1088
submitted 8 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

Meta given 30 days to cease using the name Threads by company that trademarked it 11 years ago::undefined

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] thal3s@sh.itjust.works 474 points 8 months ago

It appears that Meta was aware of Threads before launching its platform of the same name. Company lawyers made four offers to purchase the domain 'threads.app' from Threads Software Ltd from April 2023, all of which were declined. Meta announced Threads in July 2023, the same time that the British company says it was removed from Facebook.

Classic Facebook douchebaggery.

[-] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 96 points 8 months ago

I saw this weird panel for a famous university (can't remember which one) that interviewed Mark's wife. She said that they run by everything past Mark for final sign off and also he comes up with a lot of the ideas. This smells like a Mark's own original idea.

[-] Dasnap@lemmy.world 34 points 8 months ago

Looks like it's his only original idea.

[-] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 13 points 8 months ago

I mean, it is a very descriptive name for a social media commenting app. Im not surprised he went with it.

[-] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago

He didn't go with it, he stole it, lol.

[-] CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world 24 points 8 months ago

Didn't they do the same thing to Meta? Aren't they being sued now?

[-] Supervivens@lemmy.world 260 points 8 months ago

Eh, unlike some of the other pretty blatantly frivolous lawsuits we’ve seen lately (such as the google chrome cast one) this seems pretty legit. They had a globally recognized company called threads that worked in the software industry and meta had made multiple offers for their IP showing they knew about them and still went ahead. Seems clear cut and Meta will likely have to change the name.

[-] long_chicken_boat@sh.itjust.works 95 points 8 months ago

you're right in almost everything

Seems clear cut and Meta will likely have to change the name.

Meta has a massive amount of resources, I'm sure they can afford more lawyers than the British company. Courts tend to favor the one with most resources, so the smaller company will have a very hard time trying to make Meta to change their app's name.

[-] gregorum@lemm.ee 52 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Not so much in the UK, but we’ll just have to wait and see. It may just end up that, in the UK, they’ll be called ThreadsUK or some legally-acceptable variant of the name that “meaningfully distinguishes” them according to the court.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] echodot@feddit.uk 13 points 8 months ago

The UK courts will be inclined to favour the UK company over an American conglomerate. They have to operate within the confines of the law but the British government really do want to show that they can actually act against these big multinationals (they need the win) so there may be quite a lot of interest in this case.

I can totally see the courts been heavily encouraged to throw the book at them as much as possible.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] takeda@lemmy.world 51 points 8 months ago

It should be easy to rename as no one is using it.

But seriously, this is the kind of bullshit those monopolistic companies are doing all the time. Another infuriating one was with Google's Go language. Author contacted them that he was using the name for 10 years and even had a book written about the language, but they basically just went with it anyway, because he was nobody and they were Google. Also, this is speculating, but I won't believe when they came up with the name they didn't use their Google to look the name up, probably that's why they closed the issue so quickly.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 94 points 8 months ago

I don’t know about UK trademark law, but I would imagine that, like with other countries, using a similar or identical name is okay, but only if you’re in a totally different industry. The original threads is also a messaging product, which doesn’t bode well for a lawsuit.

I imagine they thought they could just force a smaller company’s hand. Meta’s marketing, e-staff, and legal team are a bunch of corporate bullies.

[-] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 18 points 8 months ago

Threads is a cloud-based intelligent message hub that captures, transcribes, and organizes all of a company's digital messages, emails, and phone calls into one easily searchable database.

B2B is a completely different marketplace than B2C, and “internal search index of company’s digital messages” is a different industry than “social media app.”

The company’s own trademark registration indicates the trademark applies to “computer software, software and apparatus for the extraction of business information and knowledge.” That doesn’t sound like a social media app to me, either.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] MNByChoice@midwest.social 90 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

It is too bad Meta couldn't afford a lawyer to do a search for trademarks and copyrights. Really shame.

[-] Resolute3542@lemmy.dbzer0.com 45 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Did you even read the article??

It appears that Meta was aware of Threads before launching its platform of the same name. Company lawyers made four offers to purchase the domain 'threads.app' from Threads Software Ltd from April 2023, all of which were declined. Meta announced Threads in July 2023, the same time that the British company says it was removed from Facebook.

They literally made an offer to buy the domain Threads.app 4 times and got rejected.

[-] MNByChoice@midwest.social 20 points 8 months ago

It was sarcasm. Meta has lots of money.

[-] Obi@sopuli.xyz 16 points 8 months ago

And then figured they'd be fine if they deleted their Facebook account. If your Facebook account gets deleted you get deleted in real life, after all.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] capital@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago

You think they were unaware?

[-] kautau@lemmy.world 45 points 8 months ago

They already planned for this. They’ll settle out of court. It’s pennies to them and a planned business expense, like a fine

[-] johnthedoe@lemmy.ml 69 points 8 months ago

Completely forgot Threads was even a thing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Treczoks@lemm.ee 48 points 8 months ago

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".

[-] ezchili@iusearchlinux.fyi 38 points 8 months ago

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"

[-] Mamertine@lemmy.world 19 points 8 months ago

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] the_ocs@lemmy.world 28 points 8 months ago

Someone was able to trademark the word "Apple", so that's not so surprising

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 33 points 8 months ago

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...

[-] ByGourou@sh.itjust.works 17 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

How stupid must the court be to agree that Apple music isn't about selling music...

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Octavio@lemmy.world 42 points 8 months ago

Gosh if only Meta hd money for lawyers, they could squish this like a bug. Oh, yeah. They do have money for lawyers. Tons of it.

[-] topinambour_rex@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago

Are you sure UK court allows it ? Because they filed in UK.

[-] Octavio@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago

I don’t know anything about UK law but in my observations, giant corporations with tons of cash and armies of ~~lawyers~~ solicitors do what they want. I could be wrong but it is just my cynical view, not legal advice.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] LengAwaits@lemmy.world 35 points 8 months ago

There's no love lost between me and Meta, but I'm just gon' leave this here:

Against Intellectual Monopoly

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Deftdrummer@lemmy.world 34 points 8 months ago

Fun fact: Google has to pay royalties to Windsor Castle since they had a Keep product first.

[-] MrFlamey@lemmy.world 33 points 8 months ago

Well can't they just call it Meta Threads or Threads by Meta if it isn't already, and nothing has to change.

[-] zaphod@feddit.de 22 points 8 months ago

Not an expert on trademark law, but I think "Threads by Meta" would not work as the main part of that name would still be "Threads", "Meta Threads" could work, but if they'd make the "Meta" part not prominent in the branding then again it would probably be considered as only "Threads".

[-] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 13 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Not an expert either, and I'm definitely not a lawyer. But I did take an elective class in uni on IPR.

Generally you can have two types of trademarks. You can use graphics as your trademark or a word. And your trademark must be unique to be defendable.

The word can't be something that is already in use, if you want to register it as a wordmark. Ie you can't register the word "beer" and market beer under that trademark. What you can register is alternative spelling or your logo.

The word "threads" is a word that was used previously. It has a meaning already. So you can't register it as a wordmark.

This is one of the reasons why alphabet really hates that people use the word "google" as a verb, or LEGO that people call the bricks "legos", as it diminishes the trademarkability of the word and thus makes defending the trademark harder.

If both companies tries to claim the word "threads" they'll have a pretty weak case. While I don't know exactly what this is about, I suspect that the headline doesn't give the full picture of the dispute.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ramblinguy@sh.itjust.works 22 points 8 months ago

There's another threads too that my company used to use for internal posts (referenced in the article): https://threads.com/

Interesting that they managed to keep the .com name

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] SleepingTower@lemmy.world 21 points 8 months ago

Where have I seen this before? Oh yeah: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_Games

They'll be fine.

[-] netchami@sh.itjust.works 21 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

LMAO; Fuck you Facebook!

[-] nutsack@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I'm sure Meta will either pay them out or bankrupt them in court.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023
1088 points (98.3% liked)

Technology

55562 readers
3844 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS