Threads Software Limited says its lawyers have informed Meta that it will seek an injunction from the courts if the Facebook parent keeps using the name Threads...

Meta given 30 days to cease using the name Threads by company that trademarked it 11 years ago::undefined

  • bitwolfEnglish
    -2•1 year ago

    Well everyone, you can reach on lanyards.app @bitwolf

  • @MrFlamey@lemmy.worldEnglish
    33•1 year ago

    Well can’t they just call it Meta Threads or Threads by Meta if it isn’t already, and nothing has to change.

    • @reksas@lemmings.worldEnglish
      4•1 year ago

      That would be the sensible approach, but some executive is propably throwing tantrum because of their injured pride. I will be surprised if they just comply.

    • @zaphod@feddit.deEnglish
      22•1 year ago

      Not an expert on trademark law, but I think “Threads by Meta” would not work as the main part of that name would still be “Threads”, “Meta Threads” could work, but if they’d make the “Meta” part not prominent in the branding then again it would probably be considered as only “Threads”.

      • @BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        13•1 year ago

        Not an expert either, and I’m definitely not a lawyer. But I did take an elective class in uni on IPR.

        Generally you can have two types of trademarks. You can use graphics as your trademark or a word. And your trademark must be unique to be defendable.

        The word can’t be something that is already in use, if you want to register it as a wordmark. Ie you can’t register the word “beer” and market beer under that trademark. What you can register is alternative spelling or your logo.

        The word “threads” is a word that was used previously. It has a meaning already. So you can’t register it as a wordmark.

        This is one of the reasons why alphabet really hates that people use the word “google” as a verb, or LEGO that people call the bricks “legos”, as it diminishes the trademarkability of the word and thus makes defending the trademark harder.

        If both companies tries to claim the word “threads” they’ll have a pretty weak case. While I don’t know exactly what this is about, I suspect that the headline doesn’t give the full picture of the dispute.

        • downhomechunkEnglish
          2•1 year ago

          So what you’re saying is they can rename it threadz. You’re hired!

          • @BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            3•1 year ago

            Why do you think that so many companies have ordinary sounding names with weird spelling? Sure, it communicates “We’re hip and creative”, but it’s definitely also a trademark thing.

        • @ByteJunk@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2•1 year ago

          It depends. Apple is a valid trademark for a computers/electronics company, despite being a common name. It wouldn’t work if you tried to trademark it as an apple pie brand however.

          I assume whoever owns this threads trademark is in the software business too, they may have a valid claim if so.

          • @hedgehog@ttrpg.networkEnglish
            1•1 year ago

            Threads are a software concept dating back to at least 1967, and “software” is such a broad industry that I wouldn’t expect such a generic term to be able to apply to it in its entirety. Given that their (the plaintiff’s, not Meta’s) specific niche is messaging, where “thread” is another generic term (e.g., a “thread of discussion”) it seems doubly problematic as a trademark.

            That all said, this lawsuit is in the UK, and they don’t even have attorneys over there (they have “barristers” and “solicitors”) and I have no clue if the same trademark standards apply.

            In the US, another barrier would be the target audience. Threads by Meta is a B2C social media app; Threads by the Thread Company is a B2B corporate search index for internal messaging. Trademark dilution isn’t relevant - Threads wasn’t a famous brand before - and trademark infringement is based on the likelihood of customer confusion. Is it likely that a business professional - the sort of person who would be purchasing the B2C service - would confuse it with the social media app? I don’t think so, but that’s up to the legal system to decide.

        • Alien Nathan EdwardEnglish
          2•1 year ago

          would the enforceability of a trademark in this situation not also depend on whether an average person could easily distinguish the meta threads app from the other company? It’s been a while since I took this class and admittedly it was for non-majors but the way it was explained to us is that you can open a used car lot called “McDonald’s”, you just can’t sell burgers or lead people to believe that the burger joint is now selling used cars.

          • @BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            2•1 year ago

            Probably, I don’t know, TBH the elective course I took was single week of summer school, 2 ECTS points, passed by attendance. And it was around 2010.

  • GhostalmediaEnglish
    94•1 year ago

    I don’t know about UK trademark law, but I would imagine that, like with other countries, using a similar or identical name is okay, but only if you’re in a totally different industry. The original threads is also a messaging product, which doesn’t bode well for a lawsuit.

    I imagine they thought they could just force a smaller company’s hand. Meta’s marketing, e-staff, and legal team are a bunch of corporate bullies.

    • SuperJetShoesEnglish
      3•1 year ago

      If it’s all in writing you can’t just force another company to do what you want. What you can do is wriggle, twist and delay until it becomes too expensive for the smaller company to continue to pursue.

      However judges are more than well aware of this technique and will allow the plaintiff to accrue costs against Legal Aid (paid for by government).

      So what usually happens:

      1. Small co files against large co for using same name
      2. Large co produces huge response document which is all piss and wind
      3. Small co says they can’t afford the costs to answer each point
      4. Judge permits Small Co to use Legal Aid.
      5. Large co offers to settle. (E.g. you’re a 3 person sandwich shop. They offer you £10m. No more work, no more hassle)

      If Small Co is energetic, young and courageous, they may choose to fight to the death. But Legal Aid has a limit…

    • @hedgehog@ttrpg.networkEnglish
      18•1 year ago

      Threads is a cloud-based intelligent message hub that captures, transcribes, and organizes all of a company’s digital messages, emails, and phone calls into one easily searchable database.

      B2B is a completely different marketplace than B2C, and “internal search index of company’s digital messages” is a different industry than “social media app.”

      The company’s own trademark registration indicates the trademark applies to “computer software, software and apparatus for the extraction of business information and knowledge.” That doesn’t sound like a social media app to me, either.

      • @chiliedogg@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1•1 year ago

        Both Threads are designed to strip-mine data from messages.

        Zuck’s is just pretending it’s about something else.

  • ᕙ(⇀‸↼‶)ᕗEnglish
    6•1 year ago

    again? didnt they have to pay that woman who was regged as meta on insta aswell? like there is nothing at all original about marcs “ideas”.

  • newIdentityEnglish
    1•1 year ago

    I don’t like Meta, but this is fucking ridiculous. You can’t just trademark a word.

    • @madeinthebackseat@lemmy.worldEnglish
      60•1 year ago

      Yes you can, that is the definition of what a trademark is.

      Could you imagine 20 different brands of Coke on the shelf?

      The usage is specific to a market, however. For example, Delta Airlines and Delta Faucets. Both trademark “Delta.”

      • newIdentityEnglish
        1•1 year ago

        Could you imagine 20 different brands of Coke on the shelf?

        Yes because that’s exactly how it is in Germany. Coke isn’t a trademark. CokaCola is.

        • Baron Von JEnglish
          15•1 year ago

          There’s colloquial use, what you’re talking about, and then there’s the actual branding on the product and the marketing. Only the company with the trademark can use the trademarked work on the product and in their marketing.

      • SuperJetShoesEnglish
        1•1 year ago

        So you could hava “Delta decent airlines” and “Delta fucking shit piss-stained seats threadbare aircraft $15 50ml Coke cans” then?

        Totally different market sectors.

    • @hedgehog@ttrpg.networkEnglish
      -4•1 year ago

      I agree, but tell that to Rockstar.

      EDIT: I assume the downvoters aren’t familiar with Rockstar suing every indie game dev who released a game with “Monster” or “Monsters” in the title.

    • RentlarEnglish
      15•1 year ago

      According to Trademark law in many places you can.

      Generally, you can only enforce your trademark (successfully) if the infringing group is in the same industry. So if I sold an educational service or toilet bowl cleaner called Apple the tech and music giant can’t go after me for trademark infringement, though for music, computer tech and software they would have a case.

    • HildegardeEnglish
      16•1 year ago

      You literally can. That’s what trade marks are.

      You can’t copyright a word. You can’t patent a word. But you can trademark a word. Trademarking a word gives you the exclusive right to use that word to identify your products but only within the specific market it is registered in.

      A few more examples of trade marked words, apple, meta, cherry, target, zoom.

      Are any of those trade names invalid simply because they are preexisting words? No. That’s trademark law.

      • @Dozzi92@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0•1 year ago

        Meta will disclaim the word Threads because it is too generic. So you can trademark whatever you want, but when someone comes along and wants to use it, if you’ve trademarked something generic, like Threads, then you go to court and presumably have them rule whether or not you can use it. And that probably will happen.

  • ThalesEnglish
    474•1 year ago

    It appears that Meta was aware of Threads before launching its platform of the same name. Company lawyers made four offers to purchase the domain ‘threads.app’ from Threads Software Ltd from April 2023, all of which were declined. Meta announced Threads in July 2023, the same time that the British company says it was removed from Facebook.

    Classic Facebook douchebaggery.

  • Dr. MooseEnglish
    -60•1 year ago

    Eh it’s such a genetic term trademark arguments are hard to make here. Also their completely different niches. Boring corporate bs thats only making news because people (rightfully) hate Metas Threads.

      • circuscriticEnglish
        12•1 year ago

        So… hypothetically, what if I’ve already used his comment as legal advice to launch my social network, “PepSi”?

        Is DrMoose on the hook for damages, to me? What are my options here?

        • @sndrtj@feddit.nlEnglish
          9•1 year ago

          I don’t agree with the one you’re replying to, but trademark is usually bound to a sector. I’m pretty sure Pepsi trademarked all sectors known to mankind, but many companies don’t do that. If I start a bakery called FooBarBaz I can trademark that just fine even if there’s a software company called FooBarBaz that trademarked the name only for software.

      • Dr. MooseEnglish
        0•1 year ago

        I never claimed anything about the law just commented how uninteristing and dumb this whole thing is.

    • circuscriticEnglish
      22•1 year ago

      I’m so confident in your legal analysis, which is clearly well thought out and legally sound, that I’ve launched my new social network “PepSi”.

      Gotta say, I’m feeling good about this one. No way it goes tits up.

  • @Treczoks@lemm.eeEnglish
    48•1 year ago

    I don’t know which concerns me more: That Meta gets their asses kicked, or why the f-ck someone was able to trademark the word “Threads”.

        • JohnEdwaEnglish
          1•1 year ago

          Because unless you want every company to be a random Amazon brand or initialism, that’s how it kinda has to be, and it works fine until one company gains so much market share the word starts being associated with only them.
          Think of like, Target or Shell. Both are huge companies, but their fields are narrow. You might confuse a Target named restaurant or pharmacy to be the Target, but probably not much more. And if it doesn’t have anything to do with oil or gas, it’s almost certainly not that Shell.

          Apple is just so huge I wouldn’t be surprised if at this point people think of iPhones while buying lunch. And even they started as “Apple Computers, inc”, because they wouldn’t have gotten just “Apple” if they had tried.

      • @chiliedogg@lemmy.worldEnglish
        33•1 year ago

        Twice.

        And when Apple violated the agreement they made with Apple Music not to enter each other’s industries (Apple Records couldn’t sell tech and Apple Computers couldn’t sell music), they successfully argued in court that iTunes wasn’t selling music, but digital downloads…

    • @ezchili@iusearchlinux.fyiEnglish
      38•1 year ago

      You don’t trademark the word “threads”, you trademark it within the context of the industry you’re in

      I can make a shop that sells pies and call it “Apple”