
Nokia threatens London startup over 'HERE' - adzicg
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-31059897
======
Silhouette
As I read this story, Nokia appear to have a reasonable complaint in this
case.

It looks like they have spent significant resources building a brand around
that particular term in a closely related field, including registering
trademarks. It then looks like a start-up has come along, not checked on the
viability of its own proposed branding before adopting it, and run straight
into basic laws about trademarks and passing off.

Maybe a real lawyer can tell us otherwise, but as far as I can see the fact
that "here" is a widely used word in the English language doesn't seem to
matter. After all, it's not as if you'd get far starting an on-line text
editor and putting a big button labelled "Word" on the home page so you could
write your first word.

Being a start-up doesn't entitle you not to follow the same laws as everyone
else (notwithstanding the wishful thinking we sometimes see on certain
Internet forums!) so if the report is accurate then it seems like Nokia do
have reasonable grounds to object.

(Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not expressing any opinion on whether I think
generic terms _should_ be protected by the law, I'm only commenting on the
situation as, to the best of my knowledge, it actually is today. Also, there
are two distinct uses of the term "here" by the start-up mentioned in the
article, one a prominent feature of one app and the second the name of a
separate app, and I'm not arguing that these should or will necessarily be
treated the same way. But launching an app with the same name as someone
else's registered brand in a related field seems ill-advised.)

~~~
jahewson
The fact that "here" is a widely used word does matter. What Nokia's trademark
buys them is the right to name a product or business "here". It doesn't given
them ownership of the word "here" when used with it's descriptive meaning,
whether or not that use occurs in a similar product/business context. Given
that the offending app allows people to notify others that they are "here",
it's open to debate as to whether or not their use of the word is "merely
descriptive". It's unlikely though.

I agree that it probably would have been wise for the startup to avoid using
that name, but they could well be within their rights to. Own the downside:
should that be permitted, it guarantees that they won't be able to protect the
name themselves either.

~~~
Silhouette
_The fact that "here" is a widely used word does matter. What Nokia's
trademark buys them is the right to name a product or business "here". It
doesn't given them ownership of the word "here" when used with it's
descriptive meaning, whether or not that use occurs in a similar
product/business context._

OK, but how is an app called Here merely using the word for its descriptive
meaning?

If you were only referring to the Here button in the other app made by the
start-up, then I agree there seems to be some room for interpretation. Even
then, though, if the fundamental justification for protecting trademarks and
having related laws about "passing off" is to ensure that customers aren't
duped into thinking they're dealing with someone else, an app that is named
one thing but uses a related app's name so prominently in its UI seems to be
at best a grey area.

------
dreen
The name is very generic so I hope this will not fly. Unless this is just a
weird form of advertising, cause I haven't heard of either of the products
until now, and I live in London, where apparently Nokia spent millions on
adverising of their "here"

~~~
Geee
It's not advertising per se. Their mapping product is called HERE, and has
been for a few years. It's not Nokia Maps or something else, but HERE. The web
interface is at [http://www.here.com](http://www.here.com) and there's also
native apps by that name.

------
Artemis2
> "It's ludicrous - people say, 'I'm here,' to announce their arrival, which
> is why we have it as a service.

> "As a small start-up trying to deliver value to users we don't think a
> multi-billion dollar company will be affected by this.

> "Life is hard enough without Goliaths squashing Davids - maybe they should
> focus on creating a better mapping service than Google or Apple than
> squishing a minuscule business."

The guy is being a real hypocrite, it's just not possible to brand an app
"HERE" when another company makes an app under the same brand, and owns a
trademark. It's not even possible that making a Google search did not come to
their minds when naming their product, and they tried to fly with it.

Also, HERE Maps provides data for BMW, Mercedes, Garmin, Hyundai, Pioneer,
Volkswagen Toyota, Oracle, Amazon, Bing, SAP, Flickr, Yahoo!. Is that better
than Google/Apple? Yes.

~~~
jahewson
Trademarks don't cover "merely descriptive" uses of the word. The question is
whether the Lowdown "HERE" app falls into that category. It's possible, though
I wouldn't bet on it.

------
userbinator
I wonder if they could call it the "THERE" button instead.

~~~
Silhouette
That seems a more promising idea. Then you could use all kinds of plays on
words in your advertising to clearly distinguish the brands: "Why stay Here
when you could already be There?" and the like.

------
nodata
So "startup doesn't check if name already used"? I don't see how Nokia is at
fault here.

------
rnhmjoj
So we can also say that when someone use "i" in a sentence is "likely to
deceive members of the relevant public" that the sentence is part of an Apple
product?

~~~
mawkus
No, we can't also say that.

~~~
rnhmjoj
You don't have a great sense of humor.

~~~
SixSigma
HN is not an open-mic comedy show

