Threads Software Limited says its lawyers have informed Meta that it will seek an injunction from the courts if the Facebook parent keeps using the name Threads...
  • @Leafeytea@beehaw.orgEnglish
    37•2 years ago

    “It appears that Meta was aware of Threads before launching its platform of the same name. Company lawyers made four offers to purchase the domain ‘threads.app’ from Threads Software Ltd from April 2023, all of which were declined. Meta announced Threads in July 2023, the same time that the British company says it was removed from Facebook.”

    Another reason to find Zuck & Company disgusting. Apparently “no” doesn’t mean “no” – will keep this in mind, next time I am downtown and come across any of their team…

    • @MJBrune@beehaw.orgEnglish
      12•2 years ago

      Uh, I don’t want to know exactly what you are implying but those people are still people. It’s really not okay to threaten groups like that. These are folks making a living where they can. How does that make it okay to imply that you are going to attack them?

      • @thepaperpilot@beehaw.org
        12•2 years ago

        The bit about “no” not meaning “no” means they’re specifically implying meta employees can be sexually assaulted even if they say no. I’m sure it’s said in jest, but it’s still a fairly offensive comment.

        • @Leafeytea@beehaw.orgEnglish
          1•2 years ago

          That is NOT what I said and NOT what I meant. The Mod removed this comment due to everyone saying I was somehow threatening everyone. They did not publish my response to the message they sent me, so this needs to be cleared up.

          What I am saying is that clearly these people do not take NO for an answer, even when it’s clear NO means NO. They ignored it and did what they wanted anyway. I said I would keep this behaviour in mind whenever I am downtown because I live in SF and go by their headquarters literally every day and have already see a lot of their people, and in fact some awful behaviour from some that work there. Interacting with them is something a **WANT TO AVOID. ** I was not implying in ANY WAY that I intended to harm or threaten them.

      • @renard_roux@beehaw.org
        1•2 years ago

        From Wikipedia:

        “Meta” had been registered as a trademark in the United States in 2018 (after an initial filing in 2015) for marketing, advertising, and computer services, by a Canadian company that provided big data analysis of scientific literature. This company was acquired in 2017 by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI), a foundation established by Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan, and became one of their projects. Following the rebranding announcement, CZI announced that it had already decided to deprioritize the earlier Meta project, that it would be transferring its rights to the name to Meta Platforms, and that the project would end in 2022.

        So, they bought it through their (non-profit?) foundation and killed it to harvest the name?

  • theinspectorst
    18•2 years ago

    I mean, they’re obviously not going to, so I guess Zuckerberg better go dust off what I can only assume is his comically large chequebook…

    • Lvxferre
      19•2 years ago

      I think that’s neither. The whole thing boils down for me to an adult trying to strike a deal with a kid so the kid gives up their ice cream, the kid saying “no!”, and then the adult still grabbing the ice cream by force.

      In other words I think that Meta run some risk assessment on the move, and decided that it was still profitable.

      • @joemo@lemmy.sdf.org
        5•2 years ago

        Yeah, I’d actually argue it’s the opposite. Meta knows exactly what it’s doing, it just sucks for the little guy.

        Meta will just drag this out in the courts until the little guy can’t afford to keep going and then they settle.

    • @Overzeetop@beehaw.org
      1•2 years ago

      Considering that Threads was not trademarked by Meta before their launch (or, at least, isn’t listed on their Trademarks page ) it is a massive fail on their legal department.

  • @t3rmit3@beehaw.org
    1•2 years ago

    As long as the other company was actually USING the trademark, Meta will probably have to pay up. If the company was doing “Trademark-squatting”, with no real market use, Meta will probably get control of it. That’s all assuming they don’t settle for a few hundred thousand.