All I want to know is, if I launch a location based app named "Around Here", will you sue me?
WhosHere's response to Brian Hamachek/Who's Near Me
101–110 of 145 posts
Re: WhosHere's response to Brian Hamachek/Who's Near Me
#102You know what seems weird to me? the fact that at first they turned down this (alleged) offer to integrate a windows mobile version of the app into their version and then just a few years later "Just a few weeks ago, we offered to partner with Mr. Hamachek. We offered to integrate his Windows Mobile work into WhosHere and offered a revenue share deal for $100,000, plus fees, for ongoing development" something smells…
It appears he was able to get some traction and they started to salivate thinking about picking off those users on the cheap.
Re: WhosHere's response to Brian Hamachek/Who's Near Me
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm tired of the fake arrogance in C.S. culture I thought the same thing when the opening sentence of his blog post mentioned he had been coded since age 7. I have no reason to believe or not believe that point. But I don't see how that has anything to do with the problem he was about to outline in his blog. Apparently he has a huge trust fund... he could have opened with that. But I'm still in the "they're generic…
I'd say the coded since age 7 bit was to try to get people to emotionally connect with him, and thereby get the tide of public opinion on his side. Just one of the many possible tools in the chest when going to a public war.
Weak sauce. It just seems to me a slight trend lately. The age people started coding is creeping lower. Just like the "Check out this app I wrote in random time"... random time seems to be creeping lower too. Maybe I'm wrong. But none the less, what age you started says an entirely different thing about you than what year you started.
Re: WhosHere's response to Brian Hamachek/Who's Near Me
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, I think you're mistaken. Any dilution of a trademark invites further dilution. IANAL either, but you've made some very strong statements here, and I think they're based on a misunderstanding or lack of understanding of how trademarks work.
I don't agree. It's not dilution if you give permission; the company printing "Kleenex" on kleenex boxes is not diluting the trademark. They have permission to use the trademark in the course of their business relationship. But just so we're not arguing about the specifics of trademark law: I think you should throw away all your legal rights to a trademark if retaining those rights means you have to be a bad person.…
You're talking about a "license" for which the licensee is paying the trademark holder a royalty for the right to use the trademark. It's quite common, especially in the startup world.
Re: WhosHere's response to Brian Hamachek/Who's Near Me
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't agree. It's not dilution if you give permission; the company printing "Kleenex" on kleenex boxes is not diluting the trademark. They have permission to use the trademark in the course of their business relationship. But just so we're not arguing about the specifics of trademark law: I think you should throw away all your legal rights to a trademark if retaining those rights means you have to be a bad person.…
That's not a good analogy. A better one would be if the Kleenex people reached a deal for a second company to market its tissues as "Cleenecs". My understanding is that that would make it easier for a third company to come along and use "KKleenXXX" -- they could argue that the word was becoming a generic term. (Trademarks can be lost if they wind up being used generically. Examples include "aspirin" and "elevator".)…
That's not how it works. The second company would pay Kleenex for a license to use the trademark. This does not dilute the trademark, in fact, it actually strengthens it. The third company, which does not take out a license, would be subject to trademark lawsuits by Kleenex.
Hope that helps.
Re: WhosHere's response to Brian Hamachek/Who's Near Me
#106Seriously... they are not the same. When I think "Who's here?" I think who is in the same place I am. Not just near me. If I am home and someone comes to my house... they are here. If I am home and someone goes to the house across the street... they are near me... but not here. If "Who's Here" and "Who's Near Me" are close enough to cause a problem... someone needs to warn Facebook that their new app Camera is pretty…
Apple doesn't have a trademark on "Camera"
Well, Yahoo has a trademark on "Yahoo! Buzz", but that doesn't mean someone else couldn't go out and make a product called "Google Buzz", because they did. And "Buzz" seems like far less generic a word than "Who".
Re: WhosHere's response to Brian Hamachek/Who's Near Me
#107Whatever damage or confusion Who's Near Me might have caused to your brand, this lawsuit has done worse. Ever heard of the Streisand effect? Even if you did have a valid claim your demands were way over the top. Thousands of dollars in legal fees? Give up his Facebook page?
For what it is worth I personally want absolutely nothing to do with your app ever, and will tell people about your bad ways if they bring up your app. I hope your business fails because actions like this do not deserve to be rewarded.
Re: WhosHere's response to Brian Hamachek/Who's Near Me
#108Look, both your team and the other fellow involved in your dispute are in the wrong. And by wrong, I mean that you're both shaking your proverbial gender-specific parts around a crowded street, shouting about who's part is bigger, and trying to get the passersby to agree with your side or his. No. One. Cares. Put your shit away and handle this like men. Either reconcile or go to war, i.e. court. Just stop acting like…
These guys were being dragged through the mud in public and they got their side of the story out there. Are you really objecting to that? If it pains you to read it, I'd suggest not clicking.
They took it to court. That could just as easily be classified as dragging someone through the mud in public.
That said I can't see either side being completely innocent. Now that they've taken it this far, it'd be in the interests of both sides to resolve it as quickly and gracefully as possible, preferably outside the courts.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
Re: WhosHere's response to Brian Hamachek/Who's Near Me
#109Does anyone else think "hoosier" when they read "WhosHere"? They don't seem to be from Indiana, though.
Re: WhosHere's response to Brian Hamachek/Who's Near Me
#110I'm slightly more sympathetic having heard their side--there is more to it than just random legal threats out of the blue. ..BUT.. This suit revolves more around "we felt wronged" than "this clearly infringes our trademark." The only similarity in the trademark is the word "who." The law is the law, your feelings are irrelevant.
I don't think you understand how trademarks work. When you have two products in the same space with very similar names then you have a problem. And it is your obligation as the owner of a trademark to defend it.
But the names are not that similar...certainly not similar enough from a trademark perspective.