5 ms·

People are going to call the app by Facebook "Facebook Paper" because "Paper" is simply too generic. 53's drawing app name is not strong either. Their iOS app i

by ynniv 13y ago

People are going to call the app by Facebook "Facebook Paper" because "Paper" is simply too generic. 53's drawing app name is not strong either. Their iOS app is not called "Paper", but "Paper by FiftyThree". Their icon is not of paper, but of a napkin style rendering of "53". For all intents, the drawing simulation brand name is "FiftyThree". There was a brief moment in history when people thought "I wonder if 53 was acquired". That time has passed, and no one will mistake them from now on. "Facebook Paper" is an alternative interface to Facebook. "Paper by FiftyThree" is a drawing application. Other than that they are both software, there's little room for confusion. 53 can get upset and write a blog post about it, but there is no substantive damage done. They'll probably sell more of their own product because of this.

fleitz 13y ago
And 'facebook' is original? FB's legal team has a hernia anytime someone on the web uses face or book, perhaps they should take their own advice? If it continues it might be funny for 53 to release Paper Facebook.
- ynniv 13y ago
  "Facebook" is also pretty generic, but when you have enough well paid lawyers these things matter less. Also, it is very unlikely that Facebook is attempting to benefit from 53's brand. Facebook wanted to call their product something descriptive, and the names collided. Compare this to any name involving "Facebook", which likely is attempting to benefit. Outside of a directly competing service, it's unlikely that the name of a product would include the word "Facebook". This makes "Facebook" less generic and more enforceable than "Paper".
  - ig1 13y ago
    Facebook was completely generic. Facebook used to be term for the paperback student profile books that universities produced. Facebook the website started as an electronic version of the paper facebooks.
    - ynniv 13y ago
      Facebook was completely generic. Yes, Facebook WAS generic. They would have had a difficult time enforcing their brand from the start. Once a brand becomes a household name (which is admittedly a vague metric), the rules are different. See Apple, Windows, Sun, Sharp, Digital.
      - ig1 13y ago
        The standard isn't "household name", but rather "acquired distinctiveness" which in the US is defined under the terms of Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act
- boomzilla 13y ago
  I am going to build a real time, location based, social messaging application that's based on connection graphs and utilize the latest Flash video technology. Oh and it's going to be ephemeral. And I am going to name it SnapYouTwitFace.
- CatMtKing 13y ago
  Maybe they should call it Facepaper.
Jare 13y ago
Whenever I hear the name "Paper" in a mobile / tablet context, I immediately think of 53, and I don't even have an iPad. If Facebook Paper is successful, that will no longer be the case (but it will hurt my perception of Facebook Paper in the meantime). That said, I don't think 53 can claim any exclusive rights to the name, and I'm happy to see they haven't - they have just asked with exquisite politeness.
- ynniv 13y ago
  Whenever I hear the name "Paper" in a mobile / tablet context, I immediately think of 53, and I don't even have an iPad. If I took ten people off the street, in San Francisco itself, and asked them who made an iPhone app called "Paper" a majority would probably already tell me Facebook. Perhaps one of them would know of 53, and probably not by name. Being in the mobile software community, we know of a lot of "successful mobile apps" that are not household names. I like and use 53's Paper, but 53 is not Exxon, GE, or Facebook. My friends and family have almost certainly never heard of it. A hundred million unverified global downloads does not equal a hundred million people who remember what your poorly branded, generically named app is called. I usually think of it as "that coffee stain icon with a generic name". Honestly, 53 might do better renaming it "53". Or "Studio 53" if they wanted to skim off of another brand that probably won't fight back. Paper by FiftyThree is a good product, but a poor choice of name, and I still can't figure out why their app icon says "53" instead of "Paper". That said, I don't think 53 can claim any exclusive rights to the name, and I'm happy to see they haven't - they have just asked with exquisite politeness. No. 53 needs to claim exclusivity, claim that there is no possibility of confusion, or live with the reality that if people start calling Facebook Paper just "Paper", that Facebook will legally be able to prevent 53 from using the term. With trademarks it doesn't matter who has been using it longer, only who successfully enforces it.
  - Jare 13y ago
    "Paper" distribution is mostly based on a solid image of quality and friendliness, and spreads by word of mouth. A legal battle will destroy the former, and name confusion will hurt the later. I imagine their plan has always been to enjoy the use Paper as long as they can, and rebrand when they can't anymore.
jimwalsh 13y ago
"Windows", "Apple", aren't too generic. This is perfectly reasonable for 53 to ask this of Facebook.
- Touche 13y ago
  I suggest you read up on Microsoft v Lindows before you use that example.
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    That case never made it past the trial court, and ended in an out-of-court settlement in which Microsoft paid a paltry sum to make the problem go away, setting no legal precedent. Furthermore, the surrounding circumstances included an injunction from a Dutch court against Lindows.
- ig1 13y ago
  The term "Windows" to refer to the GUI element was in common use from the 70s (the term WIMP was coined in 1980) long before Microsoft Windows was released.
- antr 13y ago
  Apple Computer vs Apple Corps (music) "co-existed" (I know of the lawsuits and agreements) at the time because one was an electronics manufacturer, and the other a record label. Paper (53) is a drawing app, Paper (FB) is a news/FB wall magazine. Completely different markets. They should be able to co-exist.
  - xerophtye 13y ago
    The point isn't that they are from two different categories. The point is taht both of them are iOS apps! So the case exists. As for Apple Computer and Apple Corps, obviously Apple never tried to be a Record label company. But when it started moving its operations into the music industry (i imagine that was the itunes time?) it got attacked by Apple corps. Before that it was peaceful co-existence. After that, it was Apple computer paying Apple Corps to keep its mouth shut and not bitch about it
metaphorm 13y ago
sorry, but that's not how trademark and branding works. Perhaps you should try bringing to market a product called "Coca-Cola by Ynniv" and you can find out for yourself how this really works.
- rplnt 13y ago
  Coca-Cola is not an English word describing generic real-world item. Paper is. I see your point (and to a degree agree), but your example is heavily flawed.
- xxchan 13y ago
  You might be surprised to learn that in the trademark law, common words like "paper" or "candy" can be used by multiple companies without them infringing on each other while "Coca-Cola" is way too specific for that.
  - metaphorm 13y ago
    why isn't Coca-Cola also a descriptive word? It describes the product (two important ingredients).
    - ynniv 13y ago
      Because "Coca-Cola" is a "fanciful name", employing strange capitalization and hyphenation. It's also a household name world-wide, which allows protection of somewhat generic names.
    - Xdes 13y ago
      It's a matter of common usage. Coca-Cola isn't a universal descriptor of that particular kind of carbonated soft drink. The term for that (in the US) is a cola (which is why there exists a lot of *-Cola beverages). The Coca leaf isn't used anymore due to the prohibition of cocaine.
      - ynniv 13y ago
        Not true! They don't use cocaine, but they do extract flavor from imported coca leaves, and are the only US company allowed to do so. Randomish link from a quick search: http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2012/02/25/coca-cola-is-still-made-from-coca-leaves/ http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2012/02/25/coca-cola-is-still...
efuquen 13y ago
"People are going to call the app by Facebook "Facebook Paper" because "Paper" is simply too generic." I don't know where you're getting this idea from, every article I've seen has had a fine time just referring to the app as 'Paper'. All the marketing material is clearly just referring to this as 'Paper', I strongly strongly doubt Facebook want's anyone to refer to the app as 'Facebook Paper'. And I certainly don't think it's too generic, I saw the original 'Paper' app being referred to as 'Paper' just fine before Facebook came out with an identically named app.
yoshokatana 13y ago
I did an informal poll of my coworkers, and "facepaper" won over "Facebook Paper" and "paperbook."

by ynniv 13y ago

fleitz 13y ago

And 'facebook' is original? FB's legal team has a hernia anytime someone on the web uses face or book, perhaps they should take their own advice? If it continues it might be funny for 53 to release Paper Facebook.

ynniv 13y ago
"Facebook" is also pretty generic, but when you have enough well paid lawyers these things matter less. Also, it is very unlikely that Facebook is attempting to benefit from 53's brand. Facebook wanted to call their product something descriptive, and the names collided. Compare this to any name involving "Facebook", which likely is attempting to benefit. Outside of a directly competing service, it's unlikely that the name of a product would include the word "Facebook". This makes "Facebook" less generic and more enforceable than "Paper".
- ig1 13y ago
  Facebook was completely generic. Facebook used to be term for the paperback student profile books that universities produced. Facebook the website started as an electronic version of the paper facebooks.
  - ynniv 13y ago
    Facebook was completely generic. Yes, Facebook WAS generic. They would have had a difficult time enforcing their brand from the start. Once a brand becomes a household name (which is admittedly a vague metric), the rules are different. See Apple, Windows, Sun, Sharp, Digital.
    - ig1 13y ago
      The standard isn't "household name", but rather "acquired distinctiveness" which in the US is defined under the terms of Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act
boomzilla 13y ago
I am going to build a real time, location based, social messaging application that's based on connection graphs and utilize the latest Flash video technology. Oh and it's going to be ephemeral. And I am going to name it SnapYouTwitFace.
CatMtKing 13y ago
Maybe they should call it Facepaper.

Jare 13y ago

Whenever I hear the name "Paper" in a mobile / tablet context, I immediately think of 53, and I don't even have an iPad. If Facebook Paper is successful, that will no longer be the case (but it will hurt my perception of Facebook Paper in the meantime). That said, I don't think 53 can claim any exclusive rights to the name, and I'm happy to see they haven't - they have just asked with exquisite politeness.

ynniv 13y ago
Whenever I hear the name "Paper" in a mobile / tablet context, I immediately think of 53, and I don't even have an iPad. If I took ten people off the street, in San Francisco itself, and asked them who made an iPhone app called "Paper" a majority would probably already tell me Facebook. Perhaps one of them would know of 53, and probably not by name. Being in the mobile software community, we know of a lot of "successful mobile apps" that are not household names. I like and use 53's Paper, but 53 is not Exxon, GE, or Facebook. My friends and family have almost certainly never heard of it. A hundred million unverified global downloads does not equal a hundred million people who remember what your poorly branded, generically named app is called. I usually think of it as "that coffee stain icon with a generic name". Honestly, 53 might do better renaming it "53". Or "Studio 53" if they wanted to skim off of another brand that probably won't fight back. Paper by FiftyThree is a good product, but a poor choice of name, and I still can't figure out why their app icon says "53" instead of "Paper". That said, I don't think 53 can claim any exclusive rights to the name, and I'm happy to see they haven't - they have just asked with exquisite politeness. No. 53 needs to claim exclusivity, claim that there is no possibility of confusion, or live with the reality that if people start calling Facebook Paper just "Paper", that Facebook will legally be able to prevent 53 from using the term. With trademarks it doesn't matter who has been using it longer, only who successfully enforces it.
- Jare 13y ago
  "Paper" distribution is mostly based on a solid image of quality and friendliness, and spreads by word of mouth. A legal battle will destroy the former, and name confusion will hurt the later. I imagine their plan has always been to enjoy the use Paper as long as they can, and rebrand when they can't anymore.

jimwalsh 13y ago

"Windows", "Apple", aren't too generic. This is perfectly reasonable for 53 to ask this of Facebook.

Touche 13y ago
I suggest you read up on Microsoft v Lindows before you use that example.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  That case never made it past the trial court, and ended in an out-of-court settlement in which Microsoft paid a paltry sum to make the problem go away, setting no legal precedent. Furthermore, the surrounding circumstances included an injunction from a Dutch court against Lindows.
ig1 13y ago
The term "Windows" to refer to the GUI element was in common use from the 70s (the term WIMP was coined in 1980) long before Microsoft Windows was released.
antr 13y ago
Apple Computer vs Apple Corps (music) "co-existed" (I know of the lawsuits and agreements) at the time because one was an electronics manufacturer, and the other a record label. Paper (53) is a drawing app, Paper (FB) is a news/FB wall magazine. Completely different markets. They should be able to co-exist.
- xerophtye 13y ago
  The point isn't that they are from two different categories. The point is taht both of them are iOS apps! So the case exists. As for Apple Computer and Apple Corps, obviously Apple never tried to be a Record label company. But when it started moving its operations into the music industry (i imagine that was the itunes time?) it got attacked by Apple corps. Before that it was peaceful co-existence. After that, it was Apple computer paying Apple Corps to keep its mouth shut and not bitch about it

metaphorm 13y ago

sorry, but that's not how trademark and branding works. Perhaps you should try bringing to market a product called "Coca-Cola by Ynniv" and you can find out for yourself how this really works.

rplnt 13y ago
Coca-Cola is not an English word describing generic real-world item. Paper is. I see your point (and to a degree agree), but your example is heavily flawed.
xxchan 13y ago
You might be surprised to learn that in the trademark law, common words like "paper" or "candy" can be used by multiple companies without them infringing on each other while "Coca-Cola" is way too specific for that.
- metaphorm 13y ago
  why isn't Coca-Cola also a descriptive word? It describes the product (two important ingredients).
  - ynniv 13y ago
    Because "Coca-Cola" is a "fanciful name", employing strange capitalization and hyphenation. It's also a household name world-wide, which allows protection of somewhat generic names.
  - Xdes 13y ago
    It's a matter of common usage. Coca-Cola isn't a universal descriptor of that particular kind of carbonated soft drink. The term for that (in the US) is a cola (which is why there exists a lot of *-Cola beverages). The Coca leaf isn't used anymore due to the prohibition of cocaine.
    - ynniv 13y ago
      Not true! They don't use cocaine, but they do extract flavor from imported coca leaves, and are the only US company allowed to do so. Randomish link from a quick search: http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2012/02/25/coca-cola-is-still-made-from-coca-leaves/ http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2012/02/25/coca-cola-is-still...

efuquen 13y ago

"People are going to call the app by Facebook "Facebook Paper" because "Paper" is simply too generic." I don't know where you're getting this idea from, every article I've seen has had a fine time just referring to the app as 'Paper'. All the marketing material is clearly just referring to this as 'Paper', I strongly strongly doubt Facebook want's anyone to refer to the app as 'Facebook Paper'. And I certainly don't think it's too generic, I saw the original 'Paper' app being referred to as 'Paper' just fine before Facebook came out with an identically named app.

yoshokatana 13y ago

I did an informal poll of my coworkers, and "facepaper" won over "Facebook Paper" and "paperbook."