FiftyThree Files for Trademark on 'Paper' After Facebook App Release

[dshan]

They Trademark it Now?

You mean to tell me they didn't already have a trademark on the app name Paper? Jebus, I thought every company trademarked every product name nowadays as a matter of course.

If they didn't have it trademarked already how can they complain when Facebook steal the name? If it's not nailed down with a trademark then it's open season on the name, this is Facebook after all, the least trustworthy firm in a cloud of untrustworthy firms!

 

[Antares]

Well, King is tradmarking generic terms like "candy" and "saga." WOuldn't it be logical that 53 be able to trademark "paper?"

And I'm not saying that any company being able to trademark a generic, common word is a good thing. Quite the opposite, actually. I'm just stating the above for consistency.

This makes me laugh because Facebook sues anyone that uses the word Face or Book in their name.

Anyone remember Teachbook?

What about Face Time? Did they sue Apple for that?

 

[Ted13]

fair play to FiftyThree, they did use it first for an app name.

facebook should know better, and use a different name.

Nope, wrong: Paper by 53 stole the name from Paper (MiSoft) and unlike Facebook, their app does the exact same thing as well.

So, pure karma.

From daringfireball.net

Paper, by MiSoft ★
iOS app developer MiSoft, in an updated description for their drawing app Paper:

"When we began working on a pure, simple, inclusive drawing app, we decided to give it the most basic of names, Paper.

We followed Apple’s Rules, that is, we went into our Developer account and created the App “Paper”. The name Paper was assigned to us by Apple as NO ONE ELSE was using it.

While working on the app over many months, other apps named “Paper” came and went. How? Do to glitches in Apple’s system. A Developer can add other words to an un-available name, or open an account registered outside the US, create an app with the same name as an existing US app, get the app approved for sale outside the US, then set the app territories to make it available in the US! They can even change the name of an older, existing non-US app and enjoy what looks like an earlier first use.

We pointed these glitches out to Apple at WWDC 2012 and, well, the next day another “Paper” app, one which added other words after the name Paper so it could post in the US App Store, received an AWARD! We felt somewhat put upon. That other app was very well funded, money talks, and they had been out “breaking things” in our market for a while. There are Best Practices in the Developer world against, in Apple’s words, “confusingly similar” names. Why didn’t that matter for these guys? Why is this not only tolerated, but awarded? Which Rules do we follow; the posted rules, the rules others use, the rules which work, or the rules which we believe in? A conundrum in many areas of mobile today.

We approached the makers of that other Paper app on the floor of WWDC after they received their award, told them our story, and offer to discuss settling this. We even later sent a message to their CEO. Nothing. So we’ve been considering our options.

Now we see this other “Paper” app is upset that an even larger company has also chosen to name an app “Paper”, same trick, by adding more words to the end."

An interesting twist on FiftyThree’s complaint regarding Facebook Paper.

 

[garylapointe]

For now, FiftyThree has asked Facebook to "build a brand name of their own" and to stop "using our brand name."

Isn't the brand name "FaceBook"? P

aper is just a product. Every product named "Mustang" or "Escort" (someone help me find an automobile name with other products same names!) doesn't get confused with other products with those names.

There is a drawing app called Paper and a newspaper(?) app called Paper. There is a Mac app called Papers. And a company called Paper Software.

Regardless, 53 should have trademarked the name before now. (duh!)

Cisco had a product called iPhone WAY before Apple did, but that didn't stop Apple. FYI, I actually own a Cisco iPhone, it's a cordless "phone" that connects to a wireless USB dongle on my Windows machine that lets me make Skype calls (it looks like an old generic Nokia phone); both made phone calls so there certainly would be some product confusion!

Also, Apple records (the Beatles record label) used to have some issues with Apple computers. That go set to the side for a while since there wasn't much confusion. But then Apple computer added speakers and then CD players and then iTunes......

Gary

 

[Nermal]

I guess I should trademark 'trademark'.

http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20140122

Cisco had a product called iPhone WAY before Apple did, but that didn't stop Apple. FYI, I actually own a Cisco iPhone, it's a cordless "phone" that connects to a wireless USB dongle on my Windows machine that lets me make Skype calls (it looks like an old generic Nokia phone); both made phone calls so there certainly would be some product confusion!

It was apparently "Cidco" at one point too. There's a simulator here

 

[richeyty]

good luck suing Facebook

 

[avanpelt]

Because it's not like Facebook being a giant as it is didn't just come out with an app of the same name completely overshadowing FiftyThree. Definitely it was a plot to make money from Facebook from the very beginning.

So what that Facebook is a bigger company with more brand recognition than FiftyThree? If FiftyThree was so concerned about keeping "Paper" their own, they should have filed for the trademark years ago -- not the same day they got wind of a Facebook app with the same name.

If a trademark is important to a company and part of its brand, the company should file for the trademark when they first come up with the idea -- not years later when their product has been in the App Store for years.

On January 20, 2014, a no name company could've released an app with Paper in the name -- "Paper -- a journal for your thoughts", for example, and it likely would've gotten no attention from FiftyThree. On January 30, FiftyThree finds out that Facebook is releasing an app with Paper in the name soon so they apply for the trademark on "Paper" immediately.

I have no sympathy for the folks at FiftyThree and I hope the USPTO denies their application. They should have applied for a trademark on "Paper" long before now if it was that important to them.

 

[iZac]

Like many, while I sympathise with FiftyThree, because I love their product (bought all the pens!) - if they haven't trademarked it in all this time, it's their own stupid fault.

While they might have some traction trademarking it as a 'digital creative app' I don't know if they'd get a blanket trademark - even for any 'app'

In any case, the logo on the App is a big "53" and whenever it's mentioned, it's often referred to as "Paper by FiftyThree" since the name is so obscure on it's own.

Similarly, I'm sure people generally will not refer to the Facebook app as "paper" but as "Facebook paper" for similar reasons of obscurity, no matter how ubiquitous Facebook is.

 

[C DM]

So what that Facebook is a bigger company with more brand recognition than FiftyThree? If FiftyThree was so concerned about keeping "Paper" their own, they should have filed for the trademark years ago -- not the same day they got wind of a Facebook app with the same name.

If a trademark is important to a company and part of its brand, the company should file for the trademark when they first come up with the idea -- not years later when their product has been in the App Store for years.

On January 20, 2014, a no name company could've released an app with Paper in the name -- "Paper -- a journal for your thoughts", for example, and it likely would've gotten no attention from FiftyThree. On January 30, FiftyThree finds out that Facebook is releasing an app with Paper in the name soon so they apply for the trademark on "Paper" immediately.

I have no sympathy for the folks at FiftyThree and I hope the USPTO denies their application. They should have applied for a trademark on "Paper" long before now if it was that important to them.

Except that use matters too.

 

[aricG]

I use the FiftyThree Paper app and I really like it. I am still testing out Facebook's Paper and so far I like it. I understand the issue with using the same name but don't know why it's a big deal when one is a dedicated iPad app and the other for the iPhone only.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

At this rate we are going to run out of English words, as these companies keep patenting commons everyday words.
I think this will make it easy to transition from English to Chinese as a universal language. We can keep making new Kanji symbols forever.

 

[retroneo]

FiftyThree stole their company name from an existing software developer,. Even the trademark office agreed, and FiftyThree's sly moves against Figure 53 are an amazing read.

This is the perfect punishment for FiftyThree! Beautiful Karma:

http://figure53.com/notes/2014-02-04-david-and-goliath/

 

[dragje]

Pathetic move by the company behing Paper, it has nothing to do with protecting their "brand" but everything with the goal trying to come to some kind of agreement where much money will be involved.

If I where Facebook I would give my middle-finger and let Paper sue until they have no words left to sue about. What's next? Patenting 'Air' ?

 

[dazed]

I hope they get denied. Stupid trademark.

Everyone should make an app call paper, just like those with candy in the name.

How about an App called 'Candy Paper' ?

 

[aricG]

FiftyThree stole their company name from an existing software developer,. Even the trademark office agreed, and FiftyThree's sly moves against Figure 53 are an amazing read.

This is the perfect punishment for FiftyThree! Beautiful Karma:

http://figure53.com/notes/2014-02-04-david-and-goliath/

now this makes me sad, i was feeling for FiftyThree there for a minute

 

[Gav2k]

Really don't see 53's issue. The apps are nothing like each other.

 

[Tankmaze]

Nope, wrong: Paper by 53 stole the name from Paper (MiSoft) and unlike Facebook, their app does the exact same thing as well.

So, pure karma.

From daringfireball.net

Yea just saw that from loopinsight too, so they're not the first.

Karma's a b*tch then for 53....

 

[SoundGuyAndy]

Stories are complicated...

FiftyThree stole their company name from an existing software developer,. Even the trademark office agreed, and FiftyThree's sly moves against Figure 53 are an amazing read.

This is the perfect punishment for FiftyThree! Beautiful Karma:

http://figure53.com/notes/2014-02-04-david-and-goliath/

Well, that's not quite an accurate summary; that's actually quite the point of the whole article, that it's not so cleancut good vs evil, and in real life stories are pretty complicated. But really, this isn't a case for a tl;dr, you should go read the original article for yourself.

(Disclosure, I work for Figure 53. And am also a devoted longtime MacRumors reader.)

 

[rhett7660]

This kind of reminds me of the Candy Crush company, trademarking the word "Candy".

I haven't even heard of the Facebook app, till I started reading this thread.

 

[morespce54]

Other way around

I can sympathize with Paper's creator's emotionally, but "paper" is a generic single word, which applies well to both apps but in different ways: they are not competitors. And I don't in any way believe that Facebook felt the need to "use" 53's brand to boost awareness of their own efforts (if anything, the reverse will happen, benefitting 53).

If I were 53, I'd use this chance to build the more unique, and more useful (for future projects) brand: "53" itself. Push "Paper by 53" or even "Paper 53" or something. Or is if "FiftyThree?" See--they have more important branding fish to fry!

"Paper" alone was never great for branding or search/discoverability anyway. (And I don't think the app as listed was ever "paper" alone anyway, was it?)

So I say, make lemons from this lemonade, and boost awareness of a name people can search for! Leave the "generic word" problem to Facebook, and let multiple different apps use that word freely if they wish--as long as they're not pretending to BE one another, or "stealing" awareness intentionally.

(I do think filing a trademark might be smart regardless, to protect themselves in case Facebook ever comes after THEM.)

Right.
But anybody though they could do this to... prevent Facebook from suing them later on? I know FB will probably say "Don't worry, we are good guys" but in the legal/trademark field, one never knows!

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

On more Paper. http://daringfireball.net/linked/2014/02/04/paper-paper-paper

 

[GerritV]

FB knew about 53's Paper no doubt.
So even still they use the name - going like "We're the big guys, so we do whatever we please".
I never liked FB - never will, ever.

 

[alfonsog]

Facebook buys 53 and everyone is happy

 

[acctman]

fair play to FiftyThree, they did use it first for an app name.

facebook should know better, and use a different name.

no because "Bamboo Paper" was out long before Paper by FiftyThree... so should Wiacom sue FiftyThree, and Facebook?