6 ms·

Are you this company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_(company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_(company)? Owning the name of a common adjective seems du

Are you this company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_(company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_(company)? Owning the name of a common adjective seems dubious to me. It's like naming your company "big."

hnlmorg 5y ago
I don't think that is the same company. Meta (Wiki): - Website: metavision.com - Founder: Meron Gribetz MetaCompany (HN Article): - Website: meta.company - Founder: Nate Skulic
sbarre 5y ago
I think these are separate companies, but _another_ company in the AR space called Meta seems like a crowded space!
edgyquant 5y ago
They don’t own the name, they own the trademark to do augmented reality business under the name. Since that company has been around since 2013 it does seem they have a case (if that is them.)
- Cookingboy 5y ago
  Are you talking about the one from the Wiki link? That company foreclosed 2 years ago according to the Wikipedia page. The company in this link is another one. I have no idea what MetaCompany does.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
CamelCaseName 5y ago
I believe this is a different company, the CEO name and URL are different.
numbsafari 5y ago
It would be very interesting to see Facebook/Meta make that argument in defense of what, I am assuming, is a pending lawsuit.
capableweb 5y ago
Seems not, meta.company links to MetaCompany and mentions Nate Skulic as founder, while Meta (company) lists Meron Gribetz as founder. Strangely enough, Wayback Machine doesn't have any snapshots of the site https://web.archive.org/web/2018*/http://meta.company/ https://web.archive.org/web/2018*/http://meta.company/, and finding no mentions of "MetaCompany" online, so seems weird.
hwbehrens 5y ago
> Owning the name of a common adjective seems dubious to me. It's like naming your company "big." Or "Uber"?
Taniwha 5y ago
how ... um .... meta
bryans 5y ago
But a noun like Apple passes your personal trademark requirements?
- waynecochran 5y ago
  Not really. How about a definite article e.g. "the"?
- xboxnolifes 5y ago
  Are there other companies named Apple who complained about the name in the past?
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    There's an entire Wikipedia article on just this.
  - fghorow 5y ago
    Apple Music. Owned the IP to the Beatles music, IIRC.
    - asveikau 5y ago
      Apple Corps and Apple Records. Was founded in the late 60s by the Beatles themselves. They also published solo works and a few other artists.
  - dathinab 5y ago
    Yes (if I remember correctly), especially wrt. to the apple logo trademark. But non are tech companies.
  - ISL 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
  - masswerk 5y ago
    Actually, there was a complaint (The Beatles).
dathinab 5y ago
> Owning the name of a common adjective seems dubious to me. Yes, but is legal. But IMHO shouldn't be, the less the more relevant (as in large) facebook is. To some degree Facebook is committing forceful cultural appropriation of a common english word and it's usage in common language and literature (especially SiFi literature).
- nwiswell 5y ago
  > Facebook is committing forceful cultural appropriation of a common english word Seems alarmist. The word "apple" is still doing fine in the context of the firm treeborne fruit.
- hihihihi1234 5y ago
  "cultural appropriation"? Whose culture is being appropriated exactly?
klyrs 5y ago
> It's like naming your company "big." That's a pretty sweet brand name, to be honest.
snowwrestler 5y ago
“Face book” is itself a generic term for a literal book of faces that some colleges would print and distribute to incoming freshman classes so they could get to know each other. And you’re on the site of a company that holds a trademark on “Y combinator,” a math term. Yes, one can trademark generic words or terms. A trademark must be narrowly defined to cover only your specific markets and uses, and it must be in active use.
- mark-r 5y ago
  I worked on a product called "Media Center" which we applied for a trademark on. The USPTO turned it down claiming it was too generic. Then 6 months later Microsoft comes out with a new version of Windows, with a Media Center in it.
  - tpmx 5y ago
    They used the trademark "Windows Media Center": https://uspto.report/TM/78100817 https://uspto.report/TM/78100817
- waynecochran 5y ago
  Those are all nouns -- makes a bit more sense...
mazlix 5y ago
That is a different Meta. https://apps.ilsos.gov/corporatellc/CorporateLlcController https://apps.ilsos.gov/corporatellc/CorporateLlcController Search Meta and you’ll find the Meta, LLC made by Nate

hnlmorg 5y ago

I don't think that is the same company. Meta (Wiki): - Website: metavision.com - Founder: Meron Gribetz MetaCompany (HN Article): - Website: meta.company - Founder: Nate Skulic

sbarre 5y ago

I think these are separate companies, but _another_ company in the AR space called Meta seems like a crowded space!

edgyquant 5y ago

They don’t own the name, they own the trademark to do augmented reality business under the name. Since that company has been around since 2013 it does seem they have a case (if that is them.)

Cookingboy 5y ago
Are you talking about the one from the Wiki link? That company foreclosed 2 years ago according to the Wikipedia page. The company in this link is another one. I have no idea what MetaCompany does.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

CamelCaseName 5y ago

I believe this is a different company, the CEO name and URL are different.

numbsafari 5y ago

It would be very interesting to see Facebook/Meta make that argument in defense of what, I am assuming, is a pending lawsuit.

capableweb 5y ago

Seems not, meta.company links to MetaCompany and mentions Nate Skulic as founder, while Meta (company) lists Meron Gribetz as founder. Strangely enough, Wayback Machine doesn't have any snapshots of the site https://web.archive.org/web/2018*/http://meta.company/ https://web.archive.org/web/2018*/http://meta.company/, and finding no mentions of "MetaCompany" online, so seems weird.

hwbehrens 5y ago

> Owning the name of a common adjective seems dubious to me. It's like naming your company "big." Or "Uber"?

Taniwha 5y ago

how ... um .... meta

bryans 5y ago

But a noun like Apple passes your personal trademark requirements?

waynecochran 5y ago
Not really. How about a definite article e.g. "the"?
xboxnolifes 5y ago
Are there other companies named Apple who complained about the name in the past?
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  There's an entire Wikipedia article on just this.
- fghorow 5y ago
  Apple Music. Owned the IP to the Beatles music, IIRC.
  - asveikau 5y ago
    Apple Corps and Apple Records. Was founded in the late 60s by the Beatles themselves. They also published solo works and a few other artists.
- dathinab 5y ago
  Yes (if I remember correctly), especially wrt. to the apple logo trademark. But non are tech companies.
- ISL 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
- masswerk 5y ago
  Actually, there was a complaint (The Beatles).

dathinab 5y ago

> Owning the name of a common adjective seems dubious to me. Yes, but is legal. But IMHO shouldn't be, the less the more relevant (as in large) facebook is. To some degree Facebook is committing forceful cultural appropriation of a common english word and it's usage in common language and literature (especially SiFi literature).

nwiswell 5y ago
> Facebook is committing forceful cultural appropriation of a common english word Seems alarmist. The word "apple" is still doing fine in the context of the firm treeborne fruit.
hihihihi1234 5y ago
"cultural appropriation"? Whose culture is being appropriated exactly?

klyrs 5y ago

> It's like naming your company "big." That's a pretty sweet brand name, to be honest.

snowwrestler 5y ago

“Face book” is itself a generic term for a literal book of faces that some colleges would print and distribute to incoming freshman classes so they could get to know each other. And you’re on the site of a company that holds a trademark on “Y combinator,” a math term. Yes, one can trademark generic words or terms. A trademark must be narrowly defined to cover only your specific markets and uses, and it must be in active use.

mark-r 5y ago
I worked on a product called "Media Center" which we applied for a trademark on. The USPTO turned it down claiming it was too generic. Then 6 months later Microsoft comes out with a new version of Windows, with a Media Center in it.
- tpmx 5y ago
  They used the trademark "Windows Media Center": https://uspto.report/TM/78100817 https://uspto.report/TM/78100817
waynecochran 5y ago
Those are all nouns -- makes a bit more sense...

mazlix 5y ago

That is a different Meta. https://apps.ilsos.gov/corporatellc/CorporateLlcController https://apps.ilsos.gov/corporatellc/CorporateLlcController Search Meta and you’ll find the Meta, LLC made by Nate