It compares two companies of different eras with the same name, who ran into their doppelgängers because companies founded 15 years ago had telephone numbers and companies founded 6 years ago don't. I think it's gorgeous.
It compares two companies of different eras with the same name, who ran into their doppelgängers because companies founded 15 years ago had telephone numbers and companies founded 6 years ago don't. I think it's gorgeous.
Clearly some of Uber's customers (and want-to-be customers) want to contact Uber this way. Instead, Uber enjoys having them deflected to some other business to deal with and rationalizes it as 'not in our business model'.
Obviously this is not surprising given the other parts of Uber's 'business model', whereby they attempt to absolve themselves of all kinds of liability by 'contracting' with their workforce (I mean employees) [I mean drivers].
I don't know if Uber has published its 'business model', but I wouldn't be surprised if it was short and to the point: 'Externalize all costs. Internalize all profits.'
Massive infringement lawsuit with actual + punitive damages is probably in order. Would likely be poetic justice, at least.
You file your trademark for a particular type of business - it does not give you the right to practice that business elsewhere.
For example, McDonalds Hardware, a fairly popular Hardware business, does not have the right to open up a McDonalds FastFood restaurant.
Normal, human-sized companies can't go up against venture-backed empires run by people with egos the size of football stadiums because the costs and risks of legal action is so massively stacked in favour of the rich and powerful.