News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook).

Re:A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook) by thrush on Monday February 03, 2014 @12:26PM (#7172031)
It's a matter of respect. Paper (FiftyThree) is a well known brand and app, so basically the Facebook developers were 100% aware that they were utilizing someone's name (at least they should have been), and therefore they went ahead to publish their new app with complete disregard for what already existed.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook) by pron on Monday February 03, 2014 @12:32PM (#7172089)
On the other hand, FiftyThree have chosen a very common English word for their product name. You can't call dibs on a word like "paper", and this was a risk they should have taken into account. Either choose a proper (and trademarkable) name, or choose a common word and expect such consequences. You can't have it both ways, and I think even considering Facebook's Paper, FiftyThree have probably made the right tradeoff. Whining about it now just makes them look bad.
[ Parent | on HN ]
[deleted]
Re:A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook) by bfe on Monday February 03, 2014 @12:57PM (#7172306)
U.S. trademark law uses what are called the Abercrombie classes of whether a purported brand name is 1. generic, 2. descriptive, 3. suggestive, or 4. arbitrary or fanciful, as applied in the context of the product or service for which it's being used as a brand ([1] and see e.g. [2], p. 7). The word "Apple" as a brand for computers is famously an example of an arbitrary or fanciful word in its product context. The same might not be said for the word "paper" for a medium for writing and drawing.

1. Abercrombie & Fitch v. Hunting World, 537 F.2d 4 (2d. Cir. 1976)

2. http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/Germes_Newsletter/germes...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook) by jacalata on Monday February 03, 2014 @12:44PM (#7172187)
Are you calling "Facebook" a common English word? Because it's not.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook) by bicknergseng on Monday February 03, 2014 @12:47PM (#7172217)
It is if you go to a college with a facebook style directory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_(directory)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook) by thrush on Monday February 03, 2014 @12:49PM (#7172230)
Where does one draw the line for a word that is too common for your business? Here are the rankings of just a few company names that utilized popular words.

  521 - paper
  1991 - match
  2723 - apple
  2777 - square
  2921 - target
Imagine if Facebook came out with a new camera app that was called Facebook Target. There would be no doubt that there was clear negligence on Facebook's part. I feel like here I need to disclose that I am no lawyer, and that this is where Trademark law comes into effect. It's just disappointing that an innovative tech company would act this way when it's completely unnecessary. I think that if the app was called Facebook News it would be just as effective as if it was Facebook Paper.

Source (could probably use something more legitimate): http://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/common-words-5000.htm

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook) by Touche on Monday February 03, 2014 @12:55PM (#7172287)
Paper isn't a company name. IANAL either but I believe there is a distinction in Trademarks between company and product names.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook) by Turing_Machine on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @01:13AM (#7175821)
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=4802:iw...

There are over 2,000 records that include various forms of the word "target". Over 3,000 for "apple". Over 3,000 for "windows".

If you use a common word in a trademark you may be able to prevent others from using it for the exact same (or very similar) product, but you don't own the word outright.

Facebook might well be okay with a camera app called Target (though they might not be -- someone else may be using it for that purpose already). They would definitely be in trouble if they started a department store called "Facebook Target", though.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook) by austenallred on Monday February 03, 2014 @12:34PM (#7172104)
What about something like "Square?" That's about as generic as it gets, yet is there any question as to what someone is referring to when they are talking about "Square" in the context of an app?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook) by pron on Monday February 03, 2014 @12:36PM (#7172120)
If Square whines about someone else using the name, I will say the same thing. It's a tradeoff, and they've made their choice.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook) by thrush on Monday February 03, 2014 @12:57PM (#7172301)
There are two sides of the story. Square (Paper in this case) probably does not benefit greatly from whining (from both PR and legal perspectives), but why would a company take the name to begin with. Either they were blind, or confident that there brand would bypass whatever was existing, or they are hoping to ride off existing brand recognition for a quick boost.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook) by arrrg on Monday February 03, 2014 @12:46PM (#7172208)
Eh … whenever someone mentions Square I first think of Squarespace. That’s the much more present Square brand in my head (probably because I listen to way too many podcasts and Squarespace seems to advertise on all of them while Square isn’t relevant or present at all in Germany).

Their brand name really manages to confuse me whenever it’s mentioned … but that just comes with the territory of picking something so generic.

So, yes, there is a question what someone is referring to when they talk about Square in the context of an app. That happened to me several times already, here on HN. I read some headline with Square in it, click on it and am confused why it’s not about website hosting.

I have little doubt that it is possible to build an extremely successful brand that no one confuses with anything else around a very generic term (just think of Apple), but if you want that super-generic word to work out for you (and those words can be cool to use, no doubt) you have to live with people confusing you until you pull it off. It’s a trade-off.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook) by johne20 on Monday February 03, 2014 @12:48PM (#7172219)
squarespace.com had a Superbowl commercial yesterday and my wife asked is that "Square"?... which led to a 15 sec. conversation.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook) by jonny_eh on Monday February 03, 2014 @12:59PM (#7172319)
I'm pretty sure squarespace existed before square.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook) by maybe on Monday February 03, 2014 @12:46PM (#7172210)
oh you mean the guys that make the Final Fantasy games for iOS.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook) by JetSpiegel on Monday February 03, 2014 @01:12PM (#7172409)
Nah, that's Squeenix
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook) by Tyr42 on Monday February 03, 2014 @05:23PM (#7173952)
If I didn't already know about the payments company, I'd think that final fantasy was moving off of DSs and onto mobile, to be honest.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook) by lewispollard on Monday February 03, 2014 @12:36PM (#7172119)
After the King controversy and the resulting 'candy jam', does that mean someone will now start a 'paper jam'?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook) by Finster on Monday February 03, 2014 @12:48PM (#7172220)
Like "Windows"?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook) by hatred on Monday February 03, 2014 @12:36PM (#7172123)
"We reached out to Facebook about the confusion their app was creating, and they apologized for not contacting us sooner."

Yep , And to add more salt to wounds, I hate such diplomatic "Oh Shit! Did you guys existed too ? We just did not know answers".

[ Parent | on HN ]