8 ms·
Google Creates Alphabet, but Runs into BMW
- stephengillie 11y agoEngadget article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10043212 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10043212 --- ...the Internet domain alphabet.com, as well as the trademark Alphabet, already belonged to someone else — namely, the German automaker BMW. And if they had dialed BMW headquarters in Munich, they would have discovered something else: BMW does not want to sell. Well that's embarrassing. Good thing they launched with abc.xyz. But wait... Just because one company uses a name does not mean another company cannot use it. Trademark infringement occurs if another company’s use could create confusion with consumers, according to the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
- Zigurd 11y agoGood thing one of them is a car company...
- nemo 11y agoBMW noticed Google's pushing into the (self-driving) car business. That's what their trademark complaint's based on.
- rahulravu96 11y agoits BMW ... not a patent troll ..
- dragonwriter 11y ago> BMW noticed Google's pushing into the (self-driving) car business. Kind of hard not to. > That's what their trademark complaint's based on. BMW hasn't filed a trademark complaint. They haven't even indicated that they think that there is a violation. They have said they are looking into whether any infringement has taken place, which is many miles short of having a complaint.
- kyrra 11y agoBut Alphabet is a holding company of sorts. I don't think we'll be seeing "Alphabet self driving cars". Google's efforts on self driving cars will probably continue to be branded under Google or will get its own branding name.
- jonlucc 11y agoBut wouldn't Alphabet's cars be called something else?
- stephengillie 11y agoTo which holding company named "Alphabet" are you referring? Google's or BMW's?
- jonlucc 11y agoBoth, but I meant Google's Alphabet's cars.
- fecak 11y agoTimely considering PG's post earlier in the week http://paulgraham.com/name.html http://paulgraham.com/name.html
- molecule 11y ago> Unless you're so big that your reputation precedes you...
- fecak 11y agoAgreed that nobody is going to think Google is a marginal company. IANAL, but I'd think it's a bit odd that nobody from Google would contact BMW (as BMW spokesperson said in article). An announcement this big concerning two large companies doesn't seem a situation where you'd ask forgiveness rather than permission.
- icebraining 11y agoPermission/forgiveness for what?
- fecak 11y agoThere's a fairly common saying about it being preferable to "beg forgiveness" than to "ask permission". In this case, I was referring to Google possibly mentioning to BMW their intent to use the Alphabet name.
- edpichler 11y agoRegarding of company domain names, I respectably disagree with Paul,and I agree with Ev http://evhead.com/2011/06/five-reasons-domains-are-less-important.html http://evhead.com/2011/06/five-reasons-domains-are-less-impo... Maybe I'm wrong, and it's most easy to "my mind" accept Ev idea.
- fecak 11y agoIn this case, the argument is easily made that a domain name is even less important because the company in question is Google itself.
- coldcode 11y agoStill seems stupid to not at least try to buy the facebook+domain name and the twitter handle @alphabet. I bet the twitter owner would love to part with it for a few million. Even BMW might be amenable to enough scratch.
- dragonwriter 11y ago> Still seems stupid to not at least try to buy the facebook+domain name and the twitter handle @alphabet. Why? AFAICT, the whole point of Alphabet, Inc. is to maintain common ownership while reducing the visible ties between the various components. I don't see Alphabet qua Alphabet being the focal point of PR efforts, so why do they need those kind of public-facing identities? > I bet the twitter owner would love to part with it for a few million. Even BMW might be amenable to enough scratch. And I bet Alphabet, Inc., is happy keeping the money and letting the current owners keep the Facebook and Twitter identities, the Alphabet.com domain name, etc. Sure, they could spend money buying everything in existence that has the word "Alphabet" associated with it -- but why?
- ljk 11y ago> BMW is examining whether any trademark infringement has taken place, Ms. Sandstede said. how likely are they gonna get trademark infringement notice?
- quadrature 11y agoIs it actually important for the holding company to be well branded ?
- rco8786 11y agoSeems like a non-issue. They did no research ahead of time regarding alphabet.com/@alphabet handles... this would indicate that they are not that concerned about the visibility/branding of the holding company, which stands to reason. It's not like they didn't think about these things when they were naming, they just don't care.
- DarkTree 11y agoYeah, to imply that the leaders of a massively successful company didn't think to look into naming issues is extremely naive or grasping for news straws at best.
- kraig 11y agoIn a way they may have not or they would have confirmed that BMW wouldn't have an issue with it.
- tobyjsullivan 11y agoIt's not up to BMW. It's up to trademark law. And trademark law is quite well established in this context that there's no issue.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- seanalltogether 11y agoExactly, holding companies do not need to worry about their marketing. http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/ http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/
- haberman 11y agoWow, that web page is amazing. It's straight out of the 90s but it also has a Geico ad on it, which I cannot fathom why they would possibly need or want that.
- h1fra 11y agoThey couldn't care less. The name does not actually mater for an holding and the website will not likely be used for anything. I think no one will actually search for this. alphabet.com does not even reach the page 1 nor will abc.xyz (unless they are faking results)
- o0-0o 11y agoI have been looking all over, but can't find where Alphabet is incorporated. Anybody have the answer?
- ianhawes 11y agoDelaware. "Alphabet, Inc" was created on July 23rd, 2015.
- dragonwriter 11y agoRuns into in what way? Sure, BMW owns alphabet.com -- Alphabet, Inc., uses abc.xyz, and probably doesn't care about alphabet.com. They aren't a consumer-facing entity, all the consumer facing entities are presumably going to be subsidiaries with their own names and identities. And, sure, BMW has a trademark on Alphabet in particular domains. Again, Alphabet, Inc., is a parent entity, its quite likely the subsidiaries will all be doing business under their own names, not using "Alphabet" as a trademark in a way that would conflict with BMW's trademark.
- andrepd 11y agoRuns into in the sense that the first website people will type when trying to access the website of Google's Alphabet is surely alphabet.com.
- ocb 11y agoall those people scrambling to visit a holding company's website ;)
- deelowe 11y agoWhy would people be accessing the proposed alphabet.com? There's not going to be any consumer related stuff there. In fact, I'd be surprised if abc.xyz will change much.
- andrepd 11y agoYes, I know that. But I can see where the "problem" resides, even if it's not actually a problem at all :)
- deelowe 11y agoI think the point of the name is to be as common and forgettable as possible. Alphabet isn't going to be some huge brand or anything. It's literally just a holding company for the major bands (former) Google wants to see flourish on their own.
- WalterBright 11y agoI don't think single common English words should be trademark-able. Remember when Zilog tried to trademark the letter Z? Didn't Intel try to trademark a number?
- sp332 11y agoYes, and UPS has trademarked brown (and T-mobile has purple). Remember that trademarks are limited to certain categories. If you're not competing with UPS, you can use brown etc.
- WalterBright 11y agoI know how trademark works (I have a registered tm myself), but am suggesting that it change. To my mind trademarking 'brown' is so thoroughly uncreative. A trademark should be more than a common English word.
- dragonwriter 11y agoTrademark isn't intended to be about creativity (that's copyright), trademark is intended to be about preventing commercial confusion.
- WalterBright 11y agoThe "Pixels" thing clearly shows that trademarking common English words is ripe for confusion. A little creativity would go a long way towards reducing confusion.
- sp332 11y agoYou can't make DMCA request for trademarks. That was a copyright complaint that looked for a common English word. The complaint would have been overly broad whether or not it was trademarked.
- umeshunni 11y ago
- return0 11y agoMaybe google plans to buy BMW ...
- kisna72 11y agohaha. this can be the only explanation!! jk
- kuschku 11y agoAfter BMW just bought the last remains of Nokia (including the smart-driving subsidy of Nokia that produced 3D scans of all european streets), I don’t think so. Also Google is, for a carmaker, tiny. VW, for example, is over twice as large as Google.
- dragonwriter 11y ago> Also Google is, for a carmaker, tiny. VW, for example, is over twice as large as Google. By what measure? Market cap, Google is one of the biggest companies in the world, (#2 behind Apple, last I heard) in the neighborhood of $450 billion. VW Group is around $100 billion. Google's cash on hand is on the rough order of magnitude of VW's market cap.
- kuschku 11y agoGoogle has less assets, half of the profit and half of the revenue of VW. Google has a higher valuation due to an investment bubble, not due to actual economics.
- dragonwriter 11y ago> Google has less assets, half of the profit and half of the revenue of VW. Most recent quarterly numbers are more like Google has 1/3 of the revenue of VW but 85% of the profits. > Google has a higher valuation due to an investment bubble, not due to actual economics. Even if it was due to an investment bubble rather than, say, rational expectations of stronger long-term growth based on market characteristics, well, investment bubbles are as much "actual economics" as anything else.
- bitmapbrother 11y agoThis is an article looking for a problem. Google doesn't care about Alphabet.com nor did Google ever approach BMW at any time to make an offer for it. It's a holding company, not a brand and in keeping with Google's playful nature abc.xyz fits them just fine.
- massysett 11y agoReminds me of Qwikster. The Twitter handle was already taken, and wasn't the avatar Elmo with a cigarette in his mouth? Knowing Google the decision was probably about as hasty as Qwikster was. It's not that holding company names aren't important. Kraft realized otherwise. They certainly thought about it before they picked Mondelez.
- wanghq 11y agoGoogle -> abc.xyz -> alphabet -> a to z -> a2z.com -> Amazon
- melvinmt 11y ago-> abc.wtf
- stephengillie 11y agoa16z
- abulman 11y agoI'd be inclined to say abc20xyz
- Mindless2112 11y agoOne step closer to Googlezon [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPIC_2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPIC_2014
- mxfh 11y agoJournalist needs to create Article, types Alphabet into Google.com.
- tobyjsullivan 11y agoTL;DR: Alphabet can't buy alphabet.com but clearly didn't intend to because it is already using abc.xyz. Just a click-bait headline.
- antaviana 11y agoThis is a non-issue that will be cured when Alphabet's car subsidiari sells self-driving BMW. Juzt like the non-issue between Apple, the device maker, and Apple, the owner of Beatles songs, was finally cured when Beatles songs started to be sold on iTunes.