> Threads - an intelligent message hub provided by Threads Software Limited - was conceived and trademarked in 2012 by JPY Ltd. The service has been actively promoted worldwide since 2014.
> 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.
(Not a lawyer, but have gained some working knowledge of UK trademarks.)
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).
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.
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.
The fact that Meta removed Threads Software from FB implies that Meta itself considered there to be a likelihood of confusion between the two. They should lose hard here.
I agree that does seem to be something of a smoking gun.
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.
That first argument just sounds like bullying and may be anti-competitive business practices. IANAL but I think refusing a specific person's access to your product specifically because they refused to sign a separate contract with you would be seen as a pretty clear case of you abusing your market control and probably some form of coercion. I'd love to see FB declare that - but it's much more likely they'd stick to "Oh, violated our TOS for some reason".
"Oh? What?... Oops, The Algorithm banned your fanpage because it was flagged, wait, let me check, ah yes, multiple reports of trademark violation on behalf of... Meta? Oh that's us. I apologize, it seems our employees were ever so vigilant but didn't know your app is a thing. An innocent false positive, nothing more."
Meta is in the business of class 9 “extraction of business information and knowledge” from users of the Threads app, and it can be plausibly claimed that either Meta’s Threads app is a source of class 9 business material at Meta, or that Meta must state formally that it does not collect business information and knowledge from the users of the Threads app, which obviously Meta cannot claim.
This isn't even the first time this has happened. Remember when they renamed Libra? I think they just assume it doesn't matter, and if it does, the settlement will be a blip. It doesn't always work out that way for them.
The company was founded on it. It was "thefacebook.com" for years as it fought to get the domain name without "the". (Also, there were lots of face books at the time. Claiming "The" was a wild hair that also seemed to win PR for them.)
I'm just more surprised they didn't just buy out the company outright. That used to be Microsoft's thing...why bother, if I can just "embrace and extinguish" them?
> I think they just assume it doesn't matter, and if it does, the settlement will be a blip. It doesn't always work out that way for them.
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.
The question is whether Facebook’s use is likely to confuse consumers: software isn’t a category of its own, everything is software now, and this is different software — any context immediately distinguishes the usages (and there’s no reputation for Facebook to be maliciously trying to leverage). I doubt Facebook will lose. The lawsuit is just chancing for a settlement based on it being easier for Facebook to settle than defend.
I assume Facebook sells ads to UK business, which is something the UK could stop. They probably also have UK employees but I'm too lazy to confirm that.
Funny you mention that, because the UK (CMA) ordered Facebook to undo its acquisition of Giphy after it had already closed on the grounds that Giphy might potentially have entered the UK market and competed with Facebook had it not been acquired
No, but looking at the offering from Threads Software, it was probably the most value Threads Software founders were ever going to extract from the company.
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).
They might be able to find a lawyer to take this on contingency. Meta has very deep pockets and will pay plenty of money just to save the embarrassment .
Resource Burn. Meta can throw more money at any court case, so if the judge is bent, which happens, it can become a long drawn out process. Personally though, despite having the trademark for a trademark with the word "threads", note lowercase, its also got a logo filed which might complicate the situation.
https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/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.
"Threads" always seemed like a lawsuit waiting to happen.
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.
I would be willing to put odds on that. Twitter seems hell bent on random acts of chaos. While I really dislike Facebook, they know to not rock the boat. Advertisers want to know they have a relatively safe and stable space for customers to engage.
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.
Threads is pretty dang generic. Facebook also renamed itself to Meta and Google to Alphabet. There seems to be a competition among tech billionaires to try to come up with the blandest brand names possible.
Facebook and Google renaming were on the corporate side. I can still go to google.com or facebook.com and see the normal branding. And Facebook specially was part of an actual marketing strategy.
Journalists seem to talk about "X, the service formerly known as Twitter" or similar - I guess they have to call the company by its official name but also want people to know what they're talking about
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.
It helps preventing people from succeeding to search for negative affairs on Google. Try “scandal Facebook” vs “scandal Meta”. And it barely impacts the brand recognition if you do marketing right.
I wonder why politicians don’t all rename themselves “Joe Smith”.
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.
I wonder if any psychologist or mental health professional has done an analysis of Musk's `X` obsession... I wonder if its in reference to the variable x since it can be anything he assigns it? Its definitely a common narcissistic trait. Let it be so, lol
I realize this is probably just a joke that isn't intended to actually add much to the discussion, but thankfully actual mental health professionals without an agenda wouldn't dare interpret something so trivial and shallow as that as serious evidence of pathology.
Yes, and moreover it is in the APA's Principles of Medical Ethics to decline to comment on public figures they haven't seen personally:
> 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.
Honestly, I hate the notion of downvotes but this response is mighty tempting. You haven't answered the question in the way you think you have. Nobody is being solicited to legit provide a diagnosis of Mr. Musk. Imma call him that from now on like Mr. Trump. Also, I agree with the "comments in general" comment
I'm saying, behavior analysis people: behavioral analyze this public record of nuts happenings and have and where have you seen this before?
I don't think it is that shallow, but sure, no professional would judge on one incident alone. But otherwise there are plenty of other open examples of ... interesting behavior.
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.
I honestly feel bad in a detached way that people are "allowed" to ever get to this point. Its like those people born without pain/heat sensors (nociceptors?) who are technically painless/can tolerate any temperature but all that means is they never have a natural feedback loops that keeps them alive and thst they don't need to actively manage 24/7/365/80 if they even make it that far.
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)
This could theoretically easily be accommodated by literally just describing the exact facts and events etc without naming the individual and simply requesting a behavioral analysis which is populated by all the publicly known info and requesting the therapeutic equivalent of a directed verdict which is open to the inclusion of more facts if anyone disagrees with the product of the inquiry
Also, in what world is taking an established brand and renaming it a single alphabet letter based on a defunct previous investment trivial/shallow? Like, I get your point and obviously that act in and of itself is a shallow ridiculous thing but i feel like you're heavily underststing how truly asinine the whole saga is to the extent that calling it shallow is beyond incomprehensible. Thats pretty extreme.
He might as well have named it 42 since thats "the answer", no?
It just might be his age. In the 90s "X" was super cool in the culture that people his age may have been into. In particular comic books. X-Men, X-Factor, X-Force, Gen-X, etc... No clue though.
There was a Brazilian billionaire also obsessed with “X”, Eike Batista. “X” had a mystical significance for him, it meant a multiplier or whatever. He would name all of his companies with “X” too, before Musk I believe.
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.
So me and my compatriot Sherlock have concurred that the problem here is nobody is responding to the actual prompt here. I said more or less that I wondered if there have been any analyses done on the specific concept of being obsessed with a letter of the alphabet as it relates to Musk's context and also I am being a bit reductive in my summary here but I feel like I'm not doing it injustice because there's a bit of a rhetorical fire that needs to lit to help get a proper response to this inquiry that so far has only yielded maybe like 2 passable responses
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 mean looking into his mental state is certainly not ridiculous. No matter for or against Musk's his politics, business ventures or 4chan edgelord shit. Being in his position must leave marks on your mental health.
>I mean looking into his mental state is certainly not ridiculous
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.
There's a lot of people who are answering a question that doesn't exist at the expense of the question that does exist and is consequently the only relevant matter here on which to respond. The hallucination I'm seeing rivals nay overshadows that of ChatGPT. Maybe I should ask "them"
Where is the word diagnosis or any semblance in my original question? Your response and the question it ostensibly satisfies are "simulacratic" it would seem
Edit: professionals will give opinions as [is appropriate and they are falled upon to do so]
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.
I wouldn't be averse to that both because it should be standard practice for the most powerful nation in the world to ensure its leader is of sound mind on a legally non-partisan basis and that there should likely be an symmetric-level of comittment for both parties to do so with their current "front-runners" to the same extent as their citizenship and place of birth are relevant to their constitutional qualification for office.
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.
Clearly it's because he is offering to bankroll a supra-national group of elite soldiers to fight the alien menace that threatens our species and way of life, and he is hoping that
"[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
Google's name makes perfect sense, it's a derivative of the word "googol" which is 10^100.
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.
Generic-ism is the goal with the name. The intention is for it to become a generic "everything" app, so a generic name makes sense. It signals a message too. The change from a community where everyone is chirping each other to one which values long-form discussion and balanced discourse. X also symbolizes strength and the crossing of paths.
But it has no useful function except to chirp at one another. It neither encourages nor possesses a body of long form writing or intelligent discussion and it's only more balanced insofar as it has more fascists and Nazis than it used to in addition to angry left wing folks.
Which I understand was the toddler's pronunciation of the elephant Horton from Dr. Seuss which also this spawned another 2 billion dollar elephant logo company Hortonworks (now part of Cloudera) who started by developing and supporting open-source software primarily around Apache Hadoop.
I learned what Google was when I was 8, so not exactly 5, but still pretty young. My parents bought an encyclopedia set that came with a separate set of books aimed at kids. Early 80s for reference
> 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.
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.
I don't even see the first half as particularly damning. Owning a domain name doesn't mean you own exclusive rights for the trademark ---in that space---. Uzi Nissan (who I've just found out died, R.I.P), couldn't demand Nissan stop selling cars with Nissan, just because he owned Nissan.com, and wouldn't sell 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.
I don't get it. Forum "threads" are a well-established, common word. How can you just trademark a core domain word like that?
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.
If you had read the article, they aren't looking for money.
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.
That is a fallacy, stupid claim that because they do not sell (for what? we do not even know) the domain with THEIR NAME in it that they are not looking for money. In fact they know that KEEPING the name actually will make them possibly more money in the long run. This new alone brings them on the radar of millions of people who never even heard of Threads Software.
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.
Enough money for the whole company, not just the domain.
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.
Threads was a dumb idea, clearly pushed by non-product executives. If there were any product people, then wtf were you thinking? You can't expect to waltz in to that arena, zero plan and expect your "Meta" backing to carry you. Especially given that FB has become an absolute mess of a product.
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.
> You can't expect to waltz in to that arena, zero plan and expect your "Meta" backing to carry you
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.
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.
After the initial release, they dropped down to a more stable 100 million DAU, but they've been steadily growing and twitter has been steadily bleeding users. It's a successful product, it's just not a "facebook scale" successful product.
Because it just doesn't work that way with relational networks. A user is on FB because their friends are - same with Insta & X. You're not building the next best fridge, you're building a community - and that takes time, effort & appeal. It is exactly why social is so hard & takes so long.
I think about POSIX threads, but C is a formative part of my brain.
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.
An exceptionally harrowing one, yep. Content related to it is the first few results if I search for "threads" on Youtube (down a few results, videos mocking Facebook's "Threads" start getting mixed in)
Le sigh. Threads is a generic term in messaging and forums (even BBS?) and has been since before Threads Software Limited started in 2014. Just being awarded a trademark doesn't mean it will hold up. Doesn't help that they've apparently let threads.com run since 2019.
Slack gets to trademark "Slack" for messaging software. Microsoft doesn't get to trademark "Word" for word processors.
"Meta’s Instagram announced its ‘threads’ social media platform and removed Threads Software Limited from its Facebook platform. "
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?
It's not copyrightable. It's trademarkable. Completely different thing.
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.
I detest Meta as much as the next guy but I can't bring myself to feel bad for Threads Software Limited here. This is what you get when you pick your company name out of a dictionary in an attempt to be trendy/minimalist.
Yes-like Meta, or Threads, or Apple, Glean, Element, X, Zoom, etc.
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.
Precisely. If you chose your product/company name to be a common word in the english language you should expect it to be more difficult to exclude others from using it too. I don't think there's anything wrong with this, it's just the consequence of a non-distinctive trademark.
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.
Shouldn't you feel "bad" for Meta then? They apparently both "picked the name out of the dictionary in an attempt to be trendy/minimalist" _and_ knew about Threads Software Limited before they put the name into use anyway.
> 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://threads.cloud/
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?