1086
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023
1086 points (98.3% liked)
Technology
58999 readers
4152 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
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.
So what you're saying is they can rename it threadz. You're hired!
Why do you think that so many companies have ordinary sounding names with weird spelling? Sure, it communicates "We're hip and creative", but it's definitely also a trademark thing.
It depends. Apple is a valid trademark for a computers/electronics company, despite being a common name. It wouldn't work if you tried to trademark it as an apple pie brand however.
I assume whoever owns this threads trademark is in the software business too, they may have a valid claim if so.
Threads are a software concept dating back to at least 1967, and “software” is such a broad industry that I wouldn’t expect such a generic term to be able to apply to it in its entirety. Given that their (the plaintiff’s, not Meta’s) specific niche is messaging, where “thread” is another generic term (e.g., a “thread of discussion”) it seems doubly problematic as a trademark.
That all said, this lawsuit is in the UK, and they don’t even have attorneys over there (they have “barristers” and “solicitors”) and I have no clue if the same trademark standards apply.
In the US, another barrier would be the target audience. Threads by Meta is a B2C social media app; Threads by the Thread Company is a B2B corporate search index for internal messaging. Trademark dilution isn’t relevant - Threads wasn’t a famous brand before - and trademark infringement is based on the likelihood of customer confusion. Is it likely that a business professional - the sort of person who would be purchasing the B2C service - would confuse it with the social media app? I don’t think so, but that’s up to the legal system to decide.
would the enforceability of a trademark in this situation not also depend on whether an average person could easily distinguish the meta threads app from the other company? It's been a while since I took this class and admittedly it was for non-majors but the way it was explained to us is that you can open a used car lot called "McDonald's", you just can't sell burgers or lead people to believe that the burger joint is now selling used cars.
Probably, I don't know, TBH the elective course I took was single week of summer school, 2 ECTS points, passed by attendance. And it was around 2010.