Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
Are you calling "Facebook" a common English word? Because it's not.
It is if you go to a college with a facebook style directory.
A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook)
61–70 of 162 posts
Re: A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook)
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, FiftyThree have chosen a very common English word for their product name. You can't call dibs on a word like "paper", and this was a risk they should have taken into account. Either choose a proper (and trademarkable) name, or choose a common word and expect such consequences. You can't have it both ways, and I think even considering Facebook's Paper, FiftyThree have probably made the right tradeof…
What about something like "Square?" That's about as generic as it gets, yet is there any question as to what someone is referring to when they are talking about "Square" in the context of an app?
squarespace.com had a Superbowl commercial yesterday and my wife asked is that "Square"?... which led to a 15 sec. conversation.
Re: A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook)
#63It's a matter of respect. Paper (FiftyThree) is a well known brand and app, so basically the Facebook developers were 100% aware that they were utilizing someone's name (at least they should have been), and therefore they went ahead to publish their new app with complete disregard for what already existed.
On the other hand, FiftyThree have chosen a very common English word for their product name. You can't call dibs on a word like "paper", and this was a risk they should have taken into account. Either choose a proper (and trademarkable) name, or choose a common word and expect such consequences. You can't have it both ways, and I think even considering Facebook's Paper, FiftyThree have probably made the right tradeof…
Like "Windows"?
Re: A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook)
#64It's a matter of respect. Paper (FiftyThree) is a well known brand and app, so basically the Facebook developers were 100% aware that they were utilizing someone's name (at least they should have been), and therefore they went ahead to publish their new app with complete disregard for what already existed.
On the other hand, FiftyThree have chosen a very common English word for their product name. You can't call dibs on a word like "paper", and this was a risk they should have taken into account. Either choose a proper (and trademarkable) name, or choose a common word and expect such consequences. You can't have it both ways, and I think even considering Facebook's Paper, FiftyThree have probably made the right tradeof…
Where does one draw the line for a word that is too common for your business? Here are the rankings of just a few company names that utilized popular words.
521 - paper
1991 - match
2723 - apple
2777 - square
2921 - target
Source (could probably use something more legitimate): http://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/common-words-5000.htm
Re: A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook)
#65Pfft. What a silly request. This is an entirely different application. Should we expect an upcoming blog post from 53 complaining that Crayola has released a new product entitled "Pencil"? If you want to protect your name, use a protectable name. If you're going to use an entirely generic name then deal with it... wait hang on... Dunder Mifflin just called... they want their name back too. Cool company, great product…
"Paper" can be protected as "Candy" was.
Re: A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook)
#66If 53 didn't register Paper as a trademark, they are pretty much SOL, right? If they did, it's pretty clear that Facebook's property creates confusion in the market. Trademark law seems pretty clear here, but IANAL.
Re: A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook)
#67Pfft. What a silly request. This is an entirely different application. Should we expect an upcoming blog post from 53 complaining that Crayola has released a new product entitled "Pencil"? If you want to protect your name, use a protectable name. If you're going to use an entirely generic name then deal with it... wait hang on... Dunder Mifflin just called... they want their name back too. Cool company, great product…
[deleted]
Re: A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook)
#68Humans have done just fine for a long time managing their own mental namespaces. Paper already means different things in different contexts before either of these apps - "I am writing a paper", "have you read today's paper?", "have your papers ready for inspection". There are also many different brands and types of paper with very different material properties and use cases.
Choosing an already in use word for any new publicly accessible thing complicates the global namespace a little more than it already is, but if it is the name you really wish to give it, sometimes a little distributed parsing overhead is better than the alternatives - trademarking "paper" or calling your product "Payper" instead.
Re: A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook)
#69See also: Microsoft Windows vs. X Window System.
Re: A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook)
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, it will be pretty ridiculous if FiftyThree manages to enforce some kind of IP over the use of the word "paper" as a name for a product... Trademarking common English words, anyone?
Windows, Apple, etc are all trademarked, pls stop being an arm chair lawyer and recognize there is a huge amount of precedent in using common english words to trademark things other than their common usage. MS can trademark Windows in conjunction with computer interfaces, but not if they decide to make windows that go in houses. That's where the common usage trademark issue arises. Also, if like kerosene the word bec…
Yes, I understand that. It just looks to me like a lack of much overlap between the products. In the case where the products don't overlap, if you are successful at legal action against the other product then it starts to look a lot more like "trademarking a word" rather than "trademarking a word as a name for a product that operates in X space", and one of these two things is much more irksome than the other. If it makes you feel any better, this is not my "legal opinion", this is my John Publik voter's opinion.