The bigger your footprint becomes in the arena of the Internet, the more care it takes to make sure you are not stepping on other's IP. The problem with the Interwebs is that IP crosses so many silos and this isn't just a problem of name but of application of the use here. I can't see FB being more than apologetic to FiftyThree. As much as FiftyThree thinks they have just cause here - its more of a use / intention than it is the confusion with name. I highly doubt anything will come of this, because of the logical difference. Its an identity thing vs. market clash over the same product.
A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook)
71–80 of 162 posts
Re: A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook)
#72Pfft. 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…
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…
I disagree. They're trying to shame others into giving in to them owning the word "paper".
Re: A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook)
#73Earlier 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…
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 Imagine if Facebook came out with a new camera app that was called Facebook Target. There would be no doubt that there was clear negligence on Facebook's part. I feel like here I need to disclose t…
Paper isn't a company name. IANAL either but I believe there is a distinction in Trademarks between company and product names.
Re: A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook)
#74Pfft. 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…
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.
Re: A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook)
#75People 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…
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.
Re: A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook)
#76People 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…
"Windows", "Apple", aren't too generic. This is perfectly reasonable for 53 to ask this of Facebook.
Re: A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook)
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
If Square whines about someone else using the name, I will say the same thing. It's a tradeoff, and they've made their choice.
There are two sides of the story. Square (Paper in this case) probably does not benefit greatly from whining (from both PR and legal perspectives), but why would a company take the name to begin with. Either they were blind, or confident that there brand would bypass whatever was existing, or they are hoping to ride off existing brand recognition for a quick boost.
Re: A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook)
#78Earlier 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…
[deleted]
U.S. trademark law uses what are called the Abercrombie classes of whether a purported brand name is 1. generic, 2. descriptive, 3. suggestive, or 4. arbitrary or fanciful, as applied in the context of the product or service for which it's being used as a brand ([1] and see e.g. [2], p. 7). The word "Apple" as a brand for computers is famously an example of an arbitrary or fanciful word in its product context. The same might not be said for the word "paper" for a medium for writing and drawing.
1. Abercrombie & Fitch v. Hunting World, 537 F.2d 4 (2d. Cir. 1976)
2. http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/Germes_Newsletter/germes...
Re: A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook)
#79Companies, even hip web 3.0 companies, need to stop taking generic common nouns and declaring them trademarks. From Surface to Paper, these names are far too easy to confuse.
Re: A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook)
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'm pretty sure squarespace existed before square.