1089
Meta given 30 days to cease using the name Threads by company that trademarked it 11 years ago
(www.techspot.com)
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023
1089 points (98.3% liked)
Technology
59207 readers
2939 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't know which concerns me more: That Meta gets their asses kicked, or why the f-ck someone was able to trademark the word "Threads".
You don't trademark the word "threads", you trademark it within the context of the industry you're in
I can make a shop that sells pies and call it "Apple"
Well... Apple may come after your pie shop. You'll likely win if you have the resources to fight it.
Monster Cable, they fight anyone who uses the word "monster" including mini golf places
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/98013289
Tldr, monster Cable is ran by shit humans who like to litigate.
Monster Energy Drink are also litigious assholes
https://gamerant.com/monster-energy-drink-indie-game-developer-lawsuit/
I'd like to see them fight each other in court. I think that would be interesting.
Your trademark is protected only in the field you're in, but if you're a widely known brand, and can prove it, you usually have some special protection, allowing you to prevent others from using it in all fields.
why litigate when you can just send pie
pipe bomb flavor
Someone was able to trademark the word "Apple", so that's not so surprising
Twice.
And when Apple violated the agreement they made with Apple Music not to enter each other's industries (Apple Records couldn't sell tech and Apple Computers couldn't sell music), they successfully argued in court that iTunes wasn't selling music, but digital downloads...
How stupid must the court be to agree that Apple music isn't about selling music...
I always thought it was funny while studying for my Cisco certification that their operating system was also called IOS. I had no idea there was actual drama behind it!
Apple Corps
Which, for me, also falls under "why the heck was this legal at any time?"
Because unless you want every company to be a random Amazon brand or initialism, that's how it kinda has to be, and it works fine until one company gains so much market share the word starts being associated with only them.
Think of like, Target or Shell. Both are huge companies, but their fields are narrow. You might confuse a Target named restaurant or pharmacy to be the Target, but probably not much more. And if it doesn't have anything to do with oil or gas, it's almost certainly not that Shell.
Apple is just so huge I wouldn't be surprised if at this point people think of iPhones while buying lunch. And even they started as "Apple Computers, inc", because they wouldn't have gotten just "Apple" if they had tried.