I've been mired in the vagaries of trademark law for a few weeks now, and based on my limited knowledge, there is no legal reason that a company with the trademark Zephoria would be able to prevent her from also using that name, if she were able to show that she had used it since 1998.
Part of obtaining a trademark is doing due diligence and finding out how the name is being used in public. That includes use that isn't trademarked, but is publicly visible.
This is a different matter, since it's about a username on a private service, but the principle still holds. Danah has no legal recourse in this instance, but it does show that Tumblr is acting hastily and, in my view, improperly, by just yanking her account away from her without notice, appeal, or recourse.
Also, isn't trademark restricted to an "area"? I would think it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibilities for two companies to want the same username with trademark claims to back both.
Yes, but then it'd be a deliberation between two holders rather than one holder and a non-holder.
I'm surprised there aren't many famous 'double' trademarks. The only one that springs to mind is Jif, the lemon juice, and Jif, the kitchen cleaner which were both household names in the UK. The kitchen cleaner renamed to Cif as part of a global brand realignment, though.
Apple Records (Beatles) and Apple (Steve Jobs). They started with an agreement to stay clear of the others turf, but then Apple Computing got into music. I think they went to court before working something out.
WWF (World Wrestling Federation vs World Wildlife Fund). They went to court and the wrestling became WWE.
Apple was already mentioned. Tyco and ITT both come to mind as well, although I think the toy company and the for-profit college have licensing agreements with the respective industrial conglomerates.
Part of obtaining a trademark is doing due diligence and finding out how the name is being used in public. That includes use that isn't trademarked, but is publicly visible.
This is a different matter, since it's about a username on a private service, but the principle still holds. Danah has no legal recourse in this instance, but it does show that Tumblr is acting hastily and, in my view, improperly, by just yanking her account away from her without notice, appeal, or recourse.