3 ms·
They were using it just as much as Facebook though... and actually less than the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative but that's beside the point I'm making. Let's say t
by dwild 5y ago
They were using it just as much as Facebook though... and actually less than the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative but that's beside the point I'm making.
Let's say that Meta Company had released their product a month ago, would you have sided with Facebook if they had said that the Meta Conpany stole their name? Funnily enough you probably wouldn't because they are a wealthy and successful company.
No one here is saying Facebook is entitled to that name because they are wealthy. We are saying they are entitled by that name because the Meta Company was still not doing business using that name. No one is entitled to any name, it has nothing to do with wealth. Do the Meta Company had registered a trademark on it already? Well nice, yeah I will side with them and hope that they win the lawsuit (though I wouldn't if they were the equivalent of patents trolls over trademark... which I fear is the case, but I still trust them that they plan to do real business with that name).
- filoleg 5y ago>Do the Meta Company had registered a trademark on it already? From everything I read, it seems like Meta Company has a trademark registered for Metacompany (no space or dots), while Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative has had the trademark for Meta since 2017. Metacompany vs. Meta, and since Zucc is using straight up Meta (without the -company suffix), the outcome seems fairly clear.