3 ms·
I've known about Pair Networks for at least 10 years. I didn't for one second think that a new social networking app named Pair had anything to do with them. I
by staunch 15y ago
I've known about Pair Networks for at least 10 years. I didn't for one second think that a new social networking app named Pair had anything to do with them.
I can't say I'm totally unsympathetic towards Pair Networks though. If I was Pair Networks I would probably be annoyed that a Pair social networking app was getting popular. Then again I'd probably be hoping they became a billion dollar company so it would make sense for them to trade me a $10M+ chunk of equity for my domain.
I definitely wouldn't sue them though. Being annoyed doesn't justify being a bully.
- rdl 15y agoThey must defend their trademark in order to maintain it. Maybe this is enough of a grey area that they could have let it pass, but letting your trademark go generic can be bad for some companies. I don't know if there's a way to do this without suing, but maybe contacting trypair directly and getting something in writing that trypair recognizes pair Networks priority in (hosting, etc.) classes and will never enter those classes under the name Pair, would be ok. (in practice, I don't think pair needs rely that much on their trademark -- people don't really shop for hosting services casually, and the canonical domain pair.com is an adequate identifier). This seems like a reasonable civil disagreement where no one needs to actually pitchfork either side.