A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook)
news.fiftythree.comPeople are going to call the app by Facebook "Facebook Paper" because "Paper" is simply too generic. 53's drawing app name is not strong either. Their iOS app is not called "Paper", but "Paper by FiftyThree". Their icon is not of paper, but of a napkin style rendering of "53". For all intents, the drawing simulation brand name is "FiftyThree". There was a brief moment in history when people thought "I wonder if 53 was acquired". That time has passed, and no one will mistake them from now on.
"Facebook Paper" is an alternative interface to Facebook.
"Paper by FiftyThree" is a drawing application.
Other than that they are both software, there's little room for confusion. 53 can get upset and write a blog post about it, but there is no substantive damage done. They'll probably sell more of their own product because of this.
Whenever I hear the name "Paper" in a mobile / tablet context, I immediately think of 53, and I don't even have an iPad. If Facebook Paper is successful, that will no longer be the case (but it will hurt my perception of Facebook Paper in the meantime).
That said, I don't think 53 can claim any exclusive rights to the name, and I'm happy to see they haven't - they have just asked with exquisite politeness.
Whenever I hear the name "Paper" in a mobile / tablet context, I immediately think of 53, and I don't even have an iPad.
If I took ten people off the street, in San Francisco itself, and asked them who made an iPhone app called "Paper" a majority would probably already tell me Facebook. Perhaps one of them would know of 53, and probably not by name. Being in the mobile software community, we know of a lot of "successful mobile apps" that are not household names. I like and use 53's Paper, but 53 is not Exxon, GE, or Facebook. My friends and family have almost certainly never heard of it. A hundred million unverified global downloads does not equal a hundred million people who remember what your poorly branded, generically named app is called. I usually think of it as "that coffee stain icon with a generic name". Honestly, 53 might do better renaming it "53". Or "Studio 53" if they wanted to skim off of another brand that probably won't fight back.
Paper by FiftyThree is a good product, but a poor choice of name, and I still can't figure out why their app icon says "53" instead of "Paper".
That said, I don't think 53 can claim any exclusive rights to the name, and I'm happy to see they haven't - they have just asked with exquisite politeness.
No. 53 needs to claim exclusivity, claim that there is no possibility of confusion, or live with the reality that if people start calling Facebook Paper just "Paper", that Facebook will legally be able to prevent 53 from using the term. With trademarks it doesn't matter who has been using it longer, only who successfully enforces it.
Actually I think the majority would say "I don't know". Facebook Paper was released a few days ago, so how could the majority of people already know that Facebook makes it."If I took ten people off the street, in San Francisco itself, and asked them who made an iPhone app called "Paper" a majority would probably already tell me Facebook."Furthermore, Facebook also has an app called Messenger and Camera•. They've been around awhile and I'd be surprised if you surveyed people that they would be able to tell you that Facebook makes either. For both, I would expect people to tell you that those are actually the generic name for any phone's build in messenging app and camera app, respectively.
TBH, I really which we'd move to a trademark system that makes all dictionary words untrademarkable. You should have to come up with an original name if you want protection and if you want the generic name you should be able to use it knowing full well that you will have no protection when doing so. Companies should not just be allowed to highjack single words like Paper, Camera, Messenger, Candy, Saga, etc. etc. etc.
"Paper" distribution is mostly based on a solid image of quality and friendliness, and spreads by word of mouth. A legal battle will destroy the former, and name confusion will hurt the later.
I imagine their plan has always been to enjoy the use Paper as long as they can, and rebrand when they can't anymore.
> 53 needs to claim exclusivity, claim that there is no possibility of confusion, or live with the reality that if people start calling Facebook Paper just "Paper", that Facebook will legally be able to prevent 53 from using the term. With trademarks it doesn't matter who has been using it longer, only who successfully enforces it.
That's a false trichotomy; the second and third branches are the opposite of how trademark law works. Please see my top-level comment for more details.
I don't think that 53 claiming there to be no confusion would in itself hold up in court, but I think it could help to inform the public's opinion about how the marks relate to each other, which might get factored into a decision later. I do think that a few years from now, if Facebook's product is successful, it will overshadow 53's brand. While it is technically true that two established marks would be evaluated on who was first, to me it is unlikely that a small developer would win in a suit against a $60B company. The orders of magnitude larger company would aggressively argue their merits and attempt to mitigate the smaller company's. Defending the mark at a time in the future where Facebook has any standing would probably bankrupt 53.
> to me it is unlikely that a small developer would win in a suit against a $60B company. The orders of magnitude larger company would aggressively argue their merits and attempt to mitigate the smaller company's. Defending the mark at a time in the future where Facebook has any standing would probably bankrupt 53.
Keep in mind that 53 would almost certainly demand a jury trial, as (IIRC) would be their constitutional right. Jurors tend to favor the little guy; that's especially true if the little guy's lawyers can convince the jury that the big guy behaved badly or even just negligently --- and plaintiffs' trial lawyers can be extremely skilled at doing just that. Under the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which governs civil (non-criminal) cases, a jury's findings of fact cannot be overturned unless the judge (or an appellate court) finds that no reasonable jury could have made those findings on the basis of the evidence of record.
I imagine there are more than a few plaintiffs' lawyers with suitable expertise who would be thrilled to take 53's case on a contingent-fee basis -- not least because they'd get a lot of publicity for doing so.
One not-unlikely outcome: 53 changes its product name, and Facebook pays 53 a significant amount of money, perhaps as an investment.
"People are going to call the app by Facebook "Facebook Paper" because "Paper" is simply too generic."
I don't know where you're getting this idea from, every article I've seen has had a fine time just referring to the app as 'Paper'. All the marketing material is clearly just referring to this as 'Paper', I strongly strongly doubt Facebook want's anyone to refer to the app as 'Facebook Paper'. And I certainly don't think it's too generic, I saw the original 'Paper' app being referred to as 'Paper' just fine before Facebook came out with an identically named app.
"Windows", "Apple", aren't too generic. This is perfectly reasonable for 53 to ask this of Facebook.
I suggest you read up on Microsoft v Lindows before you use that example.
That case never made it past the trial court, and ended in an out-of-court settlement in which Microsoft paid a paltry sum to make the problem go away, setting no legal precedent. Furthermore, the surrounding circumstances included an injunction from a Dutch court against Lindows.
The term "Windows" to refer to the GUI element was in common use from the 70s (the term WIMP was coined in 1980) long before Microsoft Windows was released.
Apple Computer vs Apple Corps (music) "co-existed" (I know of the lawsuits and agreements) at the time because one was an electronics manufacturer, and the other a record label.
Paper (53) is a drawing app, Paper (FB) is a news/FB wall magazine. Completely different markets. They should be able to co-exist.
The point isn't that they are from two different categories. The point is taht both of them are iOS apps! So the case exists.
As for Apple Computer and Apple Corps, obviously Apple never tried to be a Record label company. But when it started moving its operations into the music industry (i imagine that was the itunes time?) it got attacked by Apple corps. Before that it was peaceful co-existence. After that, it was Apple computer paying Apple Corps to keep its mouth shut and not bitch about it
The argument that it's an "app" its like saying a company that has a "website", or a company that uses the "telephone" can't share the same name. The app, like the website or telephone is the medium to the service/product.
And 'facebook' is original? FB's legal team has a hernia anytime someone on the web uses face or book, perhaps they should take their own advice?
If it continues it might be funny for 53 to release Paper Facebook.
"Facebook" is also pretty generic, but when you have enough well paid lawyers these things matter less.
Also, it is very unlikely that Facebook is attempting to benefit from 53's brand. Facebook wanted to call their product something descriptive, and the names collided. Compare this to any name involving "Facebook", which likely is attempting to benefit. Outside of a directly competing service, it's unlikely that the name of a product would include the word "Facebook". This makes "Facebook" less generic and more enforceable than "Paper".
Facebook was completely generic. Facebook used to be term for the paperback student profile books that universities produced. Facebook the website started as an electronic version of the paper facebooks.
Facebook was completely generic.
Yes, Facebook WAS generic. They would have had a difficult time enforcing their brand from the start. Once a brand becomes a household name (which is admittedly a vague metric), the rules are different. See Apple, Windows, Sun, Sharp, Digital.
The standard isn't "household name", but rather "acquired distinctiveness" which in the US is defined under the terms of Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act
I am going to build a real time, location based, social messaging application that's based on connection graphs and utilize the latest Flash video technology. Oh and it's going to be ephemeral.
And I am going to name it SnapYouTwitFace.
Maybe they should call it Facepaper.
sorry, but that's not how trademark and branding works.
Perhaps you should try bringing to market a product called "Coca-Cola by Ynniv" and you can find out for yourself how this really works.
Coca-Cola is not an English word describing generic real-world item. Paper is. I see your point (and to a degree agree), but your example is heavily flawed.
You might be surprised to learn that in the trademark law, common words like "paper" or "candy" can be used by multiple companies without them infringing on each other while "Coca-Cola" is way too specific for that.
why isn't Coca-Cola also a descriptive word? It describes the product (two important ingredients).
Because "Coca-Cola" is a "fanciful name", employing strange capitalization and hyphenation. It's also a household name world-wide, which allows protection of somewhat generic names.
It's a matter of common usage. Coca-Cola isn't a universal descriptor of that particular kind of carbonated soft drink. The term for that (in the US) is a cola (which is why there exists a lot of *-Cola beverages).
The Coca leaf isn't used anymore due to the prohibition of cocaine.
Not true! They don't use cocaine, but they do extract flavor from imported coca leaves, and are the only US company allowed to do so.
Randomish link from a quick search: http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2012/02/25/coca-cola-is-still...
I did an informal poll of my coworkers, and "facepaper" won over "Facebook Paper" and "paperbook."
Pfft. What a silly request. This is an entirely different application.
Should we expect an upcoming blog post from 53 complaining that Crayola has released a new product entitled "Pencil"?
If you want to protect your name, use a protectable name. If you're going to use an entirely generic name then deal with it... wait hang on... Dunder Mifflin just called... they want their name back too.
Cool company, great products, daft blog post.
Insofar as FiftyThree is merely making a polite request as a matter of professional courtesy rather than threatening legal action, then I don't think your criticism applies. They didn't get nasty about it, they didn't cite some bizarre legal arguments where they claimed to forever own the word Paper. They just made a cordial request. I think that's entirely reasonable and makes them come across very good in this situation.
Making a cordial request about it to Facebook is one thing; publicizing it (probably in an effort to shame Facebook) is another.
There's a very real possibility that FiftyThree is going to get impacted in all kinds of searches because of this. I don't begrudge them for taking advantage of a marketing opportunity that will get written about in the media that they'd be fools to not take advantage of. Their business could conceivably be on the line.
You're certainly free to disagree or feel all the sympathy you want to for Facebook here, but I don't think most people would see it the same way.
These are the risks of choosing a product name that is one of the most common items in the world. The benefits are familiarity and comfort; the risk is that anyone can start using it.
It could also have a positive effect by increasing the overall search volume for that term.
>shame Facebook
If only. The entire post is to (a) differentiate their Paper from the FB Paper and (b) make an effort to protect what little trademark they have.
They're making it public so everyone can know "We exist, we were here first, please don't let FB steamroll us."
If they didn't do this, in six months FB lawyers would send a cease-and-desist telling them to stop using Facebook's trademark "Paper."
If they make enough stink they can maintain their brand. If they don't, then the 800-lbs Facebook gorilla will take away their brand identity.
>If they make enough stink they can maintain their brand.
This is it exactly. Copyright and trademark are not the same thing, but many people confuse them. You have it right: With trademark the burden is on FiftyThree to defend it. The fact that they are doing that so politely makes me like them more.
I disagree. They're trying to shame others into giving in to them owning the word "paper".
I'm pretty sure they are just trying to ride this publicity gravy train as long and as hard as they can.
Look at all the publicity, they are on Reddit, news sites, twitter, HN... I've never heard of them until today, and I imagine I'm, not alone.
That's cute.
So, when a big gorilla company uses the name of your well known (and with your use it already known to them) application / webpage that you've worked for years on, I wish you a good luck "trying to ride this publicity gravy train".
When a big company decides to use your name, your options are very limited. You can try to take the fight legal (and face the big company's entire legal team plus the distraction of suing a behemoth). Or, you can turn their massive publicity machine against them and set yourself up as an underdog.
The media loves David v. Goliath stories and being cast as David could have profound marketing opportunities for 53. Kudos to 53 for having the sense to handle this gracefully.
Eh? They have been on Hn several times before you know. Several blogs too. Don't you remember their other Product? The Pencil?
"a polite request" in the public... i think not
seems more like a "I'm about to go apeshit on your ass" blogpost. Understandable though.
Whats more, Wacom also has an app called Paper, which does something very similar to 53 paper. Not sure which one was there first, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was Wacom.
It was Wacom. Which was why Paper called themselves "Paper by 53".
Wacom seems to brand their product as Bamboo Paper. Was it always branded that way, or is it a reaction to 53/Facebook?
Sorry, wrong developer, same point. The actual developer name is Contradictory. Timeline:
(1) Contradictory made "Paper" (2) 53 made "Paper by 53", with the same function as "Paper" (just a lot better) (3) Facebook made "Paper - stories from Facebook"
"Paper" can be protected as "Candy" was.
There are some great opinions posted so let me add some data from uspto.gov (use 'trademark search' from the menu) and a touch of what I understand of Trademark law after filing a few myself:
53 was granted a US Trademark on the phrase 'Paper by FiftyThree' on December 2013 for trademark categories 21 23 26 36 38 and it appears international category 9 with a first-used-in-commerce claim of March 2013.
53 are obligated to enforce their mark in those categories otherwise they risk losing it. This is the same reason Facebook goes after anything with 'face or book' that even vaguely seems similar. If they don't they risk losing the Facebook mark.
The law sides with the trademark holder as long as they enforce the mark.
As many people have mentioned, 'Paper' is generic and 53 didn't get the word 'Paper' by itself. It was granted the mark 'Paper by FiftyThree'. Since Facebook's app isn't called 'Paper by Facebook' this leaves some wiggle room if FB wants to challenge the claim if it heads to court. Facebook has deep pockets and good lawyers, so perhaps they've already calculated the risk and is willing to fight in court. 53 may not be able to afford that fight (cash or distraction wise).
TL;DR: 53 is obligated to enforce their Trademark and the letter to Facebook is a manifestation of that obligation. Unfortunately their mark isn't just on the word 'paper' so it will be interesting to see if this fades away or the parties head to court.
> 53 is obligated to enforce their Trademark and the letter to Facebook is a manifestation of that obligation.
But the open letter is not. A simple C&D would have protected them; publishing it is purely about marketing.
Agreed, seems an intentional move from the marketing playbook: If goliath gets news, pick a public fight when you're David. A very cheap investment for that level of exposure.
My first thought when I read the Facebook Paper announcement was along these lines.
This is a big social faux paus on Facebook's part - at least among the developer community - but I really don't see either company changing their Paper's name. I imagine it'll go similarly to Google's Go name collision[1].
How should the little guy in these situations be legally protected? On one hand it's clear that "candy" shouldn't be trademarked, but "paper" is just as generic a term. Maybe the lesson here is not to name your product generic nouns and avoid the trouble all together.
That's what I thought of, since two programming languages are even more alike.
Did it not turn out to be a legal issue because there was ultimately little commercial interest behind the Go![1] language?
Apple Computer had to pay Apple Corps, even though it seemed like the computer industry had little to do with the music industry at the time[2], so it is confusing how the conflict can be ignored until it goes away.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go!_%28programming_language%29
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v._Apple_Computer
The irony here is that Facebook are extremely aggressive about protecting their own name. They have sued other companies for using generic words as part of their names, like 'face' or 'book' or 'wall'.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/25/business/la-fi-0826-...
It's a matter of respect. Paper (FiftyThree) is a well known brand and app, so basically the Facebook developers were 100% aware that they were utilizing someone's name (at least they should have been), and therefore they went ahead to publish their new app with complete disregard for what already existed.
On the other hand, FiftyThree have chosen a very common English word for their product name. You can't call dibs on a word like "paper", and this was a risk they should have taken into account. Either choose a proper (and trademarkable) name, or choose a common word and expect such consequences. You can't have it both ways, and I think even considering Facebook's Paper, FiftyThree have probably made the right tradeoff. Whining about it now just makes them look bad.
Where does one draw the line for a word that is too common for your business? Here are the rankings of just a few company names that utilized popular words.
Imagine if Facebook came out with a new camera app that was called Facebook Target. There would be no doubt that there was clear negligence on Facebook's part. I feel like here I need to disclose that I am no lawyer, and that this is where Trademark law comes into effect. It's just disappointing that an innovative tech company would act this way when it's completely unnecessary. I think that if the app was called Facebook News it would be just as effective as if it was Facebook Paper.521 - paper 1991 - match 2723 - apple 2777 - square 2921 - targetSource (could probably use something more legitimate): http://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/common-words-5000.htm
Paper isn't a company name. IANAL either but I believe there is a distinction in Trademarks between company and product names.
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=4802:iw...
There are over 2,000 records that include various forms of the word "target". Over 3,000 for "apple". Over 3,000 for "windows".
If you use a common word in a trademark you may be able to prevent others from using it for the exact same (or very similar) product, but you don't own the word outright.
Facebook might well be okay with a camera app called Target (though they might not be -- someone else may be using it for that purpose already). They would definitely be in trouble if they started a department store called "Facebook Target", though.
What about something like "Square?" That's about as generic as it gets, yet is there any question as to what someone is referring to when they are talking about "Square" in the context of an app?
If Square whines about someone else using the name, I will say the same thing. It's a tradeoff, and they've made their choice.
There are two sides of the story. Square (Paper in this case) probably does not benefit greatly from whining (from both PR and legal perspectives), but why would a company take the name to begin with. Either they were blind, or confident that there brand would bypass whatever was existing, or they are hoping to ride off existing brand recognition for a quick boost.
Eh … whenever someone mentions Square I first think of Squarespace. That’s the much more present Square brand in my head (probably because I listen to way too many podcasts and Squarespace seems to advertise on all of them while Square isn’t relevant or present at all in Germany).
Their brand name really manages to confuse me whenever it’s mentioned … but that just comes with the territory of picking something so generic.
So, yes, there is a question what someone is referring to when they talk about Square in the context of an app. That happened to me several times already, here on HN. I read some headline with Square in it, click on it and am confused why it’s not about website hosting.
I have little doubt that it is possible to build an extremely successful brand that no one confuses with anything else around a very generic term (just think of Apple), but if you want that super-generic word to work out for you (and those words can be cool to use, no doubt) you have to live with people confusing you until you pull it off. It’s a trade-off.
squarespace.com had a Superbowl commercial yesterday and my wife asked is that "Square"?... which led to a 15 sec. conversation.
I'm pretty sure squarespace existed before square.
oh you mean the guys that make the Final Fantasy games for iOS.
Nah, that's Squeenix
If I didn't already know about the payments company, I'd think that final fantasy was moving off of DSs and onto mobile, to be honest.
After the King controversy and the resulting 'candy jam', does that mean someone will now start a 'paper jam'?
Like "Windows"?
"We reached out to Facebook about the confusion their app was creating, and they apologized for not contacting us sooner."
Yep , And to add more salt to wounds, I hate such diplomatic "Oh Shit! Did you guys existed too ? We just did not know answers".
I'm a big fan of Paper from 53 (not the most feature-filled drawing tool, but definitely the most pleasant to use) and respect that they wrote a polite request about this and tried to use this as a marketing opportunity rather than threatening legal action or citing some bizarre trademark argument where they claim to have the right to force others not to use a word. 53 comes across pretty well here thus far IMO.
It's helpful to analyze this the way a U.S. court likely would. Suppose hypothetically that the following are true:
(A) that the mark PAPER is protectable for what 53 sells -- and I think that's highly likely; PAPER in this context strikes me as a "suggestive" and therefore protectable mark [1]; and
(B) that 53 was the first user of the mark; and
(C) that there's a "likelihood of confusion" about the origin, sponsorship, or endorsement of the companies' products or services -- this entails looking at seven or eight factual questions, namely the "strength" of the mark; the proximity of the goods; the similarity of the marks in appearance and/or sound; any evidence of actual confusion; similarity in marketing channels used; the type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser the junior user's intent in selecting the mark; and the likelihood of expansion of the respective product lines [2].
In that situation, as the junior user, Facebook would (or should) be liable for infringement.
Another point: 53 can be damaged by "reverse confusion," namely people thinking that 53 is the one that's ripping off Facebook [3].
[1] http://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/detail/manual/TMEP/Oct2012/TMEP-1...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_infringement
[3] http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/reverse-confusion-trademark...
One of Facebook’s board members is an investor in FiftyThree.
This line tells the whole story. This isn't just the case of a large company perhaps not noticing another product in the digital space with the same name. This is very deliberate, and the CEO comes across as flabbergasted with Facebook's decision.
Honestly, I think we'll see more downloads of Paper (53) because of confused people looking to download Paper (FB). I see this is as a huge PR win for 53 and both will end up co-existing and succeeding (probably).
There are TWO billion-dollar storage companies with Box in the name. Now that's confusing.
I don't know how often I hear at work "Put it in my dropbox", where "my dropbox", of course, refers to Box.com.
I did work on a project once where most of the contributors referred to Google Drive as their dropbox, as well.
Don't even get me started on ABC and NBC.
When I first heard about Facebook's Paper, I wondered how that conversation could have possibly gone down...
"So we're building this great new experience, and we want to call it Paper..."
"Isn't there already an incredibly popular mobile application called Paper?"
"So?"
Some variant of this conversation must have happened, right? It's not like nobody at Facebook has heard of 53 - how did this name ever get out the door?
It seems like most of us here on HN think of 53's Paper when we think of 'app called Paper' - perhaps this isn't the case in the overall consumer market (but then again, Paper - 53's, that is - was once featured prominently on Apple.com - not just the app store, but the main website) - but to me at least, it feels like Facebook is using a name which is 'already taken'.
Might I suggest that this is not the first time Facebook has drawn the ire of the tech community and won't be the last.
It seems Facebook simply doesn't care. FiftyThree's complaint will blow over in a few days.
However, FiftyThree is signing up plenty of new users from the story. They're probably genuinely upset but this won't be their death and it might even be a good thing. I'd never heard of Paper beforehand.
Companies, even hip web 3.0 companies, need to stop taking generic common nouns and declaring them trademarks. From Surface to Paper, these names are far too easy to confuse.
I recall people complaining about all the made up words being used for company names from the web 2.0 era.
I like that Microsoft even stepped on their own toes with Surface. When something comes up about it sometimes I have to clarify if its about the tablet or the "big ass table"
Humans have done just fine for a long time managing their own mental namespaces. Paper already means different things in different contexts before either of these apps - "I am writing a paper", "have you read today's paper?", "have your papers ready for inspection". There are also many different brands and types of paper with very different material properties and use cases.
Choosing an already in use word for any new publicly accessible thing complicates the global namespace a little more than it already is, but if it is the name you really wish to give it, sometimes a little distributed parsing overhead is better than the alternatives - trademarking "paper" or calling your product "Payper" instead.
I feel for FiftyThree but the ship of anyone caring of FB's missteps has long sailed.
FB being the first $1 trillion company seems inevitable. FB is the borg of all borgs.
A slightly related anecdote: Yesterday I saw grafitti that said "resistance is fertile". A good twist, I thought, especially for potential startups that could go the way of "let's make another photo app" vs. "let's solve something important".
There was a drawing app called Paper in the App Store in October 2011, five months before 53 released their app. It doesn't look very good, but that's not the point.
All respect issues aside, generic names like this are a pain in the ass. "go" (google) and "react" (facebook) are similar. For example, Twitter-folk have taken to using #ReactJS to mean Facebook's React UI framework, but react.js[1] has been around a while already, and it does some similar stuff (if you squint a bit).
You can't mention or search for them without barfing out the company name, and sometimes a specific property alongside to be unambiguous about your meaning. It makes finding discussions and blog posts harder because people don't have a common language for these poorly-named things.
It just seems like these companies are shooting themselves in the foot. Is natural word-of-mouth growth no longer a concern?
[1]: http://reactjs.com/
Can both not exist? I don't see how there could be overlap or confusion from potential customers.
Never mind the hissy fit...move along now. I suppose they could go trademark "paper" and have a nice cease and desist ready to go?
"I always use Paper on my ipad for all my pictures, you should check it out"
Which app would you download from the appstore ?
It just seems a bit melodramatic. Should Google Mail have been named Google Post, just because Yahoo Mail was first? They aren't operating in the same space; furthermore, Facebook didn't name it just "Paper" in the App Store, they've named it "Paper - stories from Facebook".
Exactly. It's a single generic word.
Pictures or drawings? I don't know anyone who uses Paper for all their pictures. Maybe it's an image editor now?
Which Paper are you talking about 53 or Facebook ?
I do not know - there are 240 apps in Google Play store that have "paper" in name. This includes "Draw Paper", "Paper Draw ", "White Paper", "Infinite Paper" and countless others. Also at least two apps are just called "Paper" - not sure how anyone can distinguish them other than looking at company name.
I seriously doubt that 53 was the first company that used Paper in the name.
I would be confused about why you are putting a piece of paper on top of your iPad.
Tell that to the makers of Candy Crush.
how do two apps for iOS devices with identical names not create the potential for confusion?
I don't know what you mean there is "Paper – stories from Facebook" and "Paper by FiftyThree". You know what I don't see them complaining about? "Paper" by misoft (an identical product by the way) and 100 other apps with paper in the title. Considering misoft got "paper" and fifty three had to use "Papaer by FiftyThree" it kind of makes me wonder if this isn't a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
This seems much more like manufactured controversy for free press than anything else.
The world of app names is weirdly. Obviously you cannot put up an app named Facebook but most likely you can put one named FB Calculator. The way I see it, parts of an app name can be protected, others are generic. It is like subdomains: news.ycombinator.com cannot ask news.fiftythree.com to stop using news.
Anyhow, what's the name of that FB Android app that turns your phone's desktop into a FB desktop? Or was it iOS app? What exactly was it anyway? FB OS?
Don't worry Paper53, PaperFB is probably another fluke, a quick yet clumsy response to Medium's menacing growth, to the wall's irrelevance, to the teens running away....
its called Facebook Home
If 53 didn't register Paper as a trademark, they are pretty much SOL, right? If they did, it's pretty clear that Facebook's property creates confusion in the market. Trademark law seems pretty clear here, but IANAL.
IANAL either, but my understanding is that, in the US, they don't need to file a trademark as long as they can prove they were using the name in commerce first.
As far as international usage, that's a different story.
The bigger your footprint becomes in the arena of the Internet, the more care it takes to make sure you are not stepping on other's IP. The problem with the Interwebs is that IP crosses so many silos and this isn't just a problem of name but of application of the use here. I can't see FB being more than apologetic to FiftyThree. As much as FiftyThree thinks they have just cause here - its more of a use / intention than it is the confusion with name. I highly doubt anything will come of this, because of the logical difference. Its an identity thing vs. market clash over the same product.
If I was in FiftyThree's position I would be pissed off. But it is a very common word. Simply changing the name of the app to 'Facebook Paper' would probably help with a lot of the issues it might cause.
Yeah, it will be pretty ridiculous if FiftyThree manages to enforce some kind of IP over the use of the word "paper" as a name for a product... Trademarking common English words, anyone?
Windows, Apple, etc are all trademarked, pls stop being an arm chair lawyer and recognize there is a huge amount of precedent in using common english words to trademark things other than their common usage.
MS can trademark Windows in conjunction with computer interfaces, but not if they decide to make windows that go in houses. That's where the common usage trademark issue arises. Also, if like kerosene the word becomes common usage then the trademark can be revoked.
The law is nuanced, there is no blanket ban on trademarking words in common usage.
Yes, I understand that. It just looks to me like a lack of much overlap between the products. In the case where the products don't overlap, if you are successful at legal action against the other product then it starts to look a lot more like "trademarking a word" rather than "trademarking a word as a name for a product that operates in X space", and one of these two things is much more irksome than the other. If it makes you feel any better, this is not my "legal opinion", this is my John Publik voter's opinion.
You should read up on Microsoft v Lindows.
I, for one, do not think Facebook should change the name because these guys do not own the word "Paper." It would have been different if their app was called FiftyPapers and Facebook used the same name.
To be honest, I thought of FiftyThree first, too, when I heard the Facebook announcement. Reading between the lines on this blog post, it doesn't sound like FiftyThree has any legal claim or trademark to hold against Facebook (even if they wanted to litigate).
Facebook has already "gone live" with the Paper name—I think it's too late to change it. Whether it's malicious (are they "building their story" off FiftyThree's work?) or not ("Oops") is almost irrelevant here.
>There’s a simple fix here. We think Facebook can apply the same degree of thought they put into the app into building a brand name of their own.
It seems to me that both FB and 53 applied the same degree of thought.
IMHO, I find it absurd that private companies want to make common words their own. Couldn't the "degree of thought" 53 put into their naming process led them to think that "paper" was an extremely generic word and this conflict was bound to happen?
Since the Apple store rankings are intentionally opaque and controlled by Apple for its own gain, I secretly hope that the Apple artificially ranks 53 Paper above Facebook Paper. At the end of the day Paper has been an excellent app for the Apple ecosystem and it would be a nice way to say "thanks" to 53. If this happens, then Facebook's use should help 53 get more downloads since most users will go along with the first result in the store.
Yesterday: Vitriol slung at King for trying to trademark "Candy." Today: Much more sympathy for 53 attempting the "trademark of public opinion."
That's to be expected. In both cases vitriol is directed at the Goliath.
This app is very unrelated to Facebook as we know it: our friends and their content. That is just one part of the app. It's more a curated news app on the whole.
Either Facebook released this as a project their engineers did to test out interfaces or they are collecting data from this app about what is shared and what content is viewed to improve their own feed algorithms.
I think Facebook should change Paper's name mainly because Paper is a horrible name for this product, which is actually "Facebook without all the crap you never use". The fact that "Paper by FiftyThree" is a name already in use is another factor, why fight this battle when the name isn't even very good?
Right, it's simplified Facebook. Facebook with all the extra bits removed. The hardback book reduced to the paperback...
Yeah, I mean it's not the worst, it's just not like, "MUST DEFEND THIS AWESOME NAME" level IMO.
Please don't monopolise language! If you tell me I cannot use the word Paper any longer, I resent that deeply, even if Apple and others have done that. Paper is not distinctive enough, not even very imaginative, 'creative' dare I say, of an app that claims to be all about creativity.
The actual app titles from the App Store seem different enough to me, and I'm a huge fan of FiftyThree.
Paper by FiftyThree (FiftyThree, Inc.)
Paper - stories from Facebook (Facebook, Inc.)
Another distinction to keep in mind is FiftyThree's Paper is iPad only and Facebook's is iPhone only (although it will install on iPad).
53 has chosen to use generic single word nouns for their products. Paper, Pencil, Book. When you do that, you do not deserve the consideration the author is expecting from Facebook.
Yes it may cause confusion, but they should have used unique names for their products if they wanted the differentiation.
Over here in Android land, there's no confusion at all, because neither app is in the Play Store. :P
No, you don't own the word Paper.
Maybe they'll release it as Facebook Paper... But to be honest, if there's a genuine app already bearing that name, they're better off going with something else...
It's listed as "Paper – stories from Facebook" on the App Store.
Search for "Paper" in the App Store? Problem solved.
Won't this only benefit FiftyThree now that many more people are searching the App Store for "Paper"? Seems like a victimless crime.
I admire FiftyThree but this ship has sailed. Unless FiftyThree is willing to lawyer up, I can't imagine anything changing.
"And that is why, folks, we are proud to announce our newest product : Facebook".
That should do it ;)
It's like Apple Inc and Apple Corps.
Lesson to self, avoid generic names.
The generic name seems to have worked out well for Apple though, hasn't it?
Which Apple? it worked out okay for the company that came along and took the name later. Apple Corp has essentially lost their name at this point though
Apple Corps has nothing to cry over, I am sure.
30 years later? Sure, but I think they would have done well with any brand name.
I really like 53's Paper app, but I wouldn't like it any less if it were called Doodlepad, DrawPaper etc.
next they're going to write to wb mason that they should change the name of their product to "printer sheet" or something like that....
I don't get it, does this involve actual paper?
See also: Microsoft Windows vs. X Window System.
Sweet jesus I cannot read that font.
is this trademark 'descriptive', 'distinctive', or 'generic' ?