3 ms·

> 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 t

> 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. This looks initially damning, but working in a big enterprise I can totally see how this would happen accidentally. One team would try to make the purchase, knowing that a product launch is coming. Then another team removes anyone using the name "threads" on any of their properties, not having any idea that the first team tried to purchase it.

philipov 3y ago
That's what's called a Failure of Leadership by upper management, whose job it is to be coordinating these things.
pityJuke 3y ago
I don't even see the first half as particularly damning. Owning a domain name doesn't mean you own exclusive rights for the trademark ---in that space---. Uzi Nissan (who I've just found out died, R.I.P), couldn't demand Nissan stop selling cars with Nissan, just because he owned Nissan.com, and wouldn't sell it. (sidenote: nissan.com is currently inaccessible to me. I wonder what'll happen to that domain, given the aforementioned death). EDIT: I used the words "in that space", was the wrong train of thought there, my bad.
- jedberg 3y ago
  That's because Mr. Nissan doesn't sell cars. Here threads is already trademarked in the software space.
Someone 3y ago
Even if they didn’t make any offer before, I would think that’s proof that at least some of their personnel think there can be confusion. Also, why would another team remove “anyone using the name "threads" on any of their properties”, if not after instruction from upper management? Assuming that’s what triggered removal, that’s proof that upper management thinks there can be confusion.

philipov 3y ago

That's what's called a Failure of Leadership by upper management, whose job it is to be coordinating these things.

pityJuke 3y ago

I don't even see the first half as particularly damning. Owning a domain name doesn't mean you own exclusive rights for the trademark ---in that space---. Uzi Nissan (who I've just found out died, R.I.P), couldn't demand Nissan stop selling cars with Nissan, just because he owned Nissan.com, and wouldn't sell it. (sidenote: nissan.com is currently inaccessible to me. I wonder what'll happen to that domain, given the aforementioned death). EDIT: I used the words "in that space", was the wrong train of thought there, my bad.

jedberg 3y ago
That's because Mr. Nissan doesn't sell cars. Here threads is already trademarked in the software space.

Someone 3y ago

Even if they didn’t make any offer before, I would think that’s proof that at least some of their personnel think there can be confusion. Also, why would another team remove “anyone using the name "threads" on any of their properties”, if not after instruction from upper management? Assuming that’s what triggered removal, that’s proof that upper management thinks there can be confusion.