
FiftyThree Files Trademark For “Paper” - austenallred
http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/04/fiftythree-files-trademark-for-paper/
======
dylandrop
Is this really the best usage of your funding cash? Seems like half of 53's
$15M can go down the drain with this sort of thing. I sort of expect FB Paper
to flop like the Facebook phone OS thing; if I were 53 I wouldn't be going so
ballistic over this. Best case, they get the trademark and Facebook whittles
down all of their funding in order for them to get it. Better for them to just
move on and recognize that their product and Facebook's are different enough
and it's not worth having the SEO from people searching the word "paper" to go
into an expensive legal battle.

~~~
slg
If there goal is to make money and let's be honest, that is the goal of most
start-ups, is this really a bad plan? It seems like it is a high risk/high
reward proposition that most people on here love. Sure the odds Facebook's
Paper being a success aren't sky high. Same with the chance of Facebook
agreeing to a licensing agreement on the name. But when you compare the
potential income from that to a fancy iPad app and stylus, it seems clear that
litigation route might be the better use of VC funds.

And that is the problem with the current legal environment.

~~~
blueblob
I don't think they expect Facebook to license the name; I think they don't
want to dilute their name.

EDIT: Interestingly enough for me, I found it kind of repulsive that King.com
trademarked "Candy" but I don't find this repulsive (I guess because either I
am a hypocrite, or because "Paper" is their entire product name).

------
harlanlewis
Leaving aside the debate over trademarking common words, it's surprising
FiftyThree hadn't already trademarked their product names. They charge a
premium price for well-branded products - trademarking those names should have
happened as a matter of course.

~~~
harlanlewis
...just read TFA, looks like they did do some trademarkin:

> FiftyThree’s only trademark in the USPTO was for “Paper by FiftyThree”.

------
MrWhargarbl
Why were people so up in arms over King's attempt to trademark "Candy", but
suddenly it's OK to trademark "Paper"?!?

~~~
sp332
King used their trademarks to attack smaller players. FiftyThree is using
theirs to defend against a larger player. Also, King has trademarked "Candy"
across a lot of areas where they don't even have products. The application for
"Paper" seems more specific.

~~~
jeremygeros
FiftyThree also sort of did the same thing to a smaller player as well
[http://figure53.com/notes/2014-02-04-david-and-
goliath/](http://figure53.com/notes/2014-02-04-david-and-goliath/)

~~~
hoopism
There's a link on HN but it didn't do very well... odd.

Upvote it back on the mainpage... looks like a bad title buried it.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7179241](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7179241)

------
untog
Oh.

See, yesterday I thought they were being quite civil and just getting some
free publicity from the whole thing. But today...

~~~
stackcollision
There's no such thing as 'civil' when it comes to business, especially not
when you're dealing with millions of dollars. When most business people (SV
companies included) shake your hand they're holding a knife behind their back
in the other.

------
rayiner
1) Trademark rights are generally effective from date of use in commerce, not
the date of filing.

2) Filing for registration isn't the same as filing an infringement claim.

3) The phrase "trademark for/on [some word]" is meaningless. Trademarks only
exist for a word or name in the context of some class of product. "Lucky"
brand jeans is a different mark than "Lucky" Strike bowling.

------
gfodor
This whole thing is so stupid because it's pretty evident that Facebook is
going to just turn the real app into Paper if the metrics look good, and the
working name "Paper" is going to probably be abandoned. It seems they decided
to launch the thing as a separate app to get feedback before completely
overhauling the Facebook experience on iOS. Of course, Facebook can't admit to
this, so FiftyThree is off in a corner freaking out.

------
kin
Honestly, I think this was a defensive move in case FB decided to trademark
'Paper'.

------
ynniv
They need to if they're going to be serious about keeping the name "Paper"
with no mention of 53. To me it seems an absurd goal because it will be very
expensive and has no substantive benefit for the product, But if having a
single word generic mark on their application is desired they need to get out
there and defend it. They will probably need to pursue "Papers By
mekentosj.com" and other similarly named products to be successful.

------
jrockway
That should go well. Just today I was taking notes on a product that clearly
stole their brand: a piece of loose leaf notebook _paper_.

------
kristofferR
It's good that Facebook finally gets a taste of their own medicine (they've
sued other sites for using Book in their name).

~~~
huangc10
well come on. How much is Facebook worth vs. how much is "53 Paper" worth?

------
funkiee
I know Facebook using the name without communicating first feels wrong, but
this is just petty and won't succeed.

------
antr
After reading this I kind of regret buying Paper's (FiftyThree) digital
pencils/brushes/etc. A drawing app wanting to kill the use of that word in
other industry verticals... i think "trademark troll" is now a real thing

~~~
jimwalsh
So you should be able to start a computer manufacturer and call it Apple?

~~~
antr
No. I should be able to start a magazine and call it Apple. Facebook isn't
launching a drawing app nor FiftyThree a social network.

~~~
jimwalsh
But both are competing in the the same place, the app store, over the same
thing, your attention and money.

~~~
antr
That's an absurd argument. You are saying Kayak.com is competing directly
against kayak (boat) retailers on Google because they have the same name. I'm
sorry but that "competing" argument is pure speculation, borderline bs.

------
ar7hur
Come on, 53. That whole story is the best thing that can happen to you.
Publicity.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
A company who've raised $15m in funding isn't looking for the sort of
publicity you get among people who talk about tech company Trademark cases
most of whom knew about them anyway.

If the whole thing was mainstream maybe but this isn't really publicity for
them, not in any meaningful sense.

------
jcutrell
I'd be interested to see how FiftyThree proves damages in this case, and
whether or not the judge will make a call for the punitive damages.

I definitely think that there's no doubt about it: the FiftyThree Paper sales
will certainly take a hit, and the brand is diluted hugely, especially for
those who haven't encountered it yet.

This was obviously a conversation that Facebook had, and chose to do it anyway
- not sure exactly what the result of the conversation was internally, but it
almost certainly had to have some phrase like "well, if they sue us, we can
handle it."

~~~
loceng
Any comment relating to "Oh, I first thought Facebook acquired Paper by
FiftyThree" could be used as proof that it's causing brand/name dilution,
etc..

------
jordsmi
If you don't want someone to eventually use the same name as you, you
shouldn't use something so generic.

I'm sure they weren't the first, and won't be the last, person to use "paper".

------
rajacombinator
why didn't they do this before? I guess they figure they can't get a trademark
on a word like "Paper" and now they're just filing it to grab some headlines?

------
bogardon
Good luck, seriously. There's 0 reason for facebook to care.

------
aerialcombat
What losers

