I'm siding with geius on this one. To the extent that no money changed hands and Steve wasn't paying them to use the celtics usename, then I think Twitter can do whatever they want whenever they want.
It may not be good karma for them to take the names without warning, but Twitter's job is to pay the bills and keep the lights on, not turn down good exposure (and perhaps some coin) to keep one guy happy who didn't have a true right to the name in the first place.
Perhaps they are getting some cash from the Celtics to use the name. So what? If you're one of the tens of thousands of people like Steve that are using Twitter for free to promote a business, then Twitter getting some cash to pay the bills another month is only a good thing.
By "right to a name" I'm speaking specifically about Steve's right to own the Twitter username celtics. From a "first come, first serve" perspective, I suppose he has a right to use the username... until Twitter deems otherwise.
The terms of service said they could come and take it, and Steve's not paying them any money for exclusive use of the name, so from that standpoint I don't feel he has a right to use the username any more than the Boston Celtics do. It's Twitter - who owns the service - that I think has the right to do what they please.
I'm not saying that I agree with how they handled it and I can see why Steve is pissed off, but I don't think they have any obligation to let Steve keep the username.
I was kicking around a definition involving trademarks. In general, owning a name that can be seen to infringe a trademark is a problem, no matter how you slice it. The Celtics baseball team have an actual, legal claim to the word "Celtics", which is not unlimited by any means, but is certainly stronger than "some guy registered this name on this site".
Now, had he been some sort of Celtic organization (and I mean the ethnic group, not the team) it might be a more interesting discussion, legally.
(And I'm just skipping out on the ethical issues.)
It may not be good karma for them to take the names without warning, but Twitter's job is to pay the bills and keep the lights on, not turn down good exposure (and perhaps some coin) to keep one guy happy who didn't have a true right to the name in the first place.
Perhaps they are getting some cash from the Celtics to use the name. So what? If you're one of the tens of thousands of people like Steve that are using Twitter for free to promote a business, then Twitter getting some cash to pay the bills another month is only a good thing.