Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Facebook Slashdot.org

A Startup Says It Applied To Trademark Meta Before Facebook (businessinsider.com) 81

Posted by BeauHD from the we-all-know-how-this-is-going-to-end dept.
Thelasko shares a report from Business Insider: Facebook announced last week that it's changing its name to Meta. But the transition might not be without obstacles. A company is already after the "Meta" trademark -- and was well before Facebook rolled out its new moniker. Arizona-based startup Meta PC founder Zach Shutt told Insider the company filed for the "Meta" trademark in August. The Patent and Trademark Office website confirms the filing, which states that Meta PC first began using the brand for its range of products in November 2020. [Founders Zach Shutt and Joe Darger] said they're willing to stand down if CEO Mark Zuckerberg pays them $20 million, TMZ reported. However, Shutt declined to confirm the amount, or that it made such a proposal.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Startup Says It Applied To Trademark Meta Before Facebook More

A Startup Says It Applied To Trademark Meta Before Facebook

Comments Filter:

  • Different lines of business (Score:5, Informative)

    by djinn6 ( 1868030 ) on Thursday November 04, 2021 @10:20PM (#61958867)

    One's a collection of social media websites, the other sells PC parts. The trademark would not be enforceable.

    Not to mention that trademark hasn't even been granted to Meta PC yet.

    • I bet they'll get their $20 mil. Facebook makes VR gear, why even worry about it, Meta PC's price will only go up in the future if Facebook does veer into their territory. Like Apple Computer did eventually with Apple records.

      • Re:Different lines of business (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Thursday November 04, 2021 @10:49PM (#61958939)

        I bet they'll get their $20 mil.

        Perhaps. But if the CEO of Meta-PC really named an unsolicited price, the USPTO could interpret that as squatting.

        The company-formerly-known-as-Facebook needs to fire the lawyer in charge of this. The very first step in selecting a new name is to nail down the IP. It is hard to believe that a trillion-dollar company screwed that up.

        • They're in business and using the name, so it wouldn't generally fall under squatting. Furthermore, a company is entitled to sell trademarks it owns, for any price they like (sellers market).

          However, since success in such lawsuits depends not on the law, but on the expertise of the lawyers to shape the meaning and intent of the law and precedence to their will, the advantage in any such anti-squatting lawsuit would be firmly on Facebook's side. I'd consider it unwise to try to sell the name. They'd be on
        • Squatting is not cognizable before an examiner with the USPTO. Simple as that.
      • Facebook's trademark covers wearables and VR headsets. Meta's doesn't cover that.

        • That would all be covered under "PC parts" under the "idiot in a hurry" test so, yes, it does cover that.

          • I'm assuming the "idiot in a hurry test" comment refers to the fact you didn't do your homework and not an insult to me? It's interesting; I've posted about this topic in a few places about the reality of trademarks, given that I've actually filed trademarks in the US and internationally, gotten them registered (not just TM but (R)), arbitrated co-existence agreements, arbitrated conflicts over the trademarks, etc. Every time i post that what these guys think they have doens't actually work within tradema

    • Meta is a generic term. Albeit not that common in english.

      Could not be trademarked in a country like Germany.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Xenx ( 2211586 )
        It's a relatively common term user online, which would be relevant given the nature of Facebook/Meta.
      • >Meta is a generic term. Albeit not that common in english.
        It's very common in English. What an odd statement to make.

        >Could not be trademarked in a country like Germany.
        This is another incorrect and strange statement to make, considering it has been successfully registered and renewed in Germany previously. The last registration for the word trademark only expired in 2014. https://register.dpma.de/DPMAr... [register.dpma.de]
        • And another instance of the word mark, albeit for a different product. This one only cancelled in 2018, What a shame they didn't hold onto it for a little longer - they could have prevented Facebook from producing a line of alcoholic beverages. xD https://register.dpma.de/DPMAr... [register.dpma.de]

        • The last registration for the word trademark only expired in 2014. https://register.dpma.de/DPMAr [register.dpma.de]... [register.dpma.de]
          Then they used a trick. Like having a company with that name, and registering it as a trademark later.

      • Common has nothing to do with it. Trademarks are owned as a word specifically in the use of commerce in a given category. You don't own the word forever, you simply own the word in the context of you plan to brand and use what you sell only.

        You could make an organic food store called and trademarked as Intel and nothing would stop you, because no one would confuse the two.

        • Generally speaking generic terms are specifically excluded from trademark eligibility. Many a company manages to squirm in through the back door to get such a trademark, but it will almost certainly not stand up to any legal challenge.

          Probably the most famous example is the Windows(tm) operating system, which not only uses a term that was generic long before computers existed, but was a common name for the graphical representation of applications and dialogs within a GUI-based OS before Windows(tm) existed

        • You could make an organic food store called and trademarked as Intel and nothing would stop you, because no one would confuse the two.
          Would not work in Germany. While your general argument is correct, Intel has a name like "Tempo", "Coke" , "Aspirin". Everyone *knows what it is* - of course intel the food store would be assumed to be part of Intel, the Chip company. And on that base Intel could prevent you from using it.

          It even works for family names. There was a big company called Schneider (Schneider is a

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by aitikin ( 909209 )

        Meta is a generic term. Albeit not that common in english.

        Could not be trademarked in a country like Germany.

        Based upon that logic, the term "target" could not be trademarked, but Target [target.com] has a trademark on their name.

        • That is not "logic".
          That is the law, mate.

          If they can sneak in a trademark despite the fact that it can not be trademarked it is the fault of the trade mark office.

          And as others have pointed out: a trademark is for a certain area of use. If you found a company, that is only working in trade X, which has a "common name", there is most likely an exception that you can trade mark it after being Y years in business.

      • Meta is a generic term. Albeit not that common in english.

        Could not be trademarked in a country like Germany.

        Someone better tell Apple that they can't trademark their name because it's a generic term.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by cob666 ( 656740 )
        Trademarks are usually pretty specific, on purpose. A business trademark on 'Meta' would only apply to the limited business use of the work as it relates to the usage parameters that were granted. It can't stop anyone from using 'Meta' in any other way that isn't defined in the trademark application. It's also possible that another company could use 'Meta' in a completely different market segment if the original application doesn't already cover that market segment.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Pimpy ( 143938 )

      It depends entirely under which NICE classifications the mark has been filed. The fact they are doing different things operationally does not prevent the business from having applied for a wide scope across multiple classes. There are also plenty of classifications that could be equally applied to either.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dpille ( 547949 )
        Nice classifications are named after the city in which the agreement was originally signed, so a simple initial cap is sufficient.

        Under US law, the classifications are irrelevant to both registration and non-infringing use: the key is whether consumers would potentially be confused as to source, affiliation, sponsorship or endorsement when the mark is used. You're not doing JOHN DEERE fertilizer (class 1) just because they're only registered in class 7 (agricultural machines). Limiting registration of JA

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Pimpy ( 143938 )

          That may hold true for US law as a first-to-use jurisdiction, but it doesn't internationally. Facebook is presumably seeking out the trademark in more countries than just the US, ergo, classes are literally the only thing that matter. Notably, you also cannot add additional classes to an existing filing, so it's best to have things sorted out at the time of filing if you'd like to avoid having the clock reset on you later should you have forgotten something. There are also only a small handful of countries

    • Can call objects musils, meta musils, helps digest but our turns to crap

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by OzPeter ( 195038 )

      So the Nissan guy should never have had any problems?

      https://jalopnik.com/uzi-nissa... [jalopnik.com]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by cob666 ( 656740 )

        So the Nissan guy should never have had any problems?

        https://jalopnik.com/uzi-nissa... [jalopnik.com]

        That was never REALLY about trademark infringement, Nissan motors just used that as a weapon to try and leverage the domain name away from Nissan computer because they were late to the internet game.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by OzPeter ( 195038 )

          So the Nissan guy should never have had any problems?

          https://jalopnik.com/uzi-nissa... [jalopnik.com]

          That was never REALLY about trademark infringement, Nissan motors just used that as a weapon to try and leverage the domain name away from Nissan computer because they were late to the internet game.

          The point I was making was that the big company would *never* abuse its power when dealing with a much smaller company

    • One's a collection of social media websites, the other sells PC parts. The trademark would not be enforceable.

      Kind of like Apple Computer vs. Apple Music. It's cool as long as Apple Computer doesn't go into the music business.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by cob666 ( 656740 )

        One's a collection of social media websites, the other sells PC parts. The trademark would not be enforceable.

        Kind of like Apple Computer vs. Apple Music. It's cool as long as Apple Computer doesn't go into the music business.

        Which they did, and ended up paying for it, several times.

    • Decades ago, maybe 35 years back, a guy was marketing a clever piece of software called the Meta Assembler for the BBC Micro. I was using it to cross assemble code for the 8085. I still have his ROMs.

      The Meta term is by no means new.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cob666 ( 656740 )
      Trademarks are usually granted to the first to apply

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by drnb ( 2434720 )

      Which FB seems to own.

      Because they are in the PC business and their domain name includes both the letters "meta" and letters "pc". "Meta" was probably already taken when this PC company was formed, facebook probably bought it from someone else.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by drnb ( 2434720 )

      Which FB seems to own.

      When creating a new venture, the first step is to get the domain. The second step is to get the trademark.

      • I wonder how many different 'meta' trademarks facebook purchased through straw buyers so people wouldn't know it was moneybags facebook before announcing the name change.

        • This is what I wondered about. How did they go about buying out all the "meta" properties without raising suspicion as to their new name. Meta a is very common term used on the internet. I find it amazing that they were able to get meta.com and @meta on twitter along with a bunch of other things without drawing suspicion.

      • Or in the case of Apple back in the day, "print the t-shirts" goes in after project name and before picking up a soldering iron...

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by NFN_NLN ( 633283 )

      There is no way a 4 letter domain AND one that spells an actual word was just unoccupied. Those domains are all being squatted on so Facebook had to buy it. And Facebook would certainly have deep enough pockets to do it whereas Meta PC likely wouldn't.

      I can type any random 4 character domain and it's probably taken: ydrt.com -- taken

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by irving47 ( 73147 )

      Do you know how few four-letter words are available for dot com registration? I doubt there's a single dictionary word unregistered.

  • from the creator of the "Culture and Normalization of Intellectual Theft."
  • "Whom do I write the check to?"

  • Meta Company speaks about USPTO and Facebook Corp (Score:5, Informative)

    by nadass ( 3963991 ) on Thursday November 04, 2021 @11:35PM (#61959023)
    http://meta.company/ [meta.company]

    They also have an active US Registered Trademark (via US PTO filing) since 2013 or so.

  • Is the meta company just trademark squatters? Or do they actually have in a product?

    The only internet presents The Meta company has that I could find was there meta.company site. This suggests they didn't have an online presence pre-Facebook trademark buyout. But I also think it's good to try and be an impartial critical judge and be as fair to both sides (the world needs more of this).

    Just for the record I hate Facebook and I think everybody should just leave, the fact that Facebook is no longer what it or

  • Is the name "IOI" taken yet?

  • Just down the street from where I live is a small company that sells water fountains for people's yards. The place is called Lowe's Water Gardens. There is no conflict there with Lowe's Home Improvement Stores, no one would be confused. The two companies share the name peacefully.

    Delta Airlines, Delta Plumbing, and Delta Dental all share the same name.

    United Airlines and United Van Lines are very different businesses.

    This story is about Meta PC vs. Meta. I don't think the guy has a case, but that would be for the courts to decide. More likely he just wants an easy $20 million.

    • Delta Airlines, Delta Plumbing, and Delta Dental all share the same name.

      I worked at a company that employed "Apple Security" as their security company (like security people standing around at the entrances so no burglars can get in). Never seen them, they only appeared when I had already left.

    • If they decide they'd rather keep looking, for a measly $20, Facebook can have my trademarked domain and name: PicturesofYourDrunkFriends.com

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hawk ( 1151 )

      The DuBois brewing company sold its "Budweiser" locally long before AB got the bright idea (leaving aside that the AB stuff has nothing in common with the style from Budvar).

      Eventually, AB paid a fortune to the next generation to unify the trademark when the next generation wasn't interested in running the brewery. They received a multiple of what it would otherwise have been worth.

      Or here in Las Vegas, Binion's Horseshoe was purchased solely to unify the trademark, and immediately sold as "Binions".

  • That's how you protect your company from trademark infringement. The USPTO is just a registry. The courts enforce trademark law. If this guy has a case (which I think he doesn't), he'll have to go to court. I'm betting Facebook can pay its lawyers a lot longer than this Meta-PC guy.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cob666 ( 656740 )

      That's how you protect your company from trademark infringement. The USPTO is just a registry. The courts enforce trademark law. If this guy has a case (which I think he doesn't), he'll have to go to court. I'm betting Facebook can pay its lawyers a lot longer than this Meta-PC guy.

      This. ANYONE can register a trade or service mark, but any disputes have to be settled in court. The USPTO (as well as at the state level) have no enforcement authority.

  • If people see a local computer hardware seller ad for a company called Meta-PC, would they be confused and think it's part of the Facebook empire? Well, there's always somebody, but most people would get the difference. That's the legal standard: whether people would be confused about two companies using the same name. And in the end, the courts have to decide that question in this specific case. The guy can squawk all he wants, but until a court tells Meta to change their name, they can legally keep it.

    • The biggest issue is what Facebook markets their hardware under and whether they continue to sell it directly. If Facebook decides to release a Meta Rift (Oculus Rift) and sell it directly, that would clearly create consumer confusion, as both companies are now selling hardware products, under the same name.

    • I mean, facebook does sell hardware. Things like the portal tv and the [formerly] Oculus stuff.

  • There is a guy named Uzi Nissan, who had a website named www.nissan.com. And Nissan motors obviously wanted that name for themselves.

    Lawyers got involved, producing the worst possible result: Uzi Nissan has his website, but isn't allowed to use it for his business, so it's now a permanent rant against Nissan motors. Nissan motors has to use www.nissanmotors.com or something like that.

    You would have thought that a generous payment would have solved the problem making everyone happy, but no, the lawyer

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cob666 ( 656740 )

      There is a guy named Uzi Nissan, who had a website named www.nissan.com. And Nissan motors obviously wanted that name for themselves. Lawyers got involved, producing the worst possible result: Uzi Nissan has his website, but isn't allowed to use it for his business, so it's now a permanent rant against Nissan motors. Nissan motors has to use www.nissanmotors.com or something like that. You would have thought that a generous payment would have solved the problem making everyone happy, but no, the lawyers messed it up.

      Not correct, Uzi can use the website for his business:
      https://www.nissan.com/interne... [nissan.com]
      https://www.nissan.com/service... [nissan.com]

  • They'll probably just either check the couch cushions around the executive suite and pay the ransom or buy the startup outright and then shut it down out of spite.

  • D. Val Schorre published results on his compiler writing language Meta II in 1963-64. Through dusty corner recycling, I somehow ended up with a fanfold listing binder that once contained someone's copy of that code. Early 1980s, Donald Dunstan (Cogitronics, Portland OR) noted his META compiler-writing language and marketed a couple of compilers built with it (my direct experience with one of these).

  • You know, like Google did for the Pixel phone. No one had ever used the word "pixel" before, so it was easy to look up their phones on the web. Google, being a master of web searching, knew this and acted accordingly. Right? Of course right!

    They could have gone for something totally unique, like "Xerox". No one would even think of a word like that! Schmucks.

  • Facebook acting badly (Score:3)

    by pz ( 113803 ) on Friday November 05, 2021 @11:31AM (#61960113) Journal

    Take a moment to read the page at meta.company. Actually, let me save you the effort:

    Facebook Stole Our Name and Livelihood

    Hello, World!

    We are Meta Company.

    Original Flavor.

    For the last three months, Facebook lawyers have been hounding us to sell our name to them. We refused their offer on multiple bases. Namely, the low offer wouldn’t cover the costs of changing our name, and we insisted on knowing the client and intent, which they did not want to disclose.

    At least two law firms were involved: One in the USA that requested our trademark and domains (Kilpatrick, Townsend & Stockton), and the other in Europe aggressively contacting trying to get us to sell our domain registrations (Hogan Lovells).

    On October 20th, 2021, during a phone call with Facebook attorneys, we declined their low offer and maintained our requirements. At this point, we presumed it was Facebook and identified them on the call. The attorney representing Facebook declared they would respect our existing right and registration.

    On October 28th, 2021, Facebook decided to commit trademark infringement and call themselves “Meta”.

    They couldn’t buy us, so they tried to bury us by force of media. We shouldn't be surprised by these actions — from a company that continually says one thing and does another. Facebook and its operating officers are deceitful and acting in bad faith, not only towards us, but to all of humanity.

    It's unfortunate to have been associated with a company so rooted in controversy and fixated on domination. We aim to be distinguished from Facebook's totalitarian view of the future. We hope the negative association with Facebook and its founder will be forgotten — but we won't ignore the damages done.

    We have proceeded to file the necessary legal actions. This message may be regarded as a public cease and desist. We welcome your support.

    One more thing: Our new product launch just got delayed because of Facebook. We must deal with these matters. In the coming weeks, we will make an announcement earlier than we expected. We promise it will be good. Stay tuned.

    Thank You.

    Sincerely,
    Nate Skulic
    Founder, MetaCompany

Slashdot Top Deals

Congratulations! You are the one-millionth user to log into our system. If there's anything special we can do for you, anything at all, don't hesitate to ask!

Close