4 ms·

Lucas should have his lawyers send a telegram to Instagram's lawyers explaining where the gram part of the name comes from, and ask them to change their name.

Lucas should have his lawyers send a telegram to Instagram's lawyers explaining where the gram part of the name comes from, and ask them to change their name. The idea that large companies can own a word, that they themselves have appropriated, is at least egotistical, at worst unethical (imo).

sschueller 10y ago
Sadly the one with more money wins in these situations even if they are in the wrong.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  Yes, which is why you can't call a window-based operating system *indows, paint your delivery trucks brown, or use the letter I.
  - kristofferR 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Lindows.com,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Lindows.com....
    - nitrogen 10y ago
      HN removes the final period from the URL. Try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Lindows.com,_Inc%2e https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Lindows.com...
- ianpurton 10y ago
  Not if you're bankrupt and represent yourself.
Grabbeh 10y ago
I don't think trade mark ownership is in itself the problem. Trade marks serve a useful economic purpose in helping consumers to easily distinguish between products in the marketplace. I have no issue with companies using trade marks for this purpose as without them consumer confusion would be rife, and there's a legitimate interest in allowing companies to police use of their brand names. The problem arises when a company looks to abuse its trade mark rights and prevent usage of other brand names which to most reasonable people would never actually be confused with the trade mark owner's brand. I always want to be in the underdog's corner, but I have sympathy with Instagram here I must admit. The origin of 'gram' is irrelevant. The fact is that we are dealing with two apps with very similar functionality, who both share the word 'gram'. On that basis, I think there is a high likelihood of confusion in relation to the origin of the app. There's a decent chance that a certain proportion of the relevant population could think that Littergram is an official offshoot of Instagram. It's also likely that the name was also chosen to free-ride off Instagram's goodwill to attract attention to the app. To be fair though, he has got good publicity for the app as a result of the cease and desist, which if he hadn't named it Littergram he would never have got. I doubt Instagram would pursue a damages claim and so both parties can presumably walk away if he changes the name.
- kagamine 10y ago
  Given that the use of something-gram is likely to cause confusion in the eyes of some, perhaps instagram ought to have given more thought to naming their product to begin with. I mean, any fool could see where this was heading if the app in its infancy was expected to be successful. Car manufacturers and other industries spend fortunes on branding, app manufacturers by contrast appear to feel obligated to choose a random word and then scream "this is mine now talk to legal la la la I can't hear you". Ianal but I would (theoretically and against my real lawyer's advice) argue in court that Instagram should have had better foresight than to use an already established word that is taken to mean "short message of indiscriminate content". Of course the easy way out here is for Insta- i forget, oh yes gram, to pay the littergram bloke's costs for changing the name of his app and then help him to promote the new name. Saying as he is actually doing something a lot more worthwhile than sending shitposts from teen to teen. But why let decency get in the way of POWERSTRIDES THROUGH THE OFFICE LIKE A TRUE TECH-CONQUEROR SPITTING ON THE COMMONERS ... I FEEL SO STRONG NOW, NO-ONE CAN CHALLENGE ME. I mean, the guy is trying to stop littering, he's not doing anything untoward.
  - Grabbeh 10y ago
    I suspect Instagram are pretty darn happy with their choice of trade mark at this present moment in time. Trade mark enforcement is an inevitable aspect of becoming a large brand and here I think they have a legitimate interest in pursuing the guy. Also Instagram was not an already established word as far as I'm aware and was developed purely as a brand name for a photo-sharing app, and is therefore particularly distinctive. Happy to be corrected though. In terms of the motivations, sure the guy is trying to stop people littering, but next thing you know, he's transitioned into selling ad space and is making his millions, all after free-riding on Instagram's goodwill in the name. I'm being facetious of course, but you don't know what will happen in the future. The context behind the use is also likely to have tempered Facebook's approach to the infringement. For all we know, they may have offered to help with the rebrand costs. I don't know of many companies who adopt a completely over-zealous approach to trade mark enforcement. Do you know any that fall within the type you describe in your post? Finally, I don't know who your lawyer is, but in the unlikely event the matter went to court, or to a trade mark authority's dispute resolution process, you would run an argument precisely in line with the one you describe. You would look to have the trade mark registration invalidated on the basis that it is descriptive and was therefore not suitable to be registered. I don't think you'd get very far but you'd make the argument all the same.
drb311 10y ago
Here's how the BBC describes the product: "Littergram invites people to share pictures of rubbish." It's pretty clear that -gram here is used to signal that this is a picture sharing app. If Instagram didn't exist it's unlikely Lucas would have called his app Littergram.
- surreal 10y ago
  Identical usage to Instagram, then. But yes, I agree, the similarity in app functionality suggests that the name derives/can be confused with Instagram as opposed to a telegram, and so there may well be merit in the C&D.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- kagamine 10y ago
  > "Littergram invites people to share pictures of rubbish." I think they put the wrong app name in there. Given that sentence, they are identical apps.
  - chris_wot 10y ago
    LOL!
hellbanner 10y ago
What fascinates me (coming from a programming background) is this is essentially a namespace collision. If you or I put up a banner "littergram kitchen" inside of our kitchen and no one knows about it but friends and residents.. there's no problem. Hell if "littergram" becomes used by a few dozen people, no problem. Enter the same marketplace as "instagram" and voila, namespace collision. (Well almost, littergram != instagram but you see what I mean). I wonder what the world would be like if copyrights used proper namespaces? Maybe we there would be a dearth of companies missing vowels in their title..
- kagamine 10y ago
  Companies should also be named according to type, so publicly listed companies should use camel-case and private companies dashes, faceBook and face-book could co-exist. _FACEBOOK_ too, they're a gloabal insustry. /s
- cowsandmilk 10y ago
  (a) it is trademark law (b) trademarks are namespaced, both by business and geography. As a quick example, different Otto pizza chains ran peacefully in NYC and in Portland, ME. There only was an issue when they both tried to expand to Boston at the same time. (c) missing vowels has nothing to do with collisions. I cannot create a company called flicker that hosts photos. I also cannot create a social network called facbook. Present or missing vowels do not make a difference. Missing vowels started with getting a web address, then became a fad.

sschueller 10y ago

Sadly the one with more money wins in these situations even if they are in the wrong.

nitrogen 10y ago
Yes, which is why you can't call a window-based operating system *indows, paint your delivery trucks brown, or use the letter I.
- kristofferR 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Lindows.com,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Lindows.com....
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    HN removes the final period from the URL. Try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Lindows.com,_Inc%2e https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Lindows.com...
ianpurton 10y ago
Not if you're bankrupt and represent yourself.

Grabbeh 10y ago

I don't think trade mark ownership is in itself the problem. Trade marks serve a useful economic purpose in helping consumers to easily distinguish between products in the marketplace. I have no issue with companies using trade marks for this purpose as without them consumer confusion would be rife, and there's a legitimate interest in allowing companies to police use of their brand names. The problem arises when a company looks to abuse its trade mark rights and prevent usage of other brand names which to most reasonable people would never actually be confused with the trade mark owner's brand. I always want to be in the underdog's corner, but I have sympathy with Instagram here I must admit. The origin of 'gram' is irrelevant. The fact is that we are dealing with two apps with very similar functionality, who both share the word 'gram'. On that basis, I think there is a high likelihood of confusion in relation to the origin of the app. There's a decent chance that a certain proportion of the relevant population could think that Littergram is an official offshoot of Instagram. It's also likely that the name was also chosen to free-ride off Instagram's goodwill to attract attention to the app. To be fair though, he has got good publicity for the app as a result of the cease and desist, which if he hadn't named it Littergram he would never have got. I doubt Instagram would pursue a damages claim and so both parties can presumably walk away if he changes the name.

kagamine 10y ago
Given that the use of something-gram is likely to cause confusion in the eyes of some, perhaps instagram ought to have given more thought to naming their product to begin with. I mean, any fool could see where this was heading if the app in its infancy was expected to be successful. Car manufacturers and other industries spend fortunes on branding, app manufacturers by contrast appear to feel obligated to choose a random word and then scream "this is mine now talk to legal la la la I can't hear you". Ianal but I would (theoretically and against my real lawyer's advice) argue in court that Instagram should have had better foresight than to use an already established word that is taken to mean "short message of indiscriminate content". Of course the easy way out here is for Insta- i forget, oh yes gram, to pay the littergram bloke's costs for changing the name of his app and then help him to promote the new name. Saying as he is actually doing something a lot more worthwhile than sending shitposts from teen to teen. But why let decency get in the way of POWERSTRIDES THROUGH THE OFFICE LIKE A TRUE TECH-CONQUEROR SPITTING ON THE COMMONERS ... I FEEL SO STRONG NOW, NO-ONE CAN CHALLENGE ME. I mean, the guy is trying to stop littering, he's not doing anything untoward.
- Grabbeh 10y ago
  I suspect Instagram are pretty darn happy with their choice of trade mark at this present moment in time. Trade mark enforcement is an inevitable aspect of becoming a large brand and here I think they have a legitimate interest in pursuing the guy. Also Instagram was not an already established word as far as I'm aware and was developed purely as a brand name for a photo-sharing app, and is therefore particularly distinctive. Happy to be corrected though. In terms of the motivations, sure the guy is trying to stop people littering, but next thing you know, he's transitioned into selling ad space and is making his millions, all after free-riding on Instagram's goodwill in the name. I'm being facetious of course, but you don't know what will happen in the future. The context behind the use is also likely to have tempered Facebook's approach to the infringement. For all we know, they may have offered to help with the rebrand costs. I don't know of many companies who adopt a completely over-zealous approach to trade mark enforcement. Do you know any that fall within the type you describe in your post? Finally, I don't know who your lawyer is, but in the unlikely event the matter went to court, or to a trade mark authority's dispute resolution process, you would run an argument precisely in line with the one you describe. You would look to have the trade mark registration invalidated on the basis that it is descriptive and was therefore not suitable to be registered. I don't think you'd get very far but you'd make the argument all the same.

drb311 10y ago

Here's how the BBC describes the product: "Littergram invites people to share pictures of rubbish." It's pretty clear that -gram here is used to signal that this is a picture sharing app. If Instagram didn't exist it's unlikely Lucas would have called his app Littergram.

surreal 10y ago
Identical usage to Instagram, then. But yes, I agree, the similarity in app functionality suggests that the name derives/can be confused with Instagram as opposed to a telegram, and so there may well be merit in the C&D.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
kagamine 10y ago
> "Littergram invites people to share pictures of rubbish." I think they put the wrong app name in there. Given that sentence, they are identical apps.
- chris_wot 10y ago
  LOL!

hellbanner 10y ago

What fascinates me (coming from a programming background) is this is essentially a namespace collision. If you or I put up a banner "littergram kitchen" inside of our kitchen and no one knows about it but friends and residents.. there's no problem. Hell if "littergram" becomes used by a few dozen people, no problem. Enter the same marketplace as "instagram" and voila, namespace collision. (Well almost, littergram != instagram but you see what I mean). I wonder what the world would be like if copyrights used proper namespaces? Maybe we there would be a dearth of companies missing vowels in their title..

kagamine 10y ago
Companies should also be named according to type, so publicly listed companies should use camel-case and private companies dashes, faceBook and face-book could co-exist. _FACEBOOK_ too, they're a gloabal insustry. /s
cowsandmilk 10y ago
(a) it is trademark law (b) trademarks are namespaced, both by business and geography. As a quick example, different Otto pizza chains ran peacefully in NYC and in Portland, ME. There only was an issue when they both tried to expand to Boston at the same time. (c) missing vowels has nothing to do with collisions. I cannot create a company called flicker that hosts photos. I also cannot create a social network called facbook. Present or missing vowels do not make a difference. Missing vowels started with getting a web address, then became a fad.