
Dear Instagram - stanleydrew
https://blog.bolt.co/2014/07/28/dear-instagram
======
bhandziuk
Dear Bolt.co,

I truly wish you luck in your fight against Instagram. Name stealing is a
rough game. I know because I have been traveling on Bolt buses for 8 years now
([http://www.boltbus.com/](http://www.boltbus.com/)). I know there is some
confusion because you have basically the same symbol. Maybe there aren't too
many ways to vary a lightning bolt shooting through an "O" in the word "Bolt"
but I welcome you (and Instagram to try).

Sincerely, A bus rider.

~~~
diminish
and here's the cms called [http://bolt.cm](http://bolt.cm)

I'm curious who got this name earlier.

~~~
ujjwal_wadhawan
How many people remember bo.lt from 2011 ?
[https://www.facebook.com/getbolt](https://www.facebook.com/getbolt)

~~~
subpixel
And how many remember bolt.com from the dotcom bubble?
[https://web.archive.org/web/19981207004638/http://www.bolt.c...](https://web.archive.org/web/19981207004638/http://www.bolt.com/)

------
uptown
Clickable link to the Bolt homepage: [https://bolt.co/](https://bolt.co/)

I always find it annoying when the blog company logo doesn't bring you back to
the company's homepage.

~~~
mikejarema
Me too, so what is best practice?

I put together a simple layout for my company's blog and made this link very
explicit specific, see: [http://blog.vidoyen.com](http://blog.vidoyen.com)

Is that more in line with a blog reader would generally expect? I'm genuinely
curious, because I've seen variants of this comment time and time again on HN.

~~~
uptown
My personal preference is for the top-left logo to always bring a user back to
the domain's top-level ignoring any sub-domains, though I'm not sure that
could be considered best-practice.

This approach works for me though, because I find most company-blogs to have a
much lower volume of published content than a website whose primary function
is that of a blog. In most cases, I've wound up on the site from a direct-link
to whatever blog post I'm reading. If what I've read in that post is
interesting, I'm probably going to want to check out the product or service
they're selling before reading any more of their company blog.

------
brandonmenc
> Imagine how it would have felt if Google or Apple or Facebook had launched a
> photo-sharing app called Instagram in 2011.

"Bolt" is a short, common word. "Instagram" is not (it's also more
descriptive.)

Unfortunately, the days of naming products desirable things like "bolt," and
being able to defend them, legally or not, are over.

The strange-made-up-word naming trend is annoying, but at least you're
guaranteed a name no one else wants.

~~~
micampe
_> The strange-made-up-word naming trend is annoying_

Why? Is it really a “trend”?

Chevrolet, Toyota, Lexus, Microsoft, Kodak, Leica, Nikon, Canon, Nokia, Rolex.
Some of these are not entirely made up, but they sound like it if you are not
familiar with small Japanese towns.

~~~
LeonidasXIV
> Toyota

Actually, Toyota[1] (豊田) is indeed a Japanese town, not even particularly
small and is the home of Toyota Motor Corporation.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota,_Aichi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota,_Aichi)

~~~
Pxtl
But it's not. The town is named after the company, not the other way around.

The company, in turn, is named after the Toyoda family that founded it. The
spelling was changed for aesthetics and connotation.

So yeah, made-up word.

------
ivraatiems
This is a well-written appeal. I'm sure, however, that there's no intention of
getting Instagram to actually do anything - the fact it was posted publicly,
along with the "hurts us more than it hurts you" line makes that obvious to
me.

But maybe that was obviously the point to everyone, and my comment is rendered
unnecessary.

~~~
sbarre
What do you mean by "no intention of getting Instagram to actually do
anything"?

It seems like a pretty clear-cut public appeal to Instagram/Facebook to
actually do something, which is to choose a different name before the product
launches..

One has to hope/assume that Bolt has already tried private channels and met
with little or no success, which is what forced them to go this public route..

Or are you implying they want to be paid off?

~~~
benihana
> _What do you mean by "no intention of getting Instagram to actually do
> anything"?_

GP means with this blog post Bolt is using this opportunity not to appeal to
Istangram, but to get free publicity for the company.

~~~
aaronem
Or possibly, as is actually mentioned in the article under discussion, to lay
groundwork for a later legal defense of their mark.

~~~
jebus989
I don't buy that this three-guy operation has the means for such litigation
and this post gives no indication they've had any consultation with a relevant
legal professional thus far.

~~~
aaronem
Well, what of it? They're worried Instagram is going to eat their mark bones
and all; whether they're planning to litigate or otherwise, their best defense
is to make as much noise about it as they can.

------
goodside
It's hard to have much sympathy when your app already has an identical name
(and a _very_ similar logo) to a mobile web browser launched four years
earlier:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolt_(web_browser)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolt_\(web_browser\))

~~~
renekooi
Idunno, the web browser has been discontinued for 3 years now. It also seems
that bolt.co and Instagram's Bolt are much more similar to each other (apps
dedicated to person→person communication) than Bolt the browser is to either
of them, so the risk of confusion is much smaller.

~~~
untog
_It also seems that bolt.co and Instagram 's Bolt are much more similar to
each other (apps dedicated to person→person communication)_

I disagree. A web browser is used for person to person communication too. All
three are used for very, very different forms of it, though.

~~~
umberto
Trademark is about preventing confusion, not owning words. A browser is very
different from an app voice/text app.

~~~
untog
My point was that the two Bolts barely compete with each other. One is for
voice calls, the other is for quick picture sharing. I can't imagine many
scenarios where you could use them interchangeably.

------
pathy
uspto.gov doesn't seem to allow linking directly to trademark filing but
search for Bolt and the first two results appear to be from Bolt.co.

One was filed in the 22nd and the other on the 23rd July 2014. Seems like
something they should have done earlier but I do feel for them none the less,
potentially going up against FB's legal team seems less than fun.

>"IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Computer application software for
mobile phones, namely, software for use in text, voice and video communication
between users. FIRST USE: 20131014. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20131014"

------
baldajan
Bolt - you will likely lose this case, Facebook knows this. Don't litigate.

Bolt is used too often and the only way you would succeed in a reverse
confusion trial is to show that you own the Bolt trademark when it comes to
mobile communication - no easy task. Just look at FiftyThree's USPTO
application for "Paper" and the letter of protest that was submitted.

You only recently filed for the mark in the USPTO, and even by some miracle
you get it through the PTO, Facebook/Instagram can still file a Letter of
Protest or file an Opposition in the TTAB.

Unfortunately, even though you have rights to the name Bolt, you likely won't
be able to enforce it. That said, neither Facebook nor Instagram can
successfully litigate against you in court.

------
enthdegree
The #1 way to spot a mushy web3.0 social startup is to see if they named their
product a generic, overloaded dictionary word. This is a really irritating
recent trend. Every time I see one of these I can almost hear the 'profile
picture in a circle' of the CEO pitching the name to me:

'its a really utilitarian, no-nonsense product for People Who Just Get It
Done, like me & my team, so naming it out of the common English vocabulary was
really the most natural expression of this'

Naming your products tired names like 'Bolt' is not bold, it's just
uncreative. It helps no one: it's pretentious, it makes your product harder to
find (regardless of 'how dissimilar it is to previous products'), and it makes
your brand less memorable. Why would anyone want to do this to their company
or their customers?

Maybe people who perpetrate this sort of situation will continue to have
tensions like this one and the trend will gracefully(?) self-destruct.
Hopefully the people who are capable of building valuable products will choose
names which don't cost them!

~~~
enthdegree
Not as extreme a case, but does anyone remember HealthKit?

~~~
chipotle_coyote
I'd say that the munging of the two words together actually makes that
relatively distinctive, and in line with Apple's "BlahKit" naming convention
for their API sets.

Now Pages and Numbers, on the other hand...

~~~
fagbox
SuckKit

------
dimillian
Also, Facebook have a library named bolt:
[https://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/2014/01/30/let-
s-b...](https://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/2014/01/30/let-s-bolt/)

~~~
coder23
That is not in direct competition to Bolt. If Instagram launched a game or a
washing service called Bolt, there would be no problem.

~~~
5teev
"Bolts Framework" is rather different from, and clearly not competing with,
"Bolt."

------
coldcode
These days people seem to prefer using actual words as names which can only
result in conflicts like this one. At least names like Flikr are pretty
unique.

------
daddykotex
I hope they change the name.

Since Instagram is owned by Facebook and Facebook has launched Slingshot, a
Snapchat rival, I'm wondering why they need another one?

~~~
ivraatiems
With acquisitions, Facebook has generally left the acquired company mostly
alone (if it's big and successful already). Instagram, Occulus and WhatsApp as
examples. Instagram competes with Facebook in some ways, too, but it's still
separate.

Their goal is more data, not less competition.

~~~
trothamel
Is collecting data the goal, or simply diversification?

My theory is that Facebook (the company) is preparing for the day when
Facebook (the website) goes the way of Friendster and Myspace, and they're
attempting to have other lines of business when that happens.

~~~
ivraatiems
Hmm, I hadn't considered that. It could be. I dunno. Anyway, they definitely
want to keep their acquisitions pretty separate for the time being.

------
chrischen
Instagram also harassed us over our name Instapainting.com. They decided to
ban us from using Facebook services unless we changed our name.

------
rahimnathwani
The app icon for Facebook Messenger has a bolt. It's a mobile messenger app.
It uses a bolt as the main part of its logo.

------
karjaluoto
I wrote about this topic a few months back, when 53 was upset about Facebook
using the "name" Paper: [http://www.erickarjaluoto.com/blog/the-perils-of-
naming-your...](http://www.erickarjaluoto.com/blog/the-perils-of-naming-your-
company/)

tl;dr Using a word to name a company is easy, but indefensible.

------
badman_ting
There was nothing named "Bolt" before Mr. Benton's product came around?
Really?

~~~
frogpelt
Yes, actually there was.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolt_%28website%29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolt_%28website%29)

------
bdcravens
The beta name for the first version of Adobe's ColdFusion Builder (IDE) was
Bolt.

------
MichaelApproved
I don't see a trademark claim for the name Bolt on their website. I bet, had
they gotten one, they would have an easier time defending the name. It'll be
interesting to see how this plays out.

~~~
scott_s
_Claiming_ a trademark is distinct from _registering_ a trademark. You can
claim a trademark by just saying "this is our trademark." That will typically
be done with the "TM" symbol. Registering a trademark means you applied with
the USPTO to get a registered trademark, and it was granted.

You are correct in that they don't make an explicit claim, but I'm not sure if
trademark law actually requires you to do that. It would certainly make
everything less messy.

~~~
chimeracoder
> I'm not sure if trademark law actually requires you to do that.

It definitely does not. It certainly could influence a court decision (there's
always a degree of uncertainty with any court case), but you absolutely can
defend a mark that you have not explicitly claimed or registered, as long as
you can demonstrate sufficiently widespread prior use.

------
eddieroger
This appeal reminded me of HipChat's situation with Messages for Mac, and the
similar (but better responded to) action they took [0]. It doesn't look like
Bolt did anything to lay claim to the name, and they probably don't want to go
up against Facebook's lawyers. Besides, they only support Android at the
moment, so to any iOS user, Bolt is completely new (and, likely, same for
Android, but at least they had potential to know the product).

0\. [https://blog.hipchat.com/2012/02/17/they-may-just-be-chat-
bu...](https://blog.hipchat.com/2012/02/17/they-may-just-be-chat-bubbles-but-
theyre-our-chat-bubbles/)

------
toufka
Reminds me of when Facebook did this with Papers[1] too.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7171724](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7171724)

~~~
shekhar101
Off topic, but I'm curious, how do you dig in and find old HN postings? I see
a lot of people doing it.

~~~
toufka
I read the article when it came out - remembered it, and then searched for it
using the bottom search bar. Took a few different search terms to find the
article - but it came up relatively quickly. Not too complicated - but does
require me to have read the article a while ago.

------
huntleydavis
I think this is a risk that bolt.co and really any startup that chooses a
short 'techy' word as their company name has to factor in.

------
enthdegree
The #1 way to spot some 'mushy web3.0 startup' is to see if they name their
fledgling product some generic, overloaded dictionary word. My perception has
always been that owners choose this sort of name to market their product as
'truly the most no-nonsense utilitarian solution, for people who Get Things
Done like me & u.' There have been a lot of these lately. Chosing a dull name
to be cool isn't helping anyone and I hope collisons like this latest
groupthink help the trend die quickly.

------
dethtron5000
I worked at a startup in the late 90s called Bolt. It's hard to protect your
name when it's a short, commonly-used word.

------
stasy
I think it might actually make yours get more popular if they use the same
name (hop on the bandwagon of their marketing)

------
issa
I humbly suggest changing it to "The Bolt". It's cleaner.

------
TallGuyShort
I wish them luck, although using the name of a common machine part as a brand
is kind of asking for collisions. I'm also not sure it's wise to base one of
your first steps in a potential legal battle on an open letter based on leaked
information...

------
yoavush
downloaded Bolt as the only way i can support from afar..

~~~
bjones53
I hope the team makes the best of a bad situation and uses the attention (and
possibly press) to convert supporters, like yourself, into users.

------
danvesma
Lets go with "Dolt"

