Facebook Stole Our Name and Livelihood | Hacker News Reader

Facebook Stole Our Name and Livelihood

meta.company

386 pointsTheloniousPunk188 comments

I was hoping to click through to see what they’re talking about, but apparently this letter is the entire company.

It reads to me like they were parking on the name and FB got there first (with regards to actually using the name). And we should care why? “Stole our name and livelihood” is ridiculous here.

Read again:

That means literally zero.

If product is not released yet, then their expenses of changing the name are not as huge as they declare.

This doesn't justify what facebook is doing at all. What if I steal 10$ from you? Would it change your life or deprive you of food? Probably not, but that doesn't make it legal to do.

You don't actually know that though. For all we know MetaCompany might have a large stock pile of branded hardware.

At this point in time all we have is blind speculation based on a piece of PR that might or might not be true.

How does it change anything? If I understand it correctly, they are a company with no existing product, and yet Facebook somehow stole their name and livelihood?

Stealing name implies that the company previously had some value attached to that name, such as recognition or a product. So far they have neither. I understand that it is unfortunate it happened to them, but given that the company doesn't even have a product launched yet, changing the name to something else shouldn't cause much trouble.

But on the bright side, at least now they have an excuse ready in case their company flops. And a lot of people who could sympathize with them too, because "facebook bad". Media loves this stuff, because it prints clicks and views like hotcakes.

All I'm hearing is that Facebook is entitled to a name someone else was already using because they are a wealthy and successful company and I am not convinced.

They were using for what?

For potential free PR for their upcoming product launch (which I am not even sure is real) due to this "controversy".

Using in what way? Having a domain, no trademark and no product doesn't mean you're using it in any real way.

It sounds like they do have a trademark:

> At least two law firms were involved: One in the USA that requested our trademark and domains

But everything else you say I agree with. And the trademark was probably on MetaCompany since that seems to be their brand.

Did they not mention owning the trademark?

No, they mentioned a trademark without saying what it was on exactly which suggest to me it barely overlaps. I didn't find any recent trademarks for 'Meta' in the US that would overlap with Facebook. There's one for selling computer hardware and one for SaaS consulting.

I have a hard time imagining that it's at all relevant whether or not their business genuinely overlapped. If you're big enough, it doesn't matter unless your target has the means to drag you through court as well. I'm reminded of the Backcountry.com case from a few years ago, where they were apparently hunting down every commercial use of the term Backcountry.

https://www.outsidebusinessjournal.com/issues/the-backcountr...

The argument isn't about whether FB is entitled to the name. FB might not be entitled to that name, and I am not saying they are.

All I am saying is that the claim of Meta (non-FB one) about their "name and livelihood being stolen" is ridiculous and difficult to take at face value, given they have no product and no name-recognition.

Do you have any internal knowledge of product this company is working on and hence it is of no real value to “you”? How much time have they been working on this product? What’s the cost involved? How many people? Does it really matter whether they have a live product or if it is successful or not if it doesn’t affect the real topic here, which is of identity?

> Do you have any internal knowledge of product this company is working on and hence it is of no real value to “you”?

Regardless of what they are working on, if it doesn't exist, the value of it is presently zero.

Also, as others have mentioned, FB fully legally bought the trademark on Meta back in 2017 (through Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative). The company in the OP has no claims towards the name. Well, it appears they have a trademark on Metacompany (no space or dots), while FB (or rather, Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative) had the trademark for Meta since 2017. If anything, the company in the article is infringing on a trademark that FB has been the owner of for nearly 4 years.

> If anything, the company in the article is infringing on a trademark that FB has been the owner of for nearly 4 years.

I don't disagree with you here.

> if it doesn't exist,

But you don't know that, do you? And that was the intent of my original comment. We can speculate basis the available data all we want, but we don't "know know" that their product doesn't exist. And no, launch of a product is not the only benchmark here.

>> if it doesn't exist

> But you don't know that, do you?

I think there was a misunderstanding here, so let me clarify.

When I said that the product doesn't exist, I wasn't saying that it was all fake and they made up a non-existent product just to cash in on this controversy.

By saying that it doesn't exist, I meant that there is no released product that anyone can use. Sure, they might have it somewhere on some engineer's machine or desk or whatever internally, no way for us to know. But for all practical intents and purposes, the product isn't released and there is no way for anyone to use it. Hell, there is no way for anyone to even know what the actual product is, and googling didn't help much. And if no one has access to the product and no one knows what it is, then it doesn't exist as a product on the market.

> Regardless of what they are working on, if it doesn't exist, the value of it is presently zero.

That’s not true. Do you know how many multi-million-dollar companies have nothing more than an idea on a paper napkin that they managed to sell to investors? You didn’t even bring up the matter of whether they have investors who have placed a valuation on their business. Or even if they have paid into their own business’ equity, which is then of monetary value.

In fact a business’ monetary valuation has nothing to do with whether it has a product. Some high-value businesses have zero products. If we’re speaking valuation, what matters is the value of the assets they have listed under the business, their liabilities, their owner’s equity, etc.

From the USPTO docs and screenshot included within them, they seemed to describe themselves as a provider of services. Their LLC's address is a residential home, which is fine, but a little shady for a company that vaguely states the services it provides, while also having a supposed "product launch" delayed, despite no evidence whatsoever of anyone associated with the company, no SEC filings or white papers, or really anything to prove any of what theyre saying. It's kinda weird.

The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (part-owned by Mark) bought a company called Meta along with its trademark in 2017.

You can’t “steal” a name. The English language is not up for ownership. Trademarks serve a specific purpose of indicating trade source and are there for public policy reasons. You have to use the trademark in trade for it to be protected.

Furthermore if you use your mark for running a noodle store and me for a shoe store there is no conflict.

If Facebook is within the law (the other guy is not even using it) there is no morality involved. (I am a lawyer)

That is an good point. If the SME is not in the same industry, it would actually work in their favor. They could use some decent SEO and clever but legal word choices for certain lines and logo choices, they could have a ton of internet traffic directed to thier site just by people typing the web address incorrectly.

I did find this: "Meta Company develops augmented reality solutions. It offers Meta 1 and Meta 2 Development Kits for developers and creators, makers and artists, which provide the field of view, access to digital information and direct hand interaction with holograms. The Company serves clients in manufacturing, communication and media, medicine, simulation and education, remote assistance and 3D modeling industries."

NFI what that exactly means, but they are in comm's and media and if that is the same company, thats pretty dam close to facebook's whole "thang" isnt it?

They were using it just as much as Facebook though... and actually less than the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative but that's beside the point I'm making.

Let's say that Meta Company had released their product a month ago, would you have sided with Facebook if they had said that the Meta Conpany stole their name? Funnily enough you probably wouldn't because they are a wealthy and successful company.

No one here is saying Facebook is entitled to that name because they are wealthy. We are saying they are entitled by that name because the Meta Company was still not doing business using that name. No one is entitled to any name, it has nothing to do with wealth. Do the Meta Company had registered a trademark on it already? Well nice, yeah I will side with them and hope that they win the lawsuit (though I wouldn't if they were the equivalent of patents trolls over trademark... which I fear is the case, but I still trust them that they plan to do real business with that name).

>Do the Meta Company had registered a trademark on it already?

From everything I read, it seems like Meta Company has a trademark registered for Metacompany (no space or dots), while Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative has had the trademark for Meta since 2017. Metacompany vs. Meta, and since Zucc is using straight up Meta (without the -company suffix), the outcome seems fairly clear.

That's exactly what I meant by parking. Isn't that what it means? Maybe I should have said this letter is the entire company so far.

This reads like a kickstarter scam. Also the "Facebook Instagram Twitter" link at the bottom points to an Instagram account with 0 followers, 0 following.

This is just ridiculous. I hope this post gets removed because it is now going to get picked up by major news organization and it might even overshadow the real and current problems of Facebook.

This reminds me of this sketch: https://youtu.be/pvjgIxuVdo4

Here is their Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_(company)

>Here is their Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_(company)

Discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29074478

Seems like it may not be the same company.

So they took the livelihood etc from somebody else too?

from meta, the AR company? I mean, their headset sort of lost traction a while back. I dont think FB had anything to do with it but considering their current domination of consumer VR I suppose I wouldnt put it past them to taking down/buying up a potential competitor in the AR field.

That is not the same as Meta, LLC registered in Illinois (made with <3 in Chicago, IL is at the bottom of this page).

https://apps.ilsos.gov/corporatellc/CorporateLlcController

The manager name listed on the Corporate LLC search does not match the founders in the Wikipedia

That's not how business works at all. You don't need to have a massive social media presence (or even a website) to be an operational business. And, in fact, a huge portion of startups operate in stealth mode until they are ready for public consumption -- but that doesn't mean they don't have a product or customers or investment.

I have lost count of the number of times I have seen this exact post on HN because some company I never heard of used a common word for their company/product and Facebook, Apple, Google, etc. came out with a product with the same name. I'm not going to excuse any of the behavior by these big companies, but at a certain point you have to take responsibility for introducing this risk by naming your company a short, commonly used word that is found in the dictionary. It was only a matter of time until this issue would pop up.

Do small companies owe their names to big companies who have the resources to look into it and choose a different name?

If the big company was in the legal ownership of that trademark for nearly 4 years, yes.[0]

Direct quote from the link:

>"[...] Zuck's non-profit, of course, the one he runs with his wife, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, actually bought out a company called Meta back in 2017."

0. https://news.yahoo.com/trademark-hurdles-facebooks-meta-rebr...

There is no small company here, just an opportunist.

That's fine, but big companies shouldn't be able to claim ownership of a common word either, just because they have more lawyers.

There are maligned incentives; companies that don't litigate and defend their IP can lose the right to their IP. Trademark and copyright law is a complete mess, and the internet only made it worse.

Yeah, but with a product its more of a problem. Calling your Widget Company "Widgets Inc.". Facebook is able to call their product "Facebook Widgets".

The problem is this is direct trademark infringement. The trademark is for a business, and will have overlap with Facebook. Facebook can try and argue that the trademark is invalid, but at the end of the day if meta.company can defend the trademark, there is going to be a settlement because renaming AGAIN isn't going to be very desirable. This could cause an Apple Records vs Apple Computer case where certain businesses are restricted for facebook.

However as both history and this event shows, facebook will just plow ahead and pay the costs later. Given opportunity costs, and everything, it likely is the most economically rational move. Having so much money that they know they can cover any verdict / settlement, and having limited - no personal liability at the director level, facebook can continue to act unconscionably. The only way you will stop them acting like this is to either extend the liability to management or so oversized and unreasonable punitive damages that they actually take a step back.

I think you should ask yourself why you're willing to expend so much energy shaming a startup for choosing a short name, but not expend the same amount of energy denouncing corporations for doing things that are blatantly illegal.

Perhaps the issue here isn't that a company chose the "wrong" name, but that large amounts of folks like yourself have become so complacent, that they're just willing to accept corporations illegally steamrolling any startup who has the nerve to defy them.

Despite your insistence that you're not excusing large corporations for their behavior, you've just done exactly that by attempting to shift the blame.

Or maybe this is a classical troll scheme, like we have seen a hundred times, black money used to confiscate a public good (a common name) and ransom it to highest bidder, all this with the entire backing of Uncle Sam's own lawyers.

And maybe you are yourself a troll.

The first thing that pops into my head is that kid that got really mad at zefrank because he stole the name for his vblog series. The name was "the show"

What does meta.company do? I can't find anything about them. How did Facebook steal the livelihood of a company that doesn't have any products or sell anything?

Based on what is in the letter, I assume they are/were a startup still in stealth mode.

Based in this whole site (which is just the letter), I assume they are positioning themselves to optimize for largest amount of money to be gained in the court against Facebook. HN is dutifully helping them.

What are you talking about? I can't find any posts here that are sympathetic to them. To the point that I honestly can't tell if there's some fb astroturfing happening.

Bad luck for them, they should have taken the deal.

Trademark protection is to protect trade. A company that doesn't make a product yet is at a huge risk trying to hold a name against an established company that wants it... You can only infringe a trademark if you are doing business in the same or a very nearly adjacent industry (Apple Records v Apple Computer as a historical example).

I'm sure they can litigate it if they want, but when the question comes up of how Facebook being named Meta interferes with the business Meta of Chicago was engaged in, what will their answer be? If they weren't planning to do something in either the social network or virtual / augmented reality spaces, the likely answer is "neither of you are infringing the other, go about your business."

Their answer will probably be "Facebook knew they were infringing so they contacted us and attempted to purchase the mark."

It's worth a try, but if they can't positively assert "infringing on what," they have no case.

Then they didn't have any brand recognition/"livelihood" to steal.

Sure this sucks for them, and I am no FB defender but that's the nature of trademark. Not a lawyer but even if they are in the same space as FB, I'd think they would forfeit their right to the mark if FB got their first, presuming they have not yet actually marketed a product to consumers under this name?

Your questions are answered in the linked article. I hope this quote helps. There’s more in there if you read it very carefully.

I've read the article. If they don't have a product released, then accusing someone of taking away their livelihood (aka income) is ridiculous.

What if you work for months/years on a product, waiting for it to be ready-ish before announcing it to the public, only for a corporation to steal your name a few weeks before launch?

Then get a different name. Meta clearly had no mindshare, because nobody in this thread has ever heard of it.

(and frankly it's still a bad name because it's a super common word. it was doomed as a product name anyway.)

You don't just "get a different name". You may already have a logo you paid well for. You may have prepared advertising. You may have references to the name everywhere in your code. And so on. Also even if it was easy and costless to get a new name, it still isn't fair that the big guy can come and simply take it from you without consequence.

Not just that. In the worst case, they may have a container full of their devices ready to go with "Meta" branding on everything. That's a significant cost to recall and redo.

If they've got a site with branding and all that jazz rearing and ready for launch then no - it's not their fault the giant stepped on them.

It would even appear (from the letter) that facebook was already aware of this name conflict and decided to go ahead with the rename anyways.

Also Meta is a terrible name - for both companies., but that's beside the point (but it's like really stupid).

> Then get a different name. Meta clearly had no mindshare

That doesn't matter, they own the trademark.

No they don't. You have to prove significance in a particular market to get trademark protections; you don't get trademark protection over the word as used in all contexts (and since they have no marketshare, because it hasn't launched, there's no conflict at all).

> it's still a bad name because it's a super common word.

I said the same thing about matrix.org back in ~2015 when I first heard of the project. Fast forward to now, though, and "Matrix Room" links are ubiquitous among open source projects....

If they have a registered, accepted trademark (and it appears they do), they can reasonably argue that Facebook has damaged their ability to establish the brand's identity despite significant outlay for design, marketing, and advertising -- those are dollars already spent. "Livelihood" includes income, sure, but it can also be read to include lasting damage done to their brand by Facebook prematurely usurping their ability to control the mark.

Right, but as we don't see anything from this company let the court decide if and how big the damage is.

That is true - unless their livelihood (they mentioned how low the offers were repeatedly) was just to squat the company name and extort FB or whoever else wanted it - especially if they got advanced knowledge of the renaming and registered it after they learned facebook would want it. It's like domain squatting all over again.

"Squatting" a trademark generally isn't possible; if you can't prove use of the mark, the USPTO will simply cancel your registration. I imagine their activity related to the mark would be covered in any potential court proceedings and would be Facebook's primary defense.

Yea - but having a github repository with active development and a meta-logo dating back to early 2021 would probably be pretty compelling to prove active use. This is definitely going to be a headache for somebody but I can't imagine the story as this letter tells it (FB reaching out repeatedly to acquire the name and then going ahead regardless) is a perfect telling of events. Either FB was totally unaware of this company's existence before today or else their lawyers looked over the company and didn't think it was a threat to their usage.

Trade mark legislation, and passing off legislation, protect marks being used. They don't (in general) protect one's "ability to establish [a] brand's identity". That's the right way to do things IMO, brand camping wouldn't help society.

Prima facie it sucks but they can probably get global coverage for their product/services they're already selling (trademark registration requires current use, someone said the OP company have a trademark registered) on the basis of "what do we do now Facebook are using our name".

It seems likely that if they can't leverage this for financial benefit, in a forthright way, then they were going to fail anyway.

There's nothing in the article that answers the question "What does meta.company do?"

>Your questions are answered in the linked article.

No they are not. Your quote, the article, and the empty social media pages the article links to do not answer the question, "What does meta.company do?".

The message said they're from Chicago and there's a META LLC registered to him in Illinois since September 2013. Not sure what they do, but at minimum it seems like they've been using the name for some time.

If that's accurate they've had eight years to produce some product/service to establish a strong commercial claim to the name prior to Facebook getting there. They appear to have failed at doing that.

If you're going to stake claim to such a common, short term as your corporate name, it's definitely obvious that you're risking legal conflict with other entities that may claim that name. There's no way they didn't know what they were getting into in trying to use that name (with or without Facebook wanting it).

Maybe companies shouldn't be allowed to be named commonly used word.

Well, indeed, there are limits to copyrights that are supposed to be applicable when using trivial common names.

But ever since a certain company decided to call itself "fruit", and then go on rampage attacking small players which themselves used to be called "fruit" under the petty reason that they are actually producing and selling "fruit", there is a sense in US that, as long as you got the balls and the lawyers, there is just no limit. Limits of the rules, even when written, are for "others".

Look up their website lol https://metamaterial.com/

The article claims to be from a Chicago based company, while the link you provided shows an address in Nova Scotia, Canada.

Nate Skulic is also not listed in any leadership role on the website you linked.

When Apple was rumored to be working on a phone, after the debacle of the Motorola Rockr, the obvious guess was iPhone. But Cisco held the trademark on “iphone” for some crappy IP phone.

There were rumors that Apple was interested in the name but Cisco would not play ball. And of course Apple did announce their phone with that name anyway. This is one reason you heard gasps in the audience when the iPhone name slide came up. A lot of those folks knew about the Cisco thing.

Cisco sued and Apple settled. Does anyone remember that Cisco used to own that name? Probably not.

I doubt this little company can stop what Facebook has already announced. I hope they get paid, though—if just from a sense of rooting for an underdog.

I remember. [0]

[0]http://www.internethistorypodcast.com/2015/06/the-forgotten-...

This is very interesting, thank you for sharing.

Cisco also owns IOS operating system. and I seem to recall the Apple is paying/paid them millions for the name. Was that part of the settlement or separate? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisco_IOS

Not sure but I would guess separate, because Apple did not start calling it iOS until much later. At the iPhone launch they called it OS X, then later it was iPhone OS.

“[Cisco executive] Charles Giancarlo fielded a call directly from Steve Jobs. “Steve called in and said that he wanted it,” Giancarlo recalled. “He didn’t offer us anything for it. It was just like a promise he’d be our best friend. And we said, ‘No, we’re planning on using it.’ “Shortly after that, Apple’s legal department called to say they thought Cisco had “abandoned the brand,” meaning that in Apple’s legal opinion Cisco hadn’t adequately defended its intellectual property rights by promoting the name. To Apple’s way of thinking this meant the name iPhone was available for Apple’s use. Giancarlo, who subsequently joined the prominent Silicon Valley private-equity firm Silver Lake partners, said Cisco threatened litigation before the launch. Then, the day after Apple announced its iPhone, Cisco filed suit.

The negotiation displayed some classic Steve Jobs negotiating tactics. Giancarlo said Jobs called him at home at dinnertime on Valentine’s Day, as the two sides were haggling. Jobs talked for a while, Giancarlo related. “And then he said to me, ‘Can you get email at home?'” Giancarlo was taken aback. This was 2007, after all, when broadband Internet was ubiquitous in homes in the US, let alone that of a Silicon Valley executive who had worked for years on advanced Internet technology. “And he’s asking me if I’m able to get email at home. You know he’s just trying to press my buttons—in the nicest possible way.” Cisco gave up the fight shortly after that. The two sides reached a vague agreement to cooperate on areas of mutual interest.”

https://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/01/27/apple-cisco-iphone-...

I think this meta.company was made specifically to profit off of this moment.

WHOIS meta.company shows changes last made 10/26

It also looks suspiciously like WHOIS metaverse.company (same uncommon domain registrar [donuts.domains] and same last changed at date 10/26

Also the company listed at the bottom Meta, LLC in Illinois shows it was filed 9/1 of this year: https://apps.ilsos.gov/corporatellc/CorporateLlcController

Donuts isn't a registrar, they're a company that got setup when ICANN started allowing anyone to apply to create gTLDs, and they really innovated on setting up tons of them for profit. They own the .company TLD.

Ah yeah and I’m noticing every .company gTLD has that same changed date so that’s actually not useful info.

The company being filed 9/1 is a bit suspicious, but I guess that’s a bit before the announcement. That companies manager matches the name at the bottom of this page so it’s definitely the same LLC

I don't think this [name redacted] guy is actually taking this seriously. His FB profile is almost entirely empty, with only a link to his website at the same time he posted to HN (and liked by only one person, whose FB profile is equally empty), and a profile pic that combines The Rock and Doge.

Edit: I commented on the meta.company website link on his FB profile asking for more info/insight, and my comment was deleted and comments are now disabled.

It also says a lot that they used a throwaway account to post this only on HN, and haven't bothered responding to anyone in this thread.

Edit 2: The public post on their profile linking to their website is now at least made private.

Yeah, their instagram and twitter and completely empty besides this post, created in the past month too

Trade War Is Hurting Silicon Valley Augmented Reality Startup By Selina Wang

September 10, 2018, 12:06 AM EDT

Meta says lead Chinese investor froze deal at Beijing’s behest Crackdown on Chinese investment in U.S. tech companies blamed

Augmented reality startup Meta Co. was on the verge of raising funds from Chinese backers when the lead investor froze the deal at the behest of a Chinese official who cited the trade war.

It’s the latest sign that U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods and a crackdown on foreign investment in U.S. tech companies is casting a chill in Silicon Valley. Small hardware makers are already suffering from rising tariffs, and now startups looking to raise money in China are feeling the effect.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-10/trade-war...

They've been in stealth mode for at least three years now? They must have some very patient and deep-pocketed seed investors.

Perhaps it is bootstrapped

That is a different company: https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/28/18642350/meta-view-metavi...

Pretty sure this is a different Meta. The Meta the Bloomberg article is talking about used the stymied Chinese deal to cover up the fact that they were already dead, because their product just plain sucked.

What are the odds that there is no product about to be shipped, and it wasn’t somehow delayed by this, and this is just an opportunity to kick up a fuss for money?

I think it’s possible to be deeply anti-Facebook and still consider this possibility.

It’s not really that company’s responsibility to accommodate Facebook. You can balance your imaginary odds of malice against the actual statement, though, and judge appropriately.

> One more thing: Our new product launch just got delayed because of Facebook. We must deal with these matters. In the coming weeks, we will make an announcement earlier than we expected. We promise it will be good. Stay tuned. > One more thing: Our new product launch just got delayed because of Facebook. We must deal with these matters. In the coming weeks, we will make an announcement earlier than we expected. We promise it will be good. Stay tuned.

I was thinking the same thing. But Facebook still needs to make things right with this company since the small company has the rights to the name. Unfortunately, for the small company, they have to fight a big monster. And they will, ultimately, unless they find someone to fund the litigation, have to settle for an amount close to the original offer from Facebook. Big companies with lots of lawyers win most of the time. It's how things go. :-(

Indeed. Without any upper management that possess souls or spines, Facebook has all it needs to fight really dirty.

There are multiple separate registrations of "Meta" and "metacompany" with the USPTO. There is the only one linked to Chicago[1] and if so they have less standing than the others because the name is "metacompany" (with no space). There are five other registrations for just "meta" (or "meta." with a period).

Are you this company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_(company)?

Owning the name of a common adjective seems dubious to me. It's like naming your company "big."

They don’t own the name, they own the trademark to do augmented reality business under the name. Since that company has been around since 2013 it does seem they have a case (if that is them.)

Are you talking about the one from the Wiki link? That company foreclosed 2 years ago according to the Wikipedia page.

The company in this link is another one. I have no idea what MetaCompany does.

I think these are separate companies, but _another_ company in the AR space called Meta seems like a crowded space!

I believe this is a different company, the CEO name and URL are different.

It would be very interesting to see Facebook/Meta make that argument in defense of what, I am assuming, is a pending lawsuit.

Seems not, meta.company links to MetaCompany and mentions Nate Skulic as founder, while Meta (company) lists Meron Gribetz as founder.

Strangely enough, Wayback Machine doesn't have any snapshots of the site https://web.archive.org/web/2018*/http://meta.company/, and finding no mentions of "MetaCompany" online, so seems weird.

> Owning the name of a common adjective seems dubious to me. It's like naming your company "big."

Or "Uber"?

how ... um .... meta

But a noun like Apple passes your personal trademark requirements?

Are there other companies named Apple who complained about the name in the past?

There's an entire Wikipedia article on just this.

Apple Music. Owned the IP to the Beatles music, IIRC.

Apple Corps and Apple Records. Was founded in the late 60s by the Beatles themselves. They also published solo works and a few other artists.

Yes (if I remember correctly), especially wrt. to the apple logo trademark.

But non are tech companies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer

Actually, there was a complaint (The Beatles).

but at least for Apple there is little change to for any confusion, at least as long as apple doesn't sell food.

Meta on the other hand is a widely used vague defined word used in many contexts especially tech/SiFi/AR as such there is a lot of potential confusion and potential "cultural appropriation" of existing language using that wording (e.g. in a SiFi novel).

I think both shouldn't be a thing, but the negative effect Facebooks brand can have is much much larger.

As you already mentioned, the word "meta" isn't defined and is entirely conceptual. As such, it can't reasonably be associated with an existing product or service, so it can't and won't be subjected to the same strong trademark requirements.

Not really. How about a definite article e.g. "the"?

I don't think that is the same company.

  Meta (Wiki):
  - Website: metavision.com
  - Founder: Meron Gribetz
  
  MetaCompany (HN Article):
  - Website: meta.company
  - Founder: Nate Skulic

> Owning the name of a common adjective seems dubious to me.

Yes, but is legal. But IMHO shouldn't be, the less the more relevant (as in large) facebook is.

To some degree Facebook is committing forceful cultural appropriation of a common english word and it's usage in common language and literature (especially SiFi literature).

> Facebook is committing forceful cultural appropriation of a common english word

Seems alarmist. The word "apple" is still doing fine in the context of the firm treeborne fruit.

"cultural appropriation"? Whose culture is being appropriated exactly?

> It's like naming your company "big."

That's a pretty sweet brand name, to be honest.

“Face book” is itself a generic term for a literal book of faces that some colleges would print and distribute to incoming freshman classes so they could get to know each other.

And you’re on the site of a company that holds a trademark on “Y combinator,” a math term.

Yes, one can trademark generic words or terms. A trademark must be narrowly defined to cover only your specific markets and uses, and it must be in active use.

I worked on a product called "Media Center" which we applied for a trademark on. The USPTO turned it down claiming it was too generic.

Then 6 months later Microsoft comes out with a new version of Windows, with a Media Center in it.

They used the trademark "Windows Media Center": https://uspto.report/TM/78100817

Those are all nouns -- makes a bit more sense...

That is a different Meta.

https://apps.ilsos.gov/corporatellc/CorporateLlcController

Search Meta and you’ll find the Meta, LLC made by Nate

"We have proceeded to file the necessary legal actions". Where are these? They should be public if this company is not lying about this.

That said, there are SO MANY meta AR/VR type companies out there. This is a dictionary word - that's going to be pretty weak from a trademark case, especially if these guys are not doing anything..

I'm seeing 700+ meta marks alone registered. Plenty of metaverses.

Is this the one they claim:

"Consulting services in the field of design, selection, implementation and use of computer hardware and software systems for others; Development and implementation of software, hardware and technology solutions for the purpose of productization of electronic components and electronic systems"

There is also Meta LLC - you can read about them here:

https://www.facebook.com/metacoopllc/

So it's not really clear who "meta LLC" is?

The twitter account does not exist?

https://twitter.com/therealmetacompany

I also noticed the Twitter account doesn’t exist. I’m sure this very real company simply hasn’t gotten around yet to making their Twitter account, but someone should absolutely grab that handle before they do.

@therealmetacompany exceeds Twitter's 15-character limit.

If this comment is the only page on the website, then you're not convincing me of anything. What does MetaCompany do? You have a better chance of anything if you had a functioning website and this was just a link within it. Otherwise, this is a nice ploy at trying to garner some attention, but to what I have no idea because you have no website.

I hate Facebook as much as the next person but I’m not sure they were doing anything shady here. They wanted to buy the domain cheaply and without disclosing who they are. I don’t see what’s wrong in that ethically or legally.

They weren't trying to buy just the domain name, they were trying to buy the trademark. Their offer was refused, but they used it anyway. That's quite literally the definition of trademark infringement, made worse that they've implicated themselves by trying to buy it first -- which shows recognition of the validity of the trademark.

Because FB went ahead with it anyways I'm guessing they assumed they would win any court conflicts about this but wanted to not have to deal with that and offered a lower amount to buy it than what court would cost. It's not that they think it was valid but that they just didn't want to bother. FB has the money to fight it and win anyways but it they'd rather spent $5 over $10 for example.

Nothing, the problem is that they also wanted to buy the trade mark, also didn't got it (both normal and fine) and then proceeded to act as if they own it anyway (allegedly, not ok at all).

Their twitter is nothing, their instagram is nothing, their website is nothing, nobody can find any examples of what this company does, and they aren't using this exposure to try and explain it.

I'm not sure I am following what facebook is stealing from them. Meta.company isn't even the domain name that facebook is trying to use as far as I've been able to tell.

Two companies can have the same name. They could have a case if Facebook was infringing on an established trademark or brand, but considering they have neither I fail to see what legal recourse they have. What does this company even do? What is their "livelihood" and how did Facebook steal it?

Please at least read the first sentence before asserting your superior legal knowledge. They literally said that Facebook was trying to buy their trademark in the first sentence of the post, which means there is an established trademark that Facebook recognized as valid.

Hey everyone!

I'm a casual observer of this community and it's one of the few I usually enjoy reading. I've learned much from your comments --- even from the vitriol of the occasional troll.

We've been working real hard. I didn't want this to be our announcement; here or anywhere. This launch was supposed to be different. If anything, I wanted my first post here to be about our product.

I am a real systems engineer and we build real products with real world application. It's been a stressful 2 years for everyone, it's been an additionally stressful last week for me.

I appreciate any questions and comments, but please understand our situation, and be respectful and patient until I get back to you. Please, let's keep it technical.

Thank You!

Sincerely,

Nate Skulic

"Please, let's keep it technical and vague."

What?

I fixed that. I meant please don't ask me specific questions about our legal matters or product.

Hmmmm... https://i.imgur.com/MUXyZSk.jpg

Since Meta.Company has no products, I don't think there's any chance for confusion in the marketplace.

Could it be this company: https://opencorporates.com/statements/987159782

"Downloadable computer software for capturing and storing screen data for the purpose of pattern recognition and machine learning"

Just tried looking up [name redacted] on linkedin but no profile found. Seems like a troll to me

If Meta Company didn’t own the rights and the trademark then FB and their lawyers wouldn’t have spent so much time making offers and hounding them. FB knew they had to do stuff the legal way, and now are probably just hoping to bully their way in.

There are laws in place. Also international trademark law.

HN is very two-faced. If it was your beloved startup then you wouldn’t be very happy about the situation if it applied to you. Also, many startups operate in stealth mode while they build and get ready for launch. That could certainly mean they have their livelihood wrapped up in it, just like we often read about with other startups.

FB probably knew going into this that the other company had no chance of winning a legal battle because they haven't attempted to utilize the trademark. They simply made an offer in the hopes of avoiding some hassle, their offer was probably less than half of what a lawsuit will cost.

I have a strong dislike for facebook, but I'm not sure what the "OG" Meta did or why they existed.

I almost feel like it is a bigger deal that some little company wanted my personal domain because the founders happen to have the same name as my wife and I. At least I use my domain and have for decades. I refuse to sell because my email used on accounts everywhere. That kind of change isn't worth a few hundred dollars.

They went and picked up a domain with the same two names, but reversed the order and were unhappy because people confuse our domains. Not my problem.

Meta.company has been in existence since March 18, 2014. It does not matter if FB is bigger, wealthier, etc... the bottom line is that meta.company was in the public doman first. Same thing happened when websites were coming of age and people registered coke.com or cocacola.com or coca-cola.com... Those people lost because the name Coke and Coca-Cola were in the public domain first.

FB tried to pick on a smaller company, one that fought back, and will ultimately win.

All of the social links they have are dead. Their twitter account doesn't exist. There are no other pages on the site.

Not a promising start to the proceedings.

Wikipedia page on another Meta company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_(company)

Facebook doesn't get to own the original Wikipedia page for Meta (company)! They have to use Meta Platforms.

Seems to be another Meta:

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200727005211/en/Sta...

Here's another:

https://www.metafinancialgroup.com/

Ukraine has had its own Internet company called META (https://meta.ua/) since 1998, which is a funny wordplay as the name is also read as “goal” in Ukrainian. Eagerly awaiting some drama over the domain name.

I recently created a product that has picked up some traction. The name of the tool is a character from a famous comic book. The characters name is trademarked. I'm from the UK. My tool is an analytics tool. Does this run the risk of me getting sued by the comic book company?

If you want legal advice, you should seek out a trademark attorney. In general, though, you'd be infringing if the company has the name registered for use in your industry.

You're making a product. You should probably talk to someone who knows about trademark law.

Maybe a lawyer?

You can be threatened or sued for pretty much anything - if they care, are bought by someone who cares (ie Disney) or in the future start caring then you might be sued. Whether it goes anywhere or whether you win is a different matter.

Trademarks are based on a class of product or thing however (see eg the goods and services listing on https://trademarks.justia.com/875/27/iron-87527652.html - one of a bunch of iron man trademarks), so if there's no confusion/it's not a category that they have trademarked, then your odds are better.

It would be nice is such a post was accompanied by an a indication of what MetaCompany does, a site that's more than a stub, and a link to its trademark registration (believe it or not multiple companies have registered a trademark for Meta).

Is this the right trademark? https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4801:vj...

A bunch of companies called "Meta" already exist.

Going by that definition, these guys are the ones that were attempting to reuse a name that already belonged to someone else. They can't have their cake and eat it too.

They can probably out-lawyer and out-PR nearly every company on the planet, so it's not surprising from Facebook that they try this route when the negotiations failed, if they really wanted that name.

IANAL but my understanding is that trademarks are only granted for specific goods and services (particularly for common dictionary words). What goods and services does this company provide?

Good. Because it sounds like they needed a new livelihood.

As far as I can tell this "Meta company" isn't even a real company, it's just a shell company that claims to own never-used trademarks.

well facebook-the-company-that-wants-to-be-called-'meta' sicked their lawyers on them so they must think that they are some form of 'real'

This is a squatter "company" with no accomplishments whining that they couldn't squeeze FB for enough $$$. Why should anyone else care?

Facebook must be shaking in their boots.

I have no idea what this company does. Are they even in the same line of business as Facebook?

They should remove the links to their Facebook and Instagram at the bottom of that page. :-)

why? it's newly created accounts to promote this fake "legit business"

I should be pretty obvious by now that Facebook is a really bad company with way too much power.

What can we do about it as just another nerd? The answer is just as obvious. Delete your account, don't look back and encourage everyone you know to do the same.

I'm one year without now and hadn't affected my life in any negative way whatsoever.

Poff! Power gone..

I'm way ahead of you. I never registered in the first place.

Someone please post this topic again when the lawsuits ended 6 years from now. Thanks!

all their social medias were only created recently, and I can't find anything on what they actually do... "Stole Our Name and Livelihood"???

https://rocketreach.co/meta-company-formerly-meta-llc-profil...

Meta View, Inc. is a spatial computing company founded by Olive Tree Ventures in late 2018 following the purchase of Meta Company's assets. Meta View will build on the groundbreaking display system first commercialized in the Meta 2 headset. Jay Wright, the newly hired CEO comes with over a decade of experience in augmented reality, previously as Co-Founder and President of Vuforia and Vice-President at Qualcomm.

This description seems incorrect... Unclear if this is the same company ...

This was posted elsewhere (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29074478) and already established as a different company

They should launch their product and steal it back?

For those commenters insufficiently impressed by this company’s online footprint — a few days ago, former Greek minister of finance Yannis Varoufakis admonished Facebook for appropriating the name Meta, which is the name used by the Center for Postcapitalist Civilization: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/10/29/hands-varoufaki...

Facebook can afford a different name.

Reminds me of the nissan.com debacle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Motors_v._Nissan_Comput...

> In July 2020, Uzi Nissan died of complications from COVID-19.

I’d be super interested in any speculation on what the offer for the name was.

Best of luck to this company.

I really really hope that Facebook's attempts to distance themselves from their negative press do not work.

Edit: To be clear, I don't care that much about the company in question, more so giving Facebook a black eye.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com