Threads Software Limited gives Meta 30 days to stop using the name Threads
businesswire.com
businesswire.com
> From April 2023, Meta’s lawyers made four offers to purchase the domain ‘threads.app’ from Threads Software Ltd. Every offer was declined. It was made clear to Meta’s Instagram that the domain was not for sale.
> In July 2023, Meta’s Instagram announced its ‘threads’ social media platform and removed Threads Software Limited from its Facebook platform.
> Threads is a Cloud-based service that captures, transcribes, and organises all of a company’s digital messages (emails and phone calls) into one easily searchable database.
See also:
https://www.techspot.com/news/100666-meta-given-30-days-ceas...
Not familiar with UK trademarks. Is there any way that Meta doesn't lose/settle this?
Trademark-wise, "Facebook" and "Book of Faces" are different things.
It's trademark.
Yeah, they keep forgetting they still have to follow the law, because society hasn't yet collapsed into a cyberpunk dystopia where big corporations are totally above it.
Plus they only have a few catagories selected from Class 9. https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/History/1/UK00...
Personally I would have filed the logo and word seperately to avoid any confusion, otherwise situations like this court case could present themselves, but maybe that is/was the intention when it was filed.
Any actual lawyers willing to chime in?
I don’t think this is totally clean cut. UK trademarks are registered against specific classes and those classes are categorised in families of goods and services.
A quick search suggests that this company holds the trademark for the word ‘Threads’ for class 9 (goods) and class 42 (services).
You can read the definitions somewhere by searching on gov.uk (or somewhere like https://www.russell-cooke.co.uk/media/bmin5fo0/goods_and_ser... [pdf]).
Meta will almost certainly make the argument that they are not operating in these classes or overlapping with the categories listed for this trademark. Class 42 does not seem to apply here, and for class 9 the Thread trademark lists ‘computer software, software and apparatus for the extraction of business information and knowledge’ which may not overlap.
Meta couldn’t also trademark Threads under class 9 (can’t trademark the same word twice in the same class) but just because they can’t secure the trademark does not automatically mean they are infringing on the existing use.
They could argue that their use of Threads as a trademark falls solely within something like class 38: Telecommunications services; chat room services; portal services; e-mail services; providing user access to the Internet; radio and television broadcasting.
If they could land this then there is no claim against them - their use can coexist with trademark’s registered in different classes.
For an app which can be downloaded getting around class 9 could be difficult - so whether they could land and make this stick is far from clear, but Meta have the resources to explore this indefinitely where as the pre-existing user making the complaint may not be able to afford the legal costs to stay the course.
Trademarks are messy and subjective and there is much scope for interpretation - even a seemly clear-cut case is anything but predictable.
And it’s not without precedent to secure an injunction against as US tech company launching a new service - gmail was known as googlemail in the UK and some European countries for several years owing to a trademark dispute (https://www.theguardian.com/media/pda/2010/may/04/digital-me...)
But sadly a lot of trademark and copyright cases come down to who has the bigger pile of cash behind them.
Trademarks do get grouped into classes (the so called "Nice Classification", like the French city [0]). The classes are very detailed, and the first 34 refer to "Goods", the rest to "Services".
Specifically class 9 refers to (among many other things), "computers, computer software", class 42 to "design and development of computer hardware and software".
However those are mostly just to simplify searching for and dealing with the huge amount of trademarks. Each trademark comes with its own list of goods and services it's supposed to cover. Their trademark in the UK [1] covers "computer software, software and apparatus for the extraction of business information and knowledge".
They also appear to have registered a trademark this september [2] with a much broader scope, so after Meta started using threads. I'm not familiar with UK law and how it relates to trademarks in this case, however.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_(Nice)_Classific... [1]: https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00... [2]: https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00...
Though that's clear case of different industries.
Threads is a much more compelling case.
(I am not your lawyer, this is not legal advice.)
They'd still be able to have users in the UK, since the UK isn't the type of country that is going to put up a national firewall.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/oct/18/facebook-...
doesn't even need to be registered
Microsoft were forced to rename SkyDrive to OneDrive by BSkyB, a company with less in common with them than Meta/Threads Software Ltd.
It’s like the skit in The Office where the Washington school wanted to buy Ryan’s company purely for the name WUPHF.
Now Threads Software is going to have to deal with mountains of legal expenses which they will only recoup if they win (though they likely would eventually win, to be fair).
Part of the brilliance of Twitter was the name, and part of the insanity is that Musk gave that up for the most generic of generic names that might seem cool to a 5 year old.
"[Musk] has been chosen to lead this initiative. To oversee our first—and last—line of defense. His efforts will have considerable influence on this planet's future. We urge you to keep that in mind as he proceed. Good luck, Musk" - X-COM:Enemy Of Tesla
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-e&q=psychol...
though the "Asperger's" story is the most repeated. Personally I think he's a schizotype because I think the vast majority of people who think they have Asperger's (I don't) are really schizotypes. I had a hard midlife crisis with a breakout of situational narcissism too but I got my ass kicked quickly in a gentle way.
We need to be told and hear things that are painful and force us to reevaluate. In the ab$ence of that, its financially/personally/socially ruinous. Suicidal even, some might infer
My social perception is basically intact; there are certain things that autists are oblivious to that I perceive. However there is some kind of glitchiness that makes that perception seem to be a curse rather than a blessing. Maybe the glitchiness is not the social perception itself but the other cognitive processes that have to form a chain for it to work. Or maybe I am a bit inclined to be paranoid, or maybe it works too well and I see things people don't want me to see or maybe I find other people's emotions to be too overpowering. (Either way I didn't want to make eye contact as a kid)
> A physician shall recognize a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health.
> […]
> On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.
no, and...\n no
I'm saying, behavior analysis people: behavioral analyze this public record of nuts happenings and have and where have you seen this before?
He might as well have named it 42 since thats "the answer", no?
But he was a much more “on-paper” billionaire because his wealth was tied to some oil companies that had that valuation only on paper. It was tied to finding a lot of oil on some places. When that didn’t happen, all that “wealth” went to dust and he was back to being “only” a multimillionaire.
chop
>I wonder if any psychologist or mental health professional has done an analysis of Musk's `X` obsession
Only if said psychologist wants to look ridiculous.
>I wonder if its in reference to the variable x since it can be anything he assigns it
I mean, clearly? I don't even think that's a secret.
>Its definitely a common narcissistic trait
IMO its fine to dislike Musk but suggesting someone is a narcissist because they like the letter X is an insane stretch. Especially from an armchair.
I think trying to diagnose people with anything over the internet is a dangerous precedence.
I think people are free to speculate, I just don't think it is at all productive. I mean, I honestly think he has some form of bi-polar but trying to diagnose narcissism because he likes the letter X and what it implies is crazy. It would be like me saying OP has agoraphobia because he has "obscurity" in his name. I could be right on both accounts but making diagnoses over the internet never ends well.
No credible professional is going to diagnose someone over the internet based off of twitter comments.
Edit: professionals will give opinions as [is appropriate and they are falled upon to do so]
No disagreement, lets do it here aha
You're asking a psychologist to do an analysis on someone based on their affinity for the letter X.
If someone asked if any psychologists have analyzed you because of your comment implying liking the letter X is narcissism, I would call them out all the same. It would look like someone searching for a psychologist to diagnose someone just to confirm their bias.
Hell, we don't even need hypothetical. Conservatives on twitter practically foam at the mouth to have a psychologist "analyze" Joe Biden and all but diagnose him with dementia.
If there's one thing I learned about dealing with a folks who have nothing but accusations (this is directed at the perpetrators you gave as an example) it is that they are frequently worst-positioned to be examined on the exact same material they use as a sword sans shield. They have no shield because they lack a defense beyond just fighting with their target over the sword, when they are inevitably challenged and parried easily
Edit: also, I'm more asking what is a pattern of behavior with similar facts indicative of or what clinical observations or inferences can be derived on a facial level?
Edit: Julius Caesar had the falling sickness [epilepsy] Rome had a right to know that and take it into consideration as part of the populace's/Senate's delegation of all or most of State authority to this one impresdive and well-financed man
Edit: most importantly, your prose is a little bit like a prism with light being refracted into a house of mirrors that are being infinitely recursively reflected on a concave trajectory
Between a pattern or course of behavior and the person carrying out the behavior? I would say that someone's public actions and remarks are not subject to therapist-patient privilege and that it is completely acceptable and defensible to look at a pattern of behavior and its dicrete component actions and derive conclusions for that based on similar and previously observed behavior from other anonymized and representative patients via case studies and clinical observations.
Seriously, I need this right now
Behavior can be analysed and parsed. Nobody is asking for anyone to rediagnose or diagnose at all. I'm asking if people who make their livelihood analysing other's behavior can do exactly that using Mr Musk's Twitter-related behavior as input and can it be intelligibly explained , not that Mr Musk's and/or his behavior needs to show up and lay on a divan and pour its heart out and waive therapist-patient privilege so they can stream the session on YT like some cosmetic surgeons/dermatologists do.
Are we gonna respond to written things or should we skip that pesky part and just rave about all the misconceptions we want to righteously pursue for points?
I honestly believe that the point. Alphabet is suppose to be faceless and unseen. It's free from the perception of it's subservient brands and can act freely to promote it's own interest regardless of public opinion.
the prefix from "meta-physics" and other "meta-things"... in latin this prefix translated into "super-"
Shouldn't that be pronounced Kitter or Chitter?
The only official pronunciation of X in English is "ks", and there are many languages that use X for many different sounds. Shitter is appropriate, I think some Spanish dialects might read it that way.
Also in English x is pronounced as z at the beginning of some Greek-derived words like Xerox and xylophone.
I wonder why politicians don’t all rename themselves “Joe Smith”.
FacebookMeta's Threads get rebranded as twitter, while Musk(paypal)'s keeps using "x" as its name...
Since Musk is obviously throwing away the Twitter trademark, does he eventually lose control over it and someone else just take it and start using it.
Forcing users to pay to access the platform, daily usage limits, flagging companies the boss does not like as shrills, rate limiting paying advertisers, etc.
I love how selectively we apply this criterion to entities we wish to vilify. You could say the same about Google.
Some of these sound like things cool to 5 year olds. I wouldn't expect a 5 year old to know what a googol is.
For the first decade of its existence, Google would show the top 20 links for your search and at the bottom of the page say, "...of 2,000,000" or some other giant number, indicating to users how vast their index was.
"X" is just stupid. They could have at least waited until they added significant new functionality to differentiate it from Twitter with a new name.
Can you though? Googol is word to describe a large number few people would ever have need, or want, to articulate. It's not generic at all.
X is super generic. So much so it's the defacto choice for the placeholder when discussing general things, or the first variable used in maths problems. It's among the most generic a name one could come up with.
When speaking about X, you really need context to determine if we're talking about things in general, or the service formerly known as Twitter.
Yes, you can:
"The term was coined in 1920 by 9-year-old Milton Sirotta (1911–1981), nephew of U.S. mathematician Edward Kasner."
I feel like people don’t mention this as much as one would expect.
> In July 2023, Meta’s Instagram announced its ‘threads’ social media platform and removed Threads Software Limited from its Facebook platform.
This looks initially damning, but working in a big enterprise I can totally see how this would happen accidentally. One team would try to make the purchase, knowing that a product launch is coming. Then another team removes anyone using the name "threads" on any of their properties, not having any idea that the first team tried to purchase it.
(sidenote: nissan.com is currently inaccessible to me. I wonder what'll happen to that domain, given the aforementioned death).
EDIT: I used the words "in that space", was the wrong train of thought there, my bad.
Also, why would another team remove “anyone using the name "threads" on any of their properties”, if not after instruction from upper management?
Assuming that’s what triggered removal, that’s proof that upper management thinks there can be confusion.
It's like if a bank named itself (and trademarked) "Bank", or like if YouTube renamed to (and trademarked) "Videos".
The law shouldn't allow companies to buy rights to already-in-use words. Besides, why would you want to? Isn't it better to have a unique, memorable name?
You're a company. You call yourself "Threads" (and are the the first to do so). Then you should be able to conduct business under the assumption that your name can't be hijacked, or smeared. Sounds like a basic form of protection to me. It gets abused, probably, like everything, but that's not a reason to stop it.
If not, what's to stop anyone from calling themselves Amazon, Apple, Facebook, etc.? I'm sure there are a few vendors who would love the opportunity.
Nothing, but wealth
From April 2023, Meta’s lawyers made four offers to purchase the domain ‘threads.app’ from Threads Software Ltd. Every offer was declined. It was made clear to Meta’s Instagram that the domain was not for sale.
Totally their right, too, if they're the legal trademark holder.
It looks like the current guy running TSL is the guy who founded it [1] so I find it entirely likely he's not interested in re-naming his company.
Depending on the details[1], anywhere from $1M upwards.
[1] Is it all expenses or do I have to pay for food, etc.? Where is it going? Are there any stops for excursions and tours? etc.etc.
Also, declining all offers to purchase something doesn't mean there isn't a price you would sell. Even if you say it is not for sale, every business has a price.
Lets just assume Meta will be disallowed to use the name Threads in the UK, now what? They will rename the app just in the UK, they make an even bigger insane offer to Threads to settle this and Threads lets them use it under certain conditions, like letting them get their FB with that name back ...
Why are you to claim their are not looking for money, they like every company is "looking for money". They may not want any money from Meta (we do not know) but they are looking to make the most possible money with their brand name - hence "looking for money" either way.
Addendum: I recently re-signed-up for FB in 2020 & 3 years later killed my account because of the sheer amount of irrelevant content. Felt like I was watching bad TV.
https://gizmodo.com/threads-has-lost-more-than-80-of-daily-a...
Are you still talking about the name choice, or the business in general? Copying a very popular product is not a bad idea, and having a lot of capital to back it certainly does help.
Copying a very popular product.... that doesn't depend on a social aspect. Copying social products is way different to copying Excel, etc.
Even if these numbers are moderately inaccurate, Threads is still a smashing success given the time frame. The copying seems to have gone very well. Don't forget they were piggy backing off their own successful social media app, Instagram.
Why not?
Does anyone else have a general dislike of companies trademarking such generic, common words? It feels very tacky to try to associate themselves with everyday nouns and adjectives in an attempt to place their product in our brains at every opportunity. Might as well block the windows of my house with a giant billboard.
Viewable here (consider using the torrent):
It also plays a role in a popular series of SF novels by Anne McCaffrey.
Slack gets to trademark "Slack" for messaging software. Microsoft doesn't get to trademark "Word" for word processors.
What does that actually mean, they banned the FB account from Threads Software for the sole reason that they wanted to use their name? No offer to rename or anything just straight ban as retaliation for daring not selling the domain to them?
Copyright is different from trademark btw. Trademark is for being recognized as a business entity in a specific area of business.
Just about every rule is different. E.g. anyone can copy trademarks as much as they like as long as they are using them to describe the actual trademarked thing.
Hard to defend internationally, but impressive none the less.
=)
(https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-live....
https://www.businessinsider.com/threads-meta-app-decrease-da...
Not buying the .com in advance of launch is the most rookie mistake.
Like Meta?... or Threads?
This should apply for both threads software and meta.
I'm a bit surprised how many people here have sympathy for companies trying to enforce exclusivity over common names. Let anybody use "threads" if they want.
If you choose a generic word for your brand name, don't be surprised when a bigger company chooses the same generic word and ruins your SEO. This has happened before. Maybe it's not fair, but it's extremely foreseeable. It seems much easier to me to choose a creative name in the first place than to risk a legal battle wherein you have to prove that really you should be able to use that dictionary word because you thought of it first. As other commenters have pointed out, since Threads (Meta) and Threads (software) operate in different spaces, Threads's (software) claim for exclusivity is tenuous anyway.
Trademarks are exactly for this situation: to allow people to establish brands, and protect from imposters and goodwill thieves.