• Synthead@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    191
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s a shame how obvious they’re working their corporate bullying cards simply because of money. Imagine if I created a product called Google and tried to sue Google for it. That would be ridiculous, right? Well, that’s what Facebook is doing, just with money.

    • EatYouWell@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      60
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not what Facebook is doing. The company has owned the trademark for over a decade, and Facebook is trying to strong arm them into giving it up.

      This is also in the UK where they somewhat stand up to companies like Facebook. McDonald’s lost their trademark for the Big Mac for trying to do this exact same thing.

      • Synthead@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        47
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Maybe I didn’t convey what I’m saying well. Facebook is attempting to take a name because they have money. Laws don’t really apply to them, they seem to think, and it’s because of their bullying and their money.

      • Jivebunny@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Also, Wendy’s had this issue as well in Europe, but their issue was about their actual company name.

      • EnderMB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Eh, the UK isn’t in the best situation, in terms of big tech. If anything, most FAANG companies have got away without paying any tax here for over a decade because the alternative is they ship all of their jobs elsewhere, and the UK tech scene implodes.

        I think a UK court would likely stand up for the British company, as they should, but I would expect Meta to be allowed to throw their weight around a little.

        • squiblet@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          Okay, pointing out the analogy of “Imagine if I created a product called Google and tried to sue Google for it […] Well, that’s what Facebook is doing” doesn’t match this situation.

          • Synthead@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            30
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Facebook created a product called Threads and is attempting to bully Threads Software into taking their name. I was creating a hypothetical situation about how most small companies can’t just steal a company trademark, because it’s rightfully someone else’s. However, if you are a larger company and, have enough money, and have shit ethics, then you can just kinda… ignore that, and for some reason, the US is happy to let wallets write the law.

            They did this with Meta, too.

            • squiblet@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              I agree, that is what they’re doing. My only point was they’re being sued, not suing someone. They just took the name and were ignoring the other company that was already using it.

          • 4am@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think the part that is missing is “imagine if I were a billion dollar company and I…”

  • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well, since Meta/Facebook will probably be pulling out of the UK along with every other social media company, that’s hardly a “threat”

    • kautau@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      They will. This was most likely planned by their legal team in advance, will cost Facebook a negligible amount compared to their revenue and marked as a “risk.” And when they settle it will be a planned business expense, like a fine

        • frunch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          ~$1,000,000,000,000 USD, which is why they’re trying to do it the “easy way”

      • SeabassDan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The legal fees alone while it gets dragged out in court will definitely hurt the smaller company.

        • squiblet@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s the strategy, of course. Throw a ton of lawyers at it and hope the other company just gives up.

          • kautau@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah they don’t even need to hire a law firm. They pay millions of dollars in retainer every year to keep lawyers on staff, so this is just someone’s day job to go through the motions

    • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      The company has said that they’ve spent a decade building their “brand” under that name. So, if they’re pushing for a big payout, they intend it to be gargantuan rather than the usual payoff. Changing their name would essentially be starting over in some ways. And the confusion they claim as their reason for action is a legit thing.

      I’m not saying that isn’t their goal behind the scenes, but FB tried to buy the name and failed, so I have a feeling they aren’t looking for the usual quiet payoff that’s the goal of that type of action.

  • echo64@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    33
    ·
    1 year ago

    Eh I don’t think they have much of a claim here. Threads is a super common word in software and Facebook can so what they want with their own platform.

    • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem is that the company doing this is in messaging. It isn’t a direct competitor, but it’s a legit proposition, as per the analysis lawyers have made. It’s big enough news that the usual outlets have chimed in, and the gist has been that a suit would have standing