Hacker News Reader

Comment by mattmaroon | Hacker News Reader

I can totally see the brand harm here. There’s nothing Muzmatch can do to make users not associate them with Match.com, even if they truly want to. It’s what I thought at first.

I don’t blame Match for any of this, as much as I want to root for a startup.

View on HN

Match is a common English word, in dating world describing a matchmaking activity that has existed for millenia.

How can a company legitimately claim a name that has had a clear prior art on it?

Can I claim the word 'The' for eternity and sue anyone who dares to even use it in the name of their enterprise?

Indeed in the UK "Match of the day" predates the internet - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match_of_the_Day

Maybe the BBC should of been sharper on their trademarks or like many - thought it was so common, who would allow it.

You need to establish that the use case of ‘the’ has a legitimate brand reconcognition that entitles it to protections. But yeah, if you make a million user social network company called The, you would get to have ‘The’ protected from competitors using it as their own brand. It’s dumb, but it’s the way it works, and YC is not ignorant of it.

“The match game” existed long before match.com. They did not originate “match” being associated with dating, the concept and terminology predated them by decades.

> decades

Many decades.

Matchmaking is about as old as human history, especially in Middle-Eastern/Indian cultures.

The word "match" wouldn't have been used for most of human history. That seems to only go back to around the 14th century[1].

[1] https://www.etymonline.com/word/match

Fair point.

I am sure that a sufficiently motivated researcher could find paid service date match making companies with something "match" in the name going back to the 1970s, when it was all done manually and by telephone, or the 80s and by fax.

That just doesn’t matter, legally. There were presumably people named Wendy for a long time but I can’t start a burger joint named Wendy’s, even if my name was Wendy.

If Match.com established the brand other people can’t. I didn’t make the law but people are downvoting me like I did, I just pointed out (and IANAL so maybe I’m wrong) that this seems like clear brand harm.

But they did officially brand it—-it’s not just the idea of matching. One way in which this does have some real use is in protecting users. Maybe Match has some set of privacy values that people have come to trust, and by letting other companies who don’t share the same values co-opt the brand recognition, it can cause issues for users who thought they were protected by Match’s privacy policies.

Can't blame them that they seize the opportunity that the system grants them.

It's however bizzare that the system would grant them a monopoly on something they didn't invent. They merely took it from the community of English speakers and branded it as their own.

Similar to claiming a patent on an invention that you didn't invent. Just took already existing public domain technology that nobody else would dare to claim rights on and slapped a monopoly stamp on it.

Maybe it should have been thefacebook

That’s just not how IP law works. I mean I get why you might think it should but it isn’t.

This company knows that, that’s why they settled.

Common words just shouldn’t be allowed as a trademark in the first place. Imagine if we allowed an automaker to trademark the word “truck”. It would be lunacy, just as much as allowing one company to “own” the word match. It’s not even a little bit unique or original.

You don't blame match? It's a common word.

In any case this is very much the big guy vs the small. The accusation attempt speaks for all of this. They couldn't buy them. I can hear the rattled and frustrated CEOs confusion when they were turned down.

I'm rooting for the smaller guy, and what's way to destroy your companies image.

So we are just trademarking basic vocab now? Lovely.

This isn’t new. It’s generally applied to specific uses, and match in the dating world has legitimate brand recognition to be protected. I think the whole thing is BS, but it’s not a secret, and musmatch/YC should be no more surprised by it than someone starting a fast food joint called McChipotle.

Your analogy doesn't really carry over. If McDonalds or Chipotle were called "Food" then imo it would be a dick move to sue a smaller restaurant chain named GregFood. (As to whether they would prevail, I have no idea.)

a better example might be a new restaurant called Hamburger King

We have been for a long time. Try opening a restaurant called "The Mouse" and you'll probably be fine. Try starting a TV channel with the same name, and I guarantee you'll be sued the same day it's announced.

this might be a derail but that kind of reminded me of the most distilled essence of "Chuck E Cheese".

"Come on down folks, for a good time with the family, eat some greasy pizza in our rat themed child casino..."

Have you heard of Apple?

I feel the distinction is that match is common term for the industry in which the trademark applies. Whereas Apple is not a common word in software except to mean that particular company.

I dont think I can call my company "Software" and then sue anyone that uses the word software in the software industry. I feel "match" is similar to trademark of the word Dating. I am sure a trademark attorney can enlighten us. I am guessing.

Obviously the trademark was granted in multiple jurisdictions for match so its not a problem apparently. I wonder what the rationale is.

In fact, it would be a lot like Microsoft deciding to sue Ingram Micro for having Micro in the name, and being in the IT business, despite that being a common term at the time of founding (microcomputers being what they're deriving from).

Or Microsoft suing NCSoft for being a software company.

Etc.

I hope this gets thrown out.

Apple doesn't sell apples or any other kind of fruit. That's my guess as to why Apple is an acceptable trademark for phones, computers, music (per arrangement with Apple Records), etc, but Snapchat's Spectacles trademark was rejected. The term for this is "arbitrary mark".

note that apple did get sued by apple corps (the beatles music) when they began introducing music features to their computers with the IIgs and similar.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com