Comment by mittermayr | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mittermayr | Hacker News Reader

One quick comment: I was threatened and on the brink of being sued by one of Facebook's bigger law firms, because my domain was called "***gram.com" — I went through a couple of calls with them, and they confirmed that the only issue was the use of the word "gram". I tried to stick to my guns, knowing they had nothing (legally) on me, but eventually had to give in once they told me to research the ongoing cases they have with all the other domain owners (which you can all find online). Some of which have been going through lawyer-warfare for over three years (at the time). They basically said, if I have the power to sustain this, they would sue and we'll clear this in court, if I don't want to go through this, I should back off and use a different domain.

So, while I hate saying this, be warned, I was warned and ignored it, and eventually, no matter how tall you feel, that call may come quicker than you think. Keep a second domain around ready to go, make sure you can rebrand. Just my word of (super sad) advice.

Looks great though!

Not that I don't believe what you're saying, but how is this a thing they could possibly expect to hold up as a trademark infringement? They literally own a single recently invented neologism of which neither the prefix nor the root is original. It seems to me that Instacart or Insta360 would be much more open to claims... honestly if it were me, I wouldn't hire a lawyer, just let them know to send me a letter what courthouse I should show up at with a dictionary.

Being right doesn't matter if you aren't rich enough to fight.

> Not that I don't believe what you're saying, but how is this a thing they could possibly expect to hold up as a trademark infringement?

The worst part is that it doesn't even matter if they have a case or not. The mere threat of "Look at how much it'll cost you even if you're right" can be enough for people to pull back.

Recent relevant case is the Sony vs Bleem!, where Bleem! "won" but because of costs, Bleem! had to shut down anyway. So even if Sony lost the court case, they won because they shut down the group.

This exactly... I would represent myself, it would be fun.... and let Meta spend hundreds of thousands on lawyers. If I lost I would drag it out as long as possible and then if by some strange twist of fate I lost, I would declare bankruptcy and write a book about the whole thing.

Or even shoot a documentary as you go. Netflix could end up paying for your time.

I know your comment is just internet puffery, but please know that the old adage is true: "A man who represents himself has a fool for a client."

There is a reason that judges will ask defendents multiple times if they're really, really, truely sure they want to represent themselves before allowing it.

As much as you wish it, a dictionary or common sense does little to nothing in a court of law. Mostly, you'll just annoy the judge who cares not about your dictionary, but the subtle details of copyright law, trademarks, uS code, registration timelines, dates of priority, common use, historical use, due diligence, and 50 other minute technical details I have never even thought about.

I have represented myself in court before... and won. I wouldn't recomend it for everyone, but in a relatively low stakes case, it is better in my opinion, for me, to represent myself than to not have my side heard at all because I can't afford a lawyer. Some folks don't enjoy legal stuff like I do, and it would not be worth yheir time.

I should also clarify that the OP probably made the right choice for them to settle, as they probably had more assets to lose than I do.

I don't remember what podcast I heard it from, but another opinion about representing yourself: it's more taxing on the judge. It consumes more court resources to represent yourself; which already is scarce. Which is why they often make sure you really want to do this.

In most cases, yeah. Most people have little to no idea how the courts run, so judges often have to give large amounts of leeway to non lawyer pro se defendants.

I have no formal training, and am under no illusions that I'm smart enough to do it. But I am curious if I personally could do it. Argue before a judge, and antagonize court staff to figure out what needs to be filed, and how. All depending on the scale and stakes of the case.

Maybe if it's that obnoxious to the state when people represent themselves, the state should provide advocates for civil cases where people can't afford a lawyer.

Any reference to it? I couldn't find anything about Facebook taking action on a domain ending with gram. Was your domain similar to instagram?

Because telegram is still out there.

This is one of them that I remember from 2016:

https://www.theguardian.com/media-network/2016/dec/02/battle...

I don’t see how even Facebook could have an issue with “telegram” being used commercially, but I wouldn’t be totally surprised if they did.

Deep in Meta HQ: "How dare the metric system infringe on our IP"

Telegram has probably sufficient money, so that threatening them into doing what FB/Meta wants does not work. They only go after small enough fish, preying on the weaker.

and other things like storygram, thefoodygram, picturegram, etc.

Not sure I want to post my domain but a bit of research will get you there if you want to confirm it. An Austrian news outlet wrote about the threat when I was involved.

And, I just had a look, here’s an article by someone (not me) who seemed to experience the exact same threat: https://killdozer.medium.com/facebooks-shame-o-gram-8e71106c...

We built a system where the big players don't care if they are in the right. The massive investments necessary to uphold the rights in front of court are what makes it possible for Meta to get through with this BS. I am not sure if this is a problem that mainly manifests in the USA. I haven't heard of private parties or small companies shying back of a court case when they believe they are in the right in Europe.

A big company moneygram.com use it with no problem.

Big companies can afford to - the point is not that Meta would win a case, it's that most people are too small to survive a case long enough to see it through to a win against Meta.

But yet they leave https://telegram.org/ alone for some reason.

Weird that an American company would claim the word "gram". Thought they hate the metric system. /s

Well, then the first question I would ask the court: Why does Meta not sue big comapny XYZ hosting xyzgram.com?

Not that I don't believe OC, but I don't find any example for this story.

Only goes to show once more how despicable FB/Meta as an entity is and acts.

One possible course of action is starting a drama on social media (on not FB) and contacting EFF and such, to get support. Still there will be impact on ones social life and FB/Meta should be punished for making people's life shittier. They think they are too big to fail. I hope one day they will be split up or sued into compliance with some ethics, putting on some tight screws and supervision. This freak show must be stopped.

I think in the EU things might look a bit different, because there was some law against such obvious bullshit lawsuits. Something about "slap" or so in the name of that law? I don't recall exactly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com