for their losses from service providers.

So if you say resell content from a streaming provider and you get shut down by them, you can try to claim compensation from the service provider? Or you crack a software product and sell it/give it away and you get shut down, can you claim compensation from the software provider?

Based on my finance knowledge, one party is not allowed to make profit knowingly from financial losses of other party

There is no financial loss in the sense of the sale of the handle as it is explicitly forbidden by xitter.
If an influence who makes money influencing and their SM account is suspended for any reason that violates the SM content policy which then results in profit for the SM service, are they liable for the financial losses suffered by the influencer?

Financial losses could include but not limited to time, expenses, loss of communication means (one may claim they use the account for communication. Communication is a right protected by constitutions in many countries), loss of commercial or personal prestige, loss of anything one could claim.

only if such a commercial relationship has been established.

Service provider may disable using an account if user breaches some rules. But taking over an account from user for commercial profit without any payment to the user is a bad faith. It's a bad faith because the purpose, the main drive is to make profit from losses of user. It doesn't matter what is written in TOS or contracts.

Well, the last line says it all. The ToS and contracts don't matter to you. But that's not how such matters work in the real world. Come to the real world and see what does matter.

Those examples are irrelevant. If online providers shut down the service completely, they stop making profit from users.

not quite. You're assuming that the provider is a one-trick pony. Shutting down one area of their business might actually make the org more profitable.

 

[jberryhill]

Well, the last line says it all. The ToS and contracts don't matter to you. But that's not how such matters work in the real world. Come to the real world and see what does matter.

For a lot of people who've never actually had to deal with the law, they think it works the same way religion does. I've never met a religious person who didn't share all the same opinions of their god(s). Religion gives them a powerful force who cares about them, looks after them, is on their side, and agrees with pretty much all their opinions. The evildoers are punished and "justice" - defined as what me and my god think should happen to people we don't like - will eventually prevail.

Law doesn't work that way. If you look at the legal forum here, for example, you see all kinds of interesting ideas about how people who've never been involved in a trademark dispute, or who have been involved in an unrepresentative one, think things work. The fact is that sometimes the results aren't what you want them to be, and that the law does not require the outcome you want. Unlike religion, the way you and your gods think things should be, is not always the way things are.

Now, you take a statement like "I think TOS should be outlawed" - to be honest, I don't even know what that means. The simple truth of offering a service of some kind to the public requires that you state the terms on which you are willing to provide that service, unless you are insane.

If you sell hats for five dollars each, you can set up a stand, have a sign that says "Hats $5", and everyone understands what you are offering, what they get, and how much it costs. In the event of a dispute, there is a well-defined set of laws that govern the sale of goods and, absent other terms imposed, provides clarity over what might happen in the range of well-defined disputes that might come up in the course of people selling and buying hats for five dollars.

Services are a lot trickier. If you have a hose, a bucket and some sponges, you can put up a sign that says "Car Wash $5". There's a whole can of worms there. What should the customer expect for their $5? Are you going to get every single spot off of that car? Are you going to vacuum the carpets? Do you scrub convertible roofs? Are you going to wipe the car dry or just wash it? And so on. Now, there may be, in your particular location and culture, a common understanding of what people might expect out of a five dollar car wash. So, if someone pays five dollars and you just dump a bucket of water on their car, then a jury is likely to conclude that you didn't provide the reasonable sort of service that one would ordinarily expect out of a five dollar car wash.

Online services are much, much more difficult to define "Here's what I'm offering, and here is what you can expect" because the world of user expectations is pretty amazing. What is also pretty amazing is the creativity of people who will either harm your ability to provide the service or otherwise use your service to do "bad things". People on Namepros get all up in arms when they see terms like "we can terminate your service if, in our sole discretion, you are doing something we don't like", and they think terms like that are a crime against humanity. But the real problem is that you can offer an online service and say "you are not allowed to do X, Y or Z" in a well-defined list, and then some evil genius comes up with a way to harm you and others which you simply had not thought of.

There are seven BILLION people on this planet. Some of them have internet access and bad intentions. You can try to guess every dumb or rotten thing they are going to do, or you can say, "You do something dumb or rotten and we're going to cut you off."

But the worst ones are the folks who show up to take what you are offering for FREE, at no charge whatsoever, and then believe you owe them something. Now, look, if you show up to use my service and I make money by showing you advertising, that's the deal. You don't get to tell me how to run my service, and I don't owe you anything. So, absolutely, to protect me from freeloaders who show up and then want to tell me how to run my business, I will absolutely post a set of terms that say, "You get what I'm giving and you like it or leave."

That rubs some people the wrong way but, again, how the law treats those kinds of situations is not how your gods might deal with them.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

I hate to be another guy that disagrees but I think it's perfectly OK for him to take any handle that he wants, or any that the platform/company wants.

That "news" article only exists as another way to on Elon Musk, rightly or wrongly.

I'm not even a "private company can do what it wants" kind've guy, but you've no right to a specific handle.

Compensation not owed. Suck it up.

 

[HotKey]

But the worst ones are the folks who show up to take what you are offering for FREE, at no charge whatsoever, and then believe you owe them something.

You've had a few mic drops in this thread sir

 

[HotKey]

Lesson is;

Never get too comfy in someone's favorite armchair. Especially at their house.

 

[poweredbyme]

poweredbyme said:
Users may try to claim compensation for their losses from service providers.

So if you say resell content from a streaming provider and you get shut down by them, you can try to claim compensation from the service provider? Or you crack a software product and sell it/give it away and you get shut down, can you claim compensation from the software provider?

That's irrelevant. Why do you keep giving irrelevant examples? Those irrelevant examples derail the topic. Let me remind you the topic: There is a website making profit from contents of users. One day site owner decides to take over the account of a user by abusing his power over his own website. One is not allowed to abuse his power for disadvantage to general public or any party that is weaker. That's illegal even if it's not written in TOS or contracts.

This website is still active and is still making profit primarily from users and don't pay anything, no revenue sharing. Since users accept this, that's okay. But taking over an account for profit is not okay even if user accepts this by using the site. Site owner may only disable an account but can't take over without permission of user. Because user account, even if it's not written in TOS is the property of user. An account is protected by password+username combination which makes accounts property. Site owner can only disable user account, can't take over or can't sell it without permission of user. Site owner may prohibit selling user accounts that's also okay. But it's doesn't change the fact, each account is a property of who created that account. Site owner can't take over account from user without permission. Because site owner is not the owner of user accounts. That's similar to bank accounts. Bank owner can't take over a bank account of his clients even if the bank account has zero balance. As a finance expert I am sure on this. Bank owner can disable usage of a bank account only if clients breach some rules. Bank account is highly relevant example to understand what's user accounts at user generated content websites.

poweredbyme said:
Based on my finance knowledge, one party is not allowed to make profit knowingly from financial losses of other party

There is no financial loss in the sense of the sale of the handle as it is explicitly forbidden by xitter.
If an influence who makes money influencing and their SM account is suspended for any reason that violates the SM content policy which then results in profit for the SM service, are they liable for the financial losses suffered by the influencer?

Again that's irrelevant. Here the user account has not been disabled for breaching some rules. If that was the case we could discuss on your example. But your example is out of the topic, hence there is no need to discuss.


poweredbyme said:
Financial losses could include but not limited to time, expenses, loss of communication means (one may claim they use the account for communication. Communication is a right protected by constitutions in many countries), loss of commercial or personal prestige, loss of anything one could claim.

only if such a commercial relationship has been established.

commercial relation is based on the fact that the website makes profit primarily from user generated content. User generated content and user activity is the primary source of profit. One can easily prove it by starting a similar site with no user accounts.

poweredbyme said:
Service provider may disable using an account if user breaches some rules. But taking over an account from user for commercial profit without any payment to the user is a bad faith. It's a bad faith because the purpose, the main drive is to make profit from losses of user. It doesn't matter what is written in TOS or contracts.

Well, the last line says it all. The ToS and contracts don't matter to you. But that's not how such matters work in the real world. Come to the real world and see what does matter.

TOS and contracts are not always valid. That's how real world works. Lawyers will defend the opposite view as writing contracts is one of their profit sources. Lawyers can't tell you even if they write a perfect contract for you, any perfect contract can't protect you in full. One of the best contracts are written for banks and those "perfectly written contracts" can't always protect commercial interests of banks. That's how real world works.

poweredbyme said:
Those examples are irrelevant. If online providers shut down the service completely, they stop making profit from users.

not quite. You're assuming that the provider is a one-trick pony. Shutting down one area of their business might actually make the org more profitable.

I am unsure if you know what you are talking about. You keep derail the topic or are unable to understand what's the topic. who started that discussion with giving irrelevant example on old websites which are no longer active.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

Site owner may only disable an account but can't take over without permission of user. Because user account, even if it's not written in TOS is the property of user.

The data maybe. But that is all. He still has his account, but on a nice new username.

Then again, he can just delete the data. Nobody can force them to host someone else's data.

 

[poweredbyme]

The data maybe. But that is all. He still has his account, but on a nice new username.

Then again, he can just delete the data. Nobody can force them to host someone else's data.

When a username is available and it's taken by a user it's over. Site owner can't take over it from user.

I used to own and run a semi-popular forum site with around 5k members. I was hosting my forum on a dedicated linux server which I was managing manually. My forum was powered by free and open source phpbb software before I sold it. Site owner or forum admin has an option to disable some usernames such as "admin", "moderator" and other critical usernames. Those critical username examples were displaying on phpbb forum admin panel.

 

[silentg]

ok didn’t expect this, Multiple parties are trying to trademark Twitter name and the logo.

 

[jberryhill]

Multiple parties are trying to trademark Twitter name and the logo.

It's clear that X has intentionally abandoned use of the "Twitter" mark so, yes, even the previous owners of "Twitter" could re-launch as "Twitter" if they wanted to (and if there were no contractual restrictions pursuant to the sale).

But, sure, if someone wants to start a social networking and messaging services named "Twitter", they are free to do so.

There has long been a market for "revived" marks or marks that are kept alive on some form of life support after being abandoned by their former owners.

Remember any of these?

RCA - https://www.rca.com/

Underalls - https://www.underalls.com/

Probably the best known example of a revived brand is "Indian" motorcycles which, in its re-launched form, intentionally traded on the remaining nostalgic goodwill of the original company.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re-established_companies

 

[silentg]

There's a pattern now

 

[bmugford]

There's a pattern now
Show attachment 243763

Well, hopefully you don't have a username that Elon wants or he is just going to snatch it.

So far, it is for their own use.

However, in the future I would not be surprised if premium usernames are just snatched to resell or give to another party.

Brad

 

[bmugford]

There's a pattern now
Show attachment 243763

Not just @x: Elon Musk also took @xAI from its original user for his AI company​

https://mashable.com/article/xai-twitter-handle-elon-musk-x

"Earlier this year, Platformer reported that shortly after Musk's Twitter takeover, he requested that the company transfer the single-letter @e handle to him. Combine that story with what we now know about @x and @xai and it's becoming clear that X users with rare, short usernames shouldn't become too attached to their handles on the platform formerly known as Twitter."

 

[silentg]

ok it gets worse

https://twitter.com/x/status/1684122671062175744

He took so many accounts but left the trail of evidence. All the @ mentions are still on Twitter (X).

 

[MadAboutDomains]

When a username is available and it's taken by a user it's over. Site owner can't take over it from user.

I used to own and run a semi-popular forum site with around 5k members. I was hosting my forum on a dedicated linux server which I was managing manually. My forum was powered by free and open source phpbb software before I sold it. Site owner or forum admin has an option to disable some usernames such as "admin", "moderator" and other critical usernames. Those critical username examples were displaying on phpbb forum admin panel.

We're talking about a custom built website here, not phpbb. Of course you can take a user's username, it's not "over". It's a database that the data can be deleted and manipulated.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

It's clear that X has intentionally abandoned use of the "Twitter" mark so, yes, even the previous owners of "Twitter" could re-launch as "Twitter" if they wanted to (and if there were no contractual restrictions pursuant to the sale).

But, sure, if someone wants to start a social networking and messaging services named "Twitter", they are free to do so.

The company will still own the IP for Twitter. Trademarks still stand if they are no longer being used, because they have been used.

A note unrelated to your post...

I just saw twitter is awash with people saying "he can't use X, this company has it for beans and this one for sausages". "He can't trademark an X, he can't trademark that X it's from a font" "Microsoft own X as a trademark already haha" and so it goes on. So many idiots out there weighing in...

 

[jberryhill]

Trademarks still stand if they are no longer being used, because they have been used.

I’m not sure what you are trying to say there. In the US, you must continue to use the mark in order to maintain rights in the mark. While there is what is called “excusable non-use” such as a pause in use with an intent to continue use in the future, what we have here is an intentional abandonment of the mark.

If someone stops using a mark and it is not clear if they intend to resume use, the mark will be presumed abandoned after three years of non-use. But again, here we have an intentional, announced abandonment of the mark.

The example I’ve used countless times on this forum is a dog license. Your dog license might say it is valid for five years. But if your dog dies in three years, no, you do not have a valid dog license after that.

Maybe an example would help. In 1958, the Ford Motor Company launched a new division and brand of automobile called the “Edsel”. They discontinued it in 1960:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsel

So, in your opinion, does Ford still own trademark rights in “Edsel”? And, if not, when is it do you believe those rights ended?