Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook)

news.fiftythree.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 162 posts

Re: A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook)

#121

Post by seandougall »

wavesplash wrote: post #103

There are some great opinions posted so let me add some data from uspto.gov (use 'trademark search' from the menu) and a touch of what I understand of Trademark law after filing a few myself: 53 was granted a US Trademark on the phrase 'Paper by FiftyThree' on December 2013 for trademark categories 21 23 26 36 38 and it appears international category 9 with a first-used-in-commerce claim of March 2013. 53 are obligat…

> 53 is obligated to enforce their Trademark and the letter to Facebook is a manifestation of that obligation.

But the open letter is not. A simple C&D would have protected them; publishing it is purely about marketing.

Re: A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook)

#122

Post by Xdes »

metaphorm wrote: post #108
xxchan wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

why isn't Coca-Cola also a descriptive word? It describes the product (two important ingredients).

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.

Re: A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook)

#123

Post by nicolethenerd »

When I first heard about Facebook's Paper, I wondered how that conversation could have possibly gone down...

"So we're building this great new experience, and we want to call it Paper..."

"Isn't there already an incredibly popular mobile application called Paper?"

"So?"

Some variant of this conversation must have happened, right? It's not like nobody at Facebook has heard of 53 - how did this name ever get out the door?

It seems like most of us here on HN think of 53's Paper when we think of 'app called Paper' - perhaps this isn't the case in the overall consumer market (but then again, Paper - 53's, that is - was once featured prominently on Apple.com - not just the app store, but the main website) - but to me at least, it feels like Facebook is using a name which is 'already taken'.

Re: A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook)

#124

Post by wavesplash »

seandougall wrote: post #121
wavesplash wrote: post #103

There are some great opinions posted so let me add some data from uspto.gov (use 'trademark search' from the menu) and a touch of what I understand of Trademark law after filing a few myself: 53 was granted a US Trademark on the phrase 'Paper by FiftyThree' on December 2013 for trademark categories 21 23 26 36 38 and it appears international category 9 with a first-used-in-commerce claim of March 2013. 53 are obligat…

> 53 is obligated to enforce their Trademark and the letter to Facebook is a manifestation of that obligation. But the open letter is not. A simple C&D would have protected them; publishing it is purely about marketing.

Agreed, seems an intentional move from the marketing playbook: If goliath gets news, pick a public fight when you're David. A very cheap investment for that level of exposure.

Re: A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook)

#126

Post by smm2000 »

ig1 wrote: post #5
scotthtaylor wrote: post #2

Can both not exist? I don't see how there could be overlap or confusion from potential customers.

"I always use Paper on my ipad for all my pictures, you should check it out" Which app would you download from the appstore ?

I do not know - there are 240 apps in Google Play store that have "paper" in name. This includes "Draw Paper", "Paper Draw ", "White Paper", "Infinite Paper" and countless others. Also at least two apps are just called "Paper" - not sure how anyone can distinguish them other than looking at company name.

I seriously doubt that 53 was the first company that used Paper in the name.

Re: A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook)

#127

Post by ynniv »

Xdes wrote: post #122
metaphorm wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why isn't Coca-Cola also a descriptive word? It describes the product (two important ingredients).

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.

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...

Re: A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook)

#128

Post by efuquen »

ynniv wrote: post #22

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 wa…

"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.

Re: A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook)

#129

Post by nikcub »

The irony here is that Facebook are extremely aggressive about protecting their own name. They have sued other companies for using generic words as part of their names, like 'face' or 'book' or 'wall'.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/25/business/la-fi-0826-...

Re: A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook)

#130

Post by officemonkey »

pron wrote: post #74
throwaway420 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insofar as FiftyThree is merely making a polite request as a matter of professional courtesy rather than threatening legal action, then I don't think your criticism applies. They didn't get nasty about it, they didn't cite some bizarre legal arguments where they claimed to forever own the word Paper. They just made a cordial request. I think that's entirely reasonable and makes them come across very good in this situ…

Making a cordial request about it to Facebook is one thing; publicizing it (probably in an effort to shame Facebook) is another.

>shame Facebook

If only. The entire post is to (a) differentiate their Paper from the FB Paper and (b) make an effort to protect what little trademark they have.

They're making it public so everyone can know "We exist, we were here first, please don't let FB steamroll us."

If they didn't do this, in six months FB lawyers would send a cease-and-desist telling them to stop using Facebook's trademark "Paper."

If they make enough stink they can maintain their brand. If they don't, then the 800-lbs Facebook gorilla will take away their brand identity.

Post reply on HN