At first, I thought Facebook had acquired 53's Paper and revamped it for its own purposes. So yeah, definitely confusing. I would think that "Paper" is too generic a word for 53 to claim exclusive use of it, but look at the Apple vs. Apple dispute.

They don't appear to have live trademark registered[1].

[1] http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4804%3Arpp3...

I don't think you necessarily need to register to a trademark to have some protection.

http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/register.jsp

And Sky News & Skydrive...

It's not just Sky news.

BSkyB (trading name: Sky) are gigantic (over £7bn yearly revenue) and have fingers in many pies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSkyB

I can't see that being confusing at all. A little bit sloppy from Facebook to be honest, it seems like they've gotten around it as Paper (by 53) is iPad only and Paper (by Facebook) is iPhone only.

If anyone from Facebook is reading, Paperbook. Problem solved.

EDIT: There's a Universal app called Paper as well.

5 letter common words can be used freely by anyone, in my opinion. If you want your brand to be distinctive and searchable, pick a distinctive and searchable name.

There was an article a few weeks ago about an internal struggle going on inside Facebook about what their product should be. Some executives are worried that it's primarily shallow (in their minds) content. They want to get rid of the memes and have people sharing more "quality" content. This is a step in that direction. They want Facebook to become the replacement to the daily newspaper. Hence Paper.

Are you making a comment about "candy?"

Don't know what that means, so no.

King.com, makers of Candy Crush Saga trademarked the word "Candy."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7090913

Except Candy. And Saga.

Do you mind linking that original article? I'm interested in reading that.

I wonder what sort of quality content Facebook execs are looking for. If most people are like me, I work a day at the office, go home, have dinner with the family, take the dog out for a poop, futz with the computer for an hour or two, then off to bed. Rinse and repeat M-F. Weekends are more interesting with family activities, but it's not a constant barrage of me skydiving, taking pictures at the beach and all that week-in, week-out. Nor do I wax philosophical because it just feels so pretentious.

Not sure if this is the original but: http://allthingsd.com/20131210/facebook-wants-to-be-a-newspa...

I agree that common words should be used pretty freely, but if you're Facebook you can do a bit better than the name of an App that's garnered a reasonably large amount of press.

> I can't see that being confusing at all.

I literally thought this was what that was linking to before clicking.

How about "The Paper?" :trollface:

Although I'm not particularly familiar with the latest in US trademark laws, in most European trademark cases it can be argued that the name "Paper" is too descriptive to be defended.

At the same time the fact that both are in the general category of "apps for the curation and creation of content", the confusion in the market is definitely going to be there.

Curious to see how this is going to turn out...

Not a lawyer, but I think you're more or less right about North American trademark law as well. Trademarking a common word is fine (so long as it's not inherently descriptive of the actual product – i.e. trademarking "Paper" with respect to reams of paper would never fly), but FiftyThree would still have to show that "Paper" is sufficiently distinctive in the software market that anyone discussing "Paper" in terms of mobile apps instantly thinks of their product, the same as "Apple" being distinctive in the computers / electronics industry. As big as their app is already, as others have noted other apps have that name too, so 53 would have difficulty claiming exclusivity on "Paper".

Just did a quick USPTO search and it looks like 53 hasn't attempted to register a trademark for "Paper" itself – but they have registered "Paper by FiftyThree", which would more easily pass the bar of distinctiveness: http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85622666&caseType=SERIAL_N...

Having said that – I do wish Facebook had picked a name that wasn't already associated with such a well-known app.

Disclaimer: I have a dev friend who works at FiftyThree but their IP strategy is not something we've discussed.

edit: spelling / grammar

"apps for the curation and creation of content"

That seems overly broad too and I suspect courts would distinguish between creation vs curation. The 53 app is about the former whereas FB's is the latter.

Also think about someone searching for an app to draw and paint. It's unlikely the FB's Paper would show up in the results. Even if it did, would most people confuse it for a drawing/painting app?

Or Flipboard about everything else.

I don't think anyone will ever refer to this app as simply "Paper"..that already exists with 53's app. My guess is that people will refer to it as "Facebook Paper" as they have with "Facebook Messenger".

Yeah, at first I thought that it was their product. I have app as well as their Pencil and I got confused for a second.

Wonder if 53 will become a FB acq-hire. Potential legal problem solved.