LOL: ... Facebook discovers there's already a tech company with that name and it filed for trademark

[demmiblue]

Coming up on @KTLA: Oops! After changing its name to Meta, Facebook discovers there's already a tech company with that name and it filed for trademark protection months ago

Link to tweet

[underpants]

1. They didn't do their research

[Thomas Hurt]

3. Should have asked the Qnuts to do that for them.

[LuckyCharms]

27. .

[ProfessorGAC]

32. Ya Think?!?!?

It takes seconds to search trademarks, and the list can do downloaded as a .txt file, which can be opened in Excel.
Some of our specialty blends were named by lab information from the development.
We'd search that list in Excel to make sure the number sequence wasn't TM'd.
Took a minute or 2.
This is pretty sloppy work for a huge company. Maybe they're too big to still be efficient.
This is a failure of multiple departments.

[LiberalFighter]

37. They probably thought AI would get the job done.

[ProfessorGAC]

47. If So...

...it just gets dumber!

[SergeStorms]

36. Try "google".

I don't think anyone has "Google" yet.

Ya' know, I wouldn't even bother checking. Who would copyright something that weird? Go ahead and order the company stationery ASAP.

😉

[LiberalArkie]

60. They probably did, they will make a multi million offer for the transfer. Happens a lot.

[lame54]

2. I think the name Blackwater is available

[MontanaMama]

12. Excellent.

[Rebl2]

43. 😂😂😂

[FailureToCommunicate]

58. snap!

[Shermann]

4. Why not just go with a cool symbol for a company name?

And be the Company Formerly Known as Facebook?

[SergeStorms]

30. How about this symbol?

.🖕.

[Rebl2]

44. There ya go!

[Bayard]

5. LOL!

They'll have to buy that company now.

[Xolodno]

6. I bet....

...they Meta sad face once they found out.



....I'll show myself out.

[Hekate]

7. Xxxx

[MagickMuffin]

8. Mark Z doing what Mark Z does best STEALING from others

Choke on it Zuckerberg

[Rebl2]

45. Hummm

who does that sound like

[PoliticAverse]

9. red-facedbook n/t

[Journeyman]

10. Reminds me of years ago, when NBC networks redesigned their logo, only to find . . .

a small station in Idaho or some such place had the identical look. NBC had spent some $50,000 developing its logo. The small station, in the words of the general manager, had spent "about $100, plus a six pack of beer, for my brother-in-law to do me up a new look."

Can't remember all the details (and what I've written is strictly from memory) but it ended up costing NBC a goodly sum to get the rights to their "new look."

Yeah . . . corporations. They're not the best at doing whatever it is they do.

[Ms. Toad]

17. Nebraska Public Television.

Otherwise you're pretty close on teh details.

They designed a new logo for NPT

[Journeyman]

18. Thanks for the clarification . . .

Good to know my memory is only partly faulty.

[Ms. Toad]

42. I lived in Nebraska at the time.

It was quite amusing that a high falutin TV company paid millions for the same logo designed by one of our own country bumpkins.

[jxla]

26. Nebraska ETV Network

In 1974, Nebraska ETV adopted a new logo – a red stylized abstract "N" formed from two trapezoids. A year later, NBC unveiled the same logo that Nebraska ETV was using, but for the blue coloring of the right trapezoid in the NBC logo. The commission sued NBC for trademark infringement in February 1976, a suit which generated national attention. In an out-of-court settlement, Nebraska ETV agreed to allow NBC to keep its logo. In return, NBC donated a color mobile unit and other equipment totaling over $800,000. It also paid the commission an additional $55,000 for the costs of rolling out a new logo and eliminating the old logo from all advertising; Nebraska ETV's new logo was unveiled in late 1976.[4][5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Public_Media

[mwooldri]

34. Media Corporations seem to goof regularly.

When independent television came to London in the 1950s, two companies were chosen to produce the programs. Associated Rediffusion had weekdays, Associated Broadcasting Company had weekends. Associated Broadcasting Company was going to abbreviate as "ABC" but... Associated British Corporation was about to start their TV service soon elsewhere in England and they laid claim to "ABC". They had the better claim as they owned the "ABC" chain of cinemas. Associated Broadcasting Company quickly changed to Associated Television - or "ATV".

I'm sure there are plenty of earlier goods and gaffes in corporate world going back decades...

[ZonkerHarris]

56. Bad lawyers become corporate lawyers because they can't succeed at a firm.

[Jerry2144]

11. I think the name

SphincterSite is available for a tech company to trade mark

[MontanaMama]

13. This thread is killing me.

[dweller]

14. There's so many options

?dl=1


✌🏻

[SergeStorms]

38. Or is it, "moops".

George Costanza.

[spudspud]

40. LOL.

[Sunsky]

15. Hahaha

[Jerry2144]

16. They should trademark

Mos Eisley. Because like that spaceport, you’ll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

[qazplm135]

19. They should have Googled it first

[Brainfodder]

20. Watch him try Zeta next?

[Brainfodder]

22. In hindsight with 30 more secs to chew on it: He will just buy that Meta outright?

[Act_of_Reparation]

21. Facebook has more money than god.

Another company trademarked the thing they want to trademark? They'll buy it. No sweat.

[Brainfodder]

23. Vulture another one, yup won't surprise one bit.

[ProfessorGAC]

46. A Bonanza For That Company!

Why would they except anything but huge money? FB already looks stupid. Changing the name again makes it worse.
I see many zeroes in the deal for that TM.

[NCjack]

24. Dummies at FB, I can save you this search: "Oops-a-Daisy" is taken.

[LuckyCharms]

28. Jeez!

It's a big deal when a company that large changes its name. You would think that maybe they would have had someone do 5 minutes of due diligence before they announced the name change.

It's no wonder they can't get their shit together.

[Effete Snob]

49. Tweets are not a good source of legal analysis

Like Delta, the airline, the faucet company, the tool company, the dental clinic, the fuel company, and several more, short terms like "META" are used as trademarks many times over by several concurrent users.

This is a nothing. Aside from the fact that simply paying $350 and filing an application doesn't, by itself, mean anything, the term "META" is the subject mark of the following pending and registered US trademark filings by various parties:



Each one with a registration number is an already-registered mark, and the ones without registration numbers are pending applications.

But, whatevs. People like their wrong assumptions.

[Geechie]

61. Thanks for pointing this out! nt

[SergeStorms]

29. Up yours, Zuckerberg!

I mean "Mother Theresa ". Throw the owner a few billion, I'm sure they'll let you have your way.

[Trueblue1968]

31. ha ha ha Zuck is so stupid

[dchill]

33. What about "Meh?"

[NurseJackie]

35. How about Feta instead? I love feta.

[Aussie105]

39. Simple fix.

'Meta' becomes Metamorphosis, symbol becomes a butterfly.

Zuck, 1/2 mill and that idea is yours!

[TheRickles]

41. Or "metta", the Buddhist term for lovingkindness. Part of their new image, right?

[NullTuples]

48. Call me cynical but I don't think it was an oversight

Just to note, a proper database can do such searches in seconds.

They're used every day by lawyers of such things, as well as marketers.

I find it hard to believe Facebook did not do so, nor their lawyers, nor marketing department.

It's more likely IMO that Mark Zuckerberg simply decided he liked that name, and they'd fix any problems later.

Especially once he saw the size of the company that actually owns the name, in comparison to his own.

Now it's just a matter of "will you take the offer, or shall we dance a very expensive dance in court for a decade, one I can easily afford and you cannot"?

[Effete Snob]

50. It's because people don't know how trademarks work anyway

None of these things are made or provided by the same people:











Lots of businesses use the same mark.

Context is key. At a Home Depot, you can walk right past Delta faucets and into the Delta power tools in seconds. Totally different companies right in the same store. No problem.

[Geechie]

62. Hey now

Don’t interrupt us while we’re calling out Schmuckerberg and having generally a playground pile-on! We need this

[Ford_Prefect]

51. DId I hear that Mud was still available???

...or maybe Screaming Vortex Of Doom? Yes I know that works out to be SVOD. It just seems so apropos given recent revelations about their practices and business model.

"We met cute on SVOD" kinda has a ring to it IMO.
"The truth was revealed in a post on SVOD".
"I saw it on SVOD so it must be true".

It seems so right that way. Especially since "Vaal" is already under copyright.

[Mr.Bill]

52. I wonder if the other company has a Facebook page.

[Mr.Bill]

53. So I googled meta.

The fifth thing on the list was Metallica.

[TheBlackAdder]

54. Facebook probably thinks they'll do a Sir Richard Branston, suing everyone with Virgin in their name

.

They'll drop so much cash or pressure on the firm to make them abandon their trademark and rights.

.

[ZonkerHarris]

55. Phillip Morris is available.

[Buns_of_Fire]

57. Famous Last Words: "I did my own research." nt

[Bristlecone]

59. Maybe PsychOps is open

[Steelrolled]

63. Anyone who would think that Facebook doesn't have this covered

is being silly.

I worked for a much much smaller company which went through the same thing - it had all been worked out in advance. But it did take a couple weeks or so before the web name was transferred.