4 ms·

> Threads - an intelligent message hub provided by Threads Software Limited - was conceived and trademarked in 2012 by JPY Ltd. The service has been actively pr

> Threads - an intelligent message hub provided by Threads Software Limited - was conceived and trademarked in 2012 by JPY Ltd. The service has been actively promoted worldwide since 2014. > From April 2023, Meta’s lawyers made four offers to purchase the domain ‘threads.app’ from Threads Software Ltd. Every offer was declined. It was made clear to Meta’s Instagram that the domain was not for sale. > In July 2023, Meta’s Instagram announced its ‘threads’ social media platform and removed Threads Software Limited from its Facebook platform. > Threads is a Cloud-based service that captures, transcribes, and organises all of a company’s digital messages (emails and phone calls) into one easily searchable database. See also: https://threads.cloud/ https://threads.cloud/ https://www.techspot.com/news/100666-meta-given-30-days-cease-using-name-threads.html https://www.techspot.com/news/100666-meta-given-30-days-ceas... Not familiar with UK trademarks. Is there any way that Meta doesn't lose/settle this?

metajack 3y ago
This isn't even the first time this has happened. Remember when they renamed Libra? I think they just assume it doesn't matter, and if it does, the settlement will be a blip. It doesn't always work out that way for them.
- WorldMaker 3y ago
  The company was founded on it. It was "thefacebook.com" for years as it fought to get the domain name without "the". (Also, there were lots of face books at the time. Claiming "The" was a wild hair that also seemed to win PR for them.)
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    > Also, there were lots of face books at the time. Trademark-wise, "Facebook" and "Book of Faces" are different things.
    - riffic 3y ago
      the term predates the company https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/facebook https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/facebook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_book
- danielvaughn 3y ago
  Windows Metro
- croes 3y ago
  Same with Meta
- deaddodo 3y ago
  I'm just more surprised they didn't just buy out the company outright. That used to be Microsoft's thing...why bother, if I can just "embrace and extinguish" them?
  - digging 3y ago
    They didn't want the company, they just want the trademark.
    - deaddodo 3y ago
      You know what comes with buying a company? It's trademark.
- tivert 3y ago
  > I think they just assume it doesn't matter, and if it does, the settlement will be a blip. It doesn't always work out that way for them. Yeah, they keep forgetting they still have to follow the law, because society hasn't yet collapsed into a cyberpunk dystopia where big corporations are totally above it.
- tmvnty 3y ago
  Wonder how many offers or emails they sent to https://github.com/meta https://github.com/meta
darkclouds 3y ago
Resource Burn. Meta can throw more money at any court case, so if the judge is bent, which happens, it can become a long drawn out process. Personally though, despite having the trademark for a trademark with the word "threads", note lowercase, its also got a logo filed which might complicate the situation. https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00002613458 https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00... Plus they only have a few catagories selected from Class 9. https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/History/1/UK00002613458 https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/History/1/UK00... Personally I would have filed the logo and word seperately to avoid any confusion, otherwise situations like this court case could present themselves, but maybe that is/was the intention when it was filed.
ranting-moth 3y ago
NAL, but based on my armchair expertise it looks like an extremely hard case for Meta. Any actual lawyers willing to chime in?
rickboyce 3y ago
(Not a lawyer, but have gained some working knowledge of UK trademarks.) I don’t think this is totally clean cut. UK trademarks are registered against specific classes and those classes are categorised in families of goods and services. A quick search suggests that this company holds the trademark for the word ‘Threads’ for class 9 (goods) and class 42 (services). You can read the definitions somewhere by searching on gov.uk (or somewhere like https://www.russell-cooke.co.uk/media/bmin5fo0/goods_and_services_classes_for_trademarks_feb_2010.pdf https://www.russell-cooke.co.uk/media/bmin5fo0/goods_and_ser... [pdf]). Meta will almost certainly make the argument that they are not operating in these classes or overlapping with the categories listed for this trademark. Class 42 does not seem to apply here, and for class 9 the Thread trademark lists ‘computer software, software and apparatus for the extraction of business information and knowledge’ which may not overlap. Meta couldn’t also trademark Threads under class 9 (can’t trademark the same word twice in the same class) but just because they can’t secure the trademark does not automatically mean they are infringing on the existing use. They could argue that their use of Threads as a trademark falls solely within something like class 38: Telecommunications services; chat room services; portal services; e-mail services; providing user access to the Internet; radio and television broadcasting. If they could land this then there is no claim against them - their use can coexist with trademark’s registered in different classes. For an app which can be downloaded getting around class 9 could be difficult - so whether they could land and make this stick is far from clear, but Meta have the resources to explore this indefinitely where as the pre-existing user making the complaint may not be able to afford the legal costs to stay the course. Trademarks are messy and subjective and there is much scope for interpretation - even a seemly clear-cut case is anything but predictable.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  The fact that Meta removed Threads Software from FB implies that Meta itself considered there to be a likelihood of confusion between the two. They should lose hard here.
  - rickboyce 3y ago
    I agree that does seem to be something of a smoking gun. And it’s not without precedent to secure an injunction against as US tech company launching a new service - gmail was known as googlemail in the UK and some European countries for several years owing to a trademark dispute (https://www.theguardian.com/media/pda/2010/may/04/digital-media-google https://www.theguardian.com/media/pda/2010/may/04/digital-me...) But sadly a lot of trademark and copyright cases come down to who has the bigger pile of cash behind them.
dheera 3y ago
IANAL but they could also just pull out of the UK, and they have no jurisdiction on Meta in the USA. They'd still be able to have users in the UK, since the UK isn't the type of country that is going to put up a national firewall.
- cmeacham98 3y ago
  I assume Facebook sells ads to UK business, which is something the UK could stop. They probably also have UK employees but I'm too lazy to confirm that.
  - airstrike 3y ago
    Funny you mention that, because the UK (CMA) ordered Facebook to undo its acquisition of Giphy after it had already closed on the grounds that Giphy might potentially have entered the UK market and competed with Facebook had it not been acquired https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/oct/18/facebook-meta-sell-giphy-cma https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/oct/18/facebook-...
- blibble 3y ago
  as long as they've traded in the US under that mark they'd be protected? doesn't even need to be registered
oldtownroad 3y ago
The question is whether Facebook’s use is likely to confuse consumers: software isn’t a category of its own, everything is software now, and this is different software — any context immediately distinguishes the usages (and there’s no reputation for Facebook to be maliciously trying to leverage). I doubt Facebook will lose. The lawsuit is just chancing for a settlement based on it being easier for Facebook to settle than defend.
- moffkalast 3y ago
  I think UK-wise it's likely to confuse consumers because Threads means post-nuclear wasteland there.
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    Threads: a stark contemplation of isolation and desolation, total population collapse… and I hear there’s a movie with the same name.
niceice 3y ago
Four offers! I'd love to see what those were. Any educated guesses?
- constantly 3y ago
  No, but looking at the offering from Threads Software, it was probably the most value Threads Software founders were ever going to extract from the company. It’s like the skit in The Office where the Washington school wanted to buy Ryan’s company purely for the name WUPHF. Now Threads Software is going to have to deal with mountains of legal expenses which they will only recoup if they win (though they likely would eventually win, to be fair).
  - chadash 3y ago
    They might be able to find a lawyer to take this on contingency. Meta has very deep pockets and will pay plenty of money just to save the embarrassment .
petepete 3y ago
I can't really see how they won't. Microsoft were forced to rename SkyDrive to OneDrive by BSkyB, a company with less in common with them than Meta/Threads Software Ltd.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

metajack 3y ago

This isn't even the first time this has happened. Remember when they renamed Libra? I think they just assume it doesn't matter, and if it does, the settlement will be a blip. It doesn't always work out that way for them.

WorldMaker 3y ago
The company was founded on it. It was "thefacebook.com" for years as it fought to get the domain name without "the". (Also, there were lots of face books at the time. Claiming "The" was a wild hair that also seemed to win PR for them.)
- paulddraper 3y ago
  > Also, there were lots of face books at the time. Trademark-wise, "Facebook" and "Book of Faces" are different things.
  - riffic 3y ago
    the term predates the company https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/facebook https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/facebook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_book
danielvaughn 3y ago
Windows Metro
croes 3y ago
Same with Meta
deaddodo 3y ago
I'm just more surprised they didn't just buy out the company outright. That used to be Microsoft's thing...why bother, if I can just "embrace and extinguish" them?
- digging 3y ago
  They didn't want the company, they just want the trademark.
  - deaddodo 3y ago
    You know what comes with buying a company? It's trademark.
tivert 3y ago
> I think they just assume it doesn't matter, and if it does, the settlement will be a blip. It doesn't always work out that way for them. Yeah, they keep forgetting they still have to follow the law, because society hasn't yet collapsed into a cyberpunk dystopia where big corporations are totally above it.
tmvnty 3y ago
Wonder how many offers or emails they sent to https://github.com/meta https://github.com/meta

darkclouds 3y ago

Resource Burn. Meta can throw more money at any court case, so if the judge is bent, which happens, it can become a long drawn out process. Personally though, despite having the trademark for a trademark with the word "threads", note lowercase, its also got a logo filed which might complicate the situation. https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00002613458 https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00... Plus they only have a few catagories selected from Class 9. https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/History/1/UK00002613458 https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/History/1/UK00... Personally I would have filed the logo and word seperately to avoid any confusion, otherwise situations like this court case could present themselves, but maybe that is/was the intention when it was filed.

ranting-moth 3y ago

NAL, but based on my armchair expertise it looks like an extremely hard case for Meta. Any actual lawyers willing to chime in?

rickboyce 3y ago

(Not a lawyer, but have gained some working knowledge of UK trademarks.) I don’t think this is totally clean cut. UK trademarks are registered against specific classes and those classes are categorised in families of goods and services. A quick search suggests that this company holds the trademark for the word ‘Threads’ for class 9 (goods) and class 42 (services). You can read the definitions somewhere by searching on gov.uk (or somewhere like https://www.russell-cooke.co.uk/media/bmin5fo0/goods_and_services_classes_for_trademarks_feb_2010.pdf https://www.russell-cooke.co.uk/media/bmin5fo0/goods_and_ser... [pdf]). Meta will almost certainly make the argument that they are not operating in these classes or overlapping with the categories listed for this trademark. Class 42 does not seem to apply here, and for class 9 the Thread trademark lists ‘computer software, software and apparatus for the extraction of business information and knowledge’ which may not overlap. Meta couldn’t also trademark Threads under class 9 (can’t trademark the same word twice in the same class) but just because they can’t secure the trademark does not automatically mean they are infringing on the existing use. They could argue that their use of Threads as a trademark falls solely within something like class 38: Telecommunications services; chat room services; portal services; e-mail services; providing user access to the Internet; radio and television broadcasting. If they could land this then there is no claim against them - their use can coexist with trademark’s registered in different classes. For an app which can be downloaded getting around class 9 could be difficult - so whether they could land and make this stick is far from clear, but Meta have the resources to explore this indefinitely where as the pre-existing user making the complaint may not be able to afford the legal costs to stay the course. Trademarks are messy and subjective and there is much scope for interpretation - even a seemly clear-cut case is anything but predictable.

anigbrowl 3y ago
The fact that Meta removed Threads Software from FB implies that Meta itself considered there to be a likelihood of confusion between the two. They should lose hard here.
- rickboyce 3y ago
  I agree that does seem to be something of a smoking gun. And it’s not without precedent to secure an injunction against as US tech company launching a new service - gmail was known as googlemail in the UK and some European countries for several years owing to a trademark dispute (https://www.theguardian.com/media/pda/2010/may/04/digital-media-google https://www.theguardian.com/media/pda/2010/may/04/digital-me...) But sadly a lot of trademark and copyright cases come down to who has the bigger pile of cash behind them.

dheera 3y ago

IANAL but they could also just pull out of the UK, and they have no jurisdiction on Meta in the USA. They'd still be able to have users in the UK, since the UK isn't the type of country that is going to put up a national firewall.

cmeacham98 3y ago
I assume Facebook sells ads to UK business, which is something the UK could stop. They probably also have UK employees but I'm too lazy to confirm that.
- airstrike 3y ago
  Funny you mention that, because the UK (CMA) ordered Facebook to undo its acquisition of Giphy after it had already closed on the grounds that Giphy might potentially have entered the UK market and competed with Facebook had it not been acquired https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/oct/18/facebook-meta-sell-giphy-cma https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/oct/18/facebook-...
blibble 3y ago
as long as they've traded in the US under that mark they'd be protected? doesn't even need to be registered

oldtownroad 3y ago

The question is whether Facebook’s use is likely to confuse consumers: software isn’t a category of its own, everything is software now, and this is different software — any context immediately distinguishes the usages (and there’s no reputation for Facebook to be maliciously trying to leverage). I doubt Facebook will lose. The lawsuit is just chancing for a settlement based on it being easier for Facebook to settle than defend.

moffkalast 3y ago
I think UK-wise it's likely to confuse consumers because Threads means post-nuclear wasteland there.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  Threads: a stark contemplation of isolation and desolation, total population collapse… and I hear there’s a movie with the same name.

niceice 3y ago

Four offers! I'd love to see what those were. Any educated guesses?

constantly 3y ago
No, but looking at the offering from Threads Software, it was probably the most value Threads Software founders were ever going to extract from the company. It’s like the skit in The Office where the Washington school wanted to buy Ryan’s company purely for the name WUPHF. Now Threads Software is going to have to deal with mountains of legal expenses which they will only recoup if they win (though they likely would eventually win, to be fair).
- chadash 3y ago
  They might be able to find a lawyer to take this on contingency. Meta has very deep pockets and will pay plenty of money just to save the embarrassment .

petepete 3y ago

I can't really see how they won't. Microsoft were forced to rename SkyDrive to OneDrive by BSkyB, a company with less in common with them than Meta/Threads Software Ltd.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]