Follow

Apparently doesnt own the trademark but is using it anyway... I really hope this ends with them looking like a fool.

Β· Β· 8 Β· 40 Β· 29

@freemo Maybe FB and Trump should do something together since they fail on their own miserably :blobcatscared:​

I saw they did bought meta.com

@freemo I'm not surprised to be honest :blobcatgiggle:​

Hope this is gonna turn against them :flan_laugh:​

@stux not surprising in the least. Normally they are the ones owning a trademark and then suing everyone out of existance. now the tables are turned and if they can just ignore the same sort of trademark they would abuse it would be very telling

@freemo Reminds me of that time Apple Computer assured Apple Records they'd *never* be in a competing business so why not let us use the name?

Facebook already looks either like fools or unabashed bullies thinking they can take the name by force.

@freemo I've read that this claim is sketchy, like this domain was only created 3 days ago or something. So I'm kinda taking this with a grain of salt.

@trinsec that said i would expect that facebook bought every domain TLD with meta in it that was open. So seems unlike the domain was bought after facebook changed its name.

@freemo Isn't it then kind of dangerous to spread this image without being sure whether this is correct?

@trinsec Not really, why would it be? it is just a copy of the meta.company site. So it clearly isnt a fabrication in terms of meta having written it.

Also I checked the whois and meta.company has been registered by the same person for a while now since 2014-03-18 00:49:06 UTC

@freemo Oh I'm sure meta company wrote this, in fact that's their whole site. Only, is their claim true? Our is this sensationalist clickbait from them? There's not much to go by.

@trinsec Who knows. But I am not liable for if they make shit up. I am just sharing their claim, and they at a minimum have the domain since 2014 so seems reasonable they are telling the truth. Beyond that its not my responsibility to play detective.

Taking it with a grain of salt is of course a good move, im doing the same.

@freemo Yup, that kind of sketchiness. I couldn't care any bit about meta company in this case.

@xarvos No idea, as best I can tell they were on the verge of releasing their new product right before FB entered the scene.

@freemo if they’re not a tech company it’s not trademark infringement, and considering their limited information I doubt they’re even a real company.

@freemo
Feels a bit weird to me to end a letter like this with links to their FB and Insta profiles.

@freemo Looking into this, this page is the only one on the meta dot company domain, they don't even mention what kidn of product they offer, and have no reference to their website, their twitter only speaks about this, and the subreddit is also pretty empty.

I sadly am inclined to believe this page is just here to put oil on fire, unsure of the reason behind this however.

@Fishou yes this is true, they are a startup without a product. But as I understand it that doesnt define a trademark. They have had the meta domain since 2014 and presumably registered a trademark around that time. So even if they havent released their product yet I would imagine in the eyes of the law they are still in a good place to challenge it.

@freemo could be, but their only page, so the first of their template, linking to a facebook account, with a name implying said account only exists because of this potential trademark issue, is highly suspicious.

onyl snapshot prior of the site I could find was 2018, and was a 404 error, so they didn't use the domain before either, possibly keeping it just in case, but seems very strange to me, oh well… Cybersquatting that much in advance sounds quite unlikely in itself, we will see I guess.

@Fishou How is that suspicious? I mean its obvious that the company hadnt lauched yet and is in a startup state, perhaps a startup where the owner is the only employee. Why would that make it suspicious that they own the trademark, considering they had the site since 2014 at least.

A company of 1 is still a company in the eyes of the law.

@freemo They also don't have the meta account on Instagram. Just imagine how much you could sell such an account...

@barefootstache Its clear they arent a company with any large momentum. If it has employees at all its likely a small handful. They have not released any products and may just be a company of 1 person. None of this would make their claim to a trademark any less factual however if they registered it.

@freemo I’m not reading this entire thread, but I’m sure it will end in a buy-off. This is how it always goes. For a Dutch example. The NPO used to be the Nederlandse Postduiven Organisatie and they made bank with the sale of their domain name.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves. A STEM-oriented instance.

An inclusive free speech instance.
All cultures and opinions welcome.
Explicit hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.
We federate with all servers: we don't block any servers.