Early this morning (eastern standard time), it seems like the whole trademark thing between TechCrunch and TechCrush has been nothing more than a tempest in a teapot, with the trademark tiff ending in very tempered way.

Mr. Arrington also posted recently:

mid day, Sept 21: I speak with my lawyer. we discuss asking them to put a disclaimer on the site that they aren’t affiliated with techcrunch. I send an email to Lutz that says “Hey Lutz, Spoke to my lawyer at length today. How about a statement somewhere, preferably in the header area, that simply says you aren’t affiliated with TechCrunch in any way? If that doesn’t work for you, let’s keep talking…and there is no need to stop posting on the site…looking forward to more good content. Mike”

To which TechCrush confirmed:

We had contact with Michael Arrington on a possible trademark infringement with Techcrunch, but we settled the matter quick and amicably. I got to know Michael as a decent and professional guy. Thanks Michael.

After all, Techcrush is not supposed to be affiliated with Techcrunch anyway. Besides Techcrunch we will make use of several other blogs as sources for our articles.

The cynically jaded blogger in me was anticipating an all out pugilistic power struggle (if crushing a pea-sized startup could be described as a “struggle”), but (and in spite of his current woes) to Mr. Arrington’s credit things have worked out very collegially – without the sending of C&D’s and getting lawyers involved.

Its a bit of a shame other web2.0 giants hadn’t pursued a similar path.

Digg rattling sabres at DiggGames. O’Reilly posturing about “Web2.0″.

It seems so … uncivilized.

Now, not being a lawyer, its hard for me to comment on the details of trademark law; as I understand it, it is absolutely necessary that companies protect their trademark, or else it is open for all kinds of future abuse in the court of law (and public opinion?). While sending C&D’s are untasteful, perhaps it is a legal necessity.

Which brings me to wonder what the consequences of this will be for TechCrunch.

See, (tip to: Clique Comm), although Mr. Arrington no doubt did this in a very professional manner, I wonder whether or not any of it was predicated by the fact that there is no trademark to defend?

A little digging at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in fact, shows that there is no “TechCrunch” that is trademarked, nor any version of the Crunch network. I’d show you the results, but all they really show is this.

Now it could be that they just aren’t registered in that database. Apparently not all trademarks are in the US trade register.

And I hope that’s the case. Because if it isn’t, Mr. Arrington’s lawyer’s must be working furiously behind the scenes to secure that trademark so that they don’t run into any future problems.

Aside:
Digg seems to have trademarked “Digg” and “Digg This”.
Someone has reserved “Web 2.0″ as well.