Meta had a product previously called Threads, there's lots of companies called Apple. They are billed as a slack replacement and not a twitter replacement. I'm not seeing the issue.
Maybe I’m wrong but I thought I heard Facebook Threads doesn’t support hashtags (one of those things that matters if they connect to the fedi because I just found out hashtags are the royal road to visibility there…)
What they're saying is, they don't see a legal issue. They do understand the names are the same, and are noting that commonplace words often have this issue.
More of an opportunity than an issue. Now they can sell the company to Meta for the domain name instead of simply folding when their Slack replacement fails.
Sure, those are both great outcomes for Threads.com. It's hard to see this being a problem rather than an opportunity for them. One wonders if they already do have such a name licensing agreement and just couldn't come to an agreement on buying the domain itself.
Helping people leave your App isn't the the top of most product manager's goals; even without the managment nightmare.
Utilising inherent network effects to aid discovery within your app is the top of most product manager's goals.
Not allowing URLs is neglecting one of the fundamental pieces of the World Wide Web, no matter what product manager's goal is to line is swimming pool with gold.
Apple records (Apple corp) had an issue back in the early apple computer days. Then when Apple released its itunes store, Apple records really had an issue, but there was some litigation and they settled..
"The settlement includes terms that are confidential, although newspaper accounts at the time stated that Apple Computer was buying out Apple Corps' trademark rights for a total of $500 million."
Perhaps Meta's attorneys will do the 'nice' thing and pay to license the name from them. Apple paid Cisco millions for the right to use the name iOS/iPhone, and Cisco retained the right to continue to use the trademark.
The services the registration covers (in Class 42) are: "Platform as a service (PAAS) featuring computer software platforms for use in project management and collaboration for the technology and media industries that allows organizations and users to create, upload, share, discuss, store, and search content meant for users of the platform; none of the foregoing specifically targeting decision support among healthcare professionals and facilities"
IANYL, but the registration by Threads for THREADS is in Class 42: "Platform as a service (PAAS) featuring computer software platforms for use in project management and collaboration for the technology and media industries that allows organizations and users to create, upload, share, discuss, store, and search content meant for users of the platform; none of the foregoing specifically targeting decision support among healthcare professionals and facilities"
I don't see how this is any different than a product named "Websites" or "Blogs" or "Comments". It's like a genericized trademark, except there was no trademark to begin with.
There should be no trademark protection for companies which use existing words as their name, especially if the word describes their business. "Slack" as a software name is borderline; "Slacks" as a name of a clothing company is crazy.
This is being heavily downvoted but it raises a very valid point. Again IANAL but in my vague recollection from dealing with this years ago, if "thread" is such a commonplace word in describing message boards, then it is not protected in the same way that, say, "Twitter" is. It would be like trying to argue only my bakery can use the word "cake"
