Ondrej Holzman The case called "Paper" begins to unravel and slowly turns into a war. Other developers have also started speaking out, pointing out FiftyThree's apparently hypocritical behavior. They deny some of the claims in FiftyThree, but most importantly, they want to patent the word “Paper” in the name of their drawing app…
To take the events in order. Facebook first introduced its brand new new app for iPhone with the word Paper in the title. A few days later, he released it on the App Store, and that's when FiftyThree studio called. It has been offering a sketching application for a long time Paper by FiftyThree a he doesn't like the similarity of the names at all. However, a third party appears on the scene - the company miSoft - which she claims that the name Paper belongs to her, because it came to the App Store first.
And if the case wasn't too tangled at this point, it was about to get even more tangled. Indeed, FiftyThree objects on Twitter to the claims of miSoft and he claims, that Paper by FiftyThree was in the App Store five months earlier than miSoft's app. At the same time it was discovered, that miSoft after what Paper by FiftyThree won an award from Apple, changed the name of his Kid Paint app to Paper Express.
Plus FiftyThree too points out to the fact that there is another app with the name in the App Store paper, which has been around much longer than miSoft's. This is an application from the developer Contradictory, which owns paper sent to the App Store already on October 27, 2011. As it turns out, Contradictory has quite a few applications with similar generic names in the App Store, which FiftyThree refers to as so-called name squatting.
However, this is not very important. More importantly, it is not at all clear who, what and possibly how can claim their brand. MiSoft claims that it may not have been the first directly in the App Store, but it was the first to register the name "Paper" with Apple according to the rules of the store. In its campaign against Facebook, FiftyThree relies on the fact that its application appeared on the market before the one from the social network actually appeared, which is an undeniable fact. And that they are serious about fighting for their brand at FiftyThree, as evidenced by the current application for a trademark for the word "Paper".
FiftyThree filled out the request on January 30, the day Facebook showed its new app to the public for the first time. On that day, FiftyThree also learned about the app with a similar name for the first time. The popular developers already have a registered trademark "Paper by FiftyThree", but that didn't stop Facebook from calling its app "Paper - stories from Facebook", although there is a fairly close cooperation between FiftyThree and Facebook, whether it's connecting their services, developing apps or relations with Facebook board members.
That's why the creative team from Seattle and New York doesn't like Facebook's behavior. "We are currently exploring all possible legal action," FiftyThree said in a statement. According to the server TechCrunch FiftyThree may have a relatively decent chance of success against Facebook if it actually takes some action. Even though these two apps are not direct competitors, they are nevertheless located in the same store and are ultimately both apps. In addition, FiftyThree can prove that it was first in the App Store with Paper.
It can theoretically succeed even if it doesn't get a trademark on the term "Paper" itself. It is, after all, too general and is used by dozens of applications in the App Store. If it were to rule in FiftyThree's favor, Facebook would have to prove that the name of its application does not have users in any way, as has already been suggested by the other party.
However, it must be said that if the "Paper case" were to become a larger legal battle, Facebook would clearly have the upper hand with its financial resources. He could also defend himself by saying that he ended up bringing the FiftyThree app even more popularity. The next days, or even weeks, will bring resolution. One thing is certain for now – Facebook will not change the name of its application (yet).
However, so that there are not a few developers involved in the whole case, she called out also with the company Figure 53. It – as its name suggests – had problems with FiftyThree (PedesátTři in Czech) for a change. Figure 53 was founded in 2006, roughly six years before FiftyThree. Just as FiftyThree is now surprised to find that Facebook has used its brand, Chris Ashworth, the founder of Figure 53, two years ago, with a surprised expression, came across a new company with the same number in the name, albeit written in a word.
Ashworth later contacted FiftyThree's boss, George Petschnigg, to discuss the terms of the two companies' mutual coexistence. Ashworth suggested that provided both parties continued to work in their current fields, he would have no problem with that. Figure 53 also makes tools for artists, but especially for live music and video playback. Their QLab application has become the standard in its field over the past years.
Although Petschnigg gave Ashworth his proposal, how was the founder of Figure 53 to be surprised when he received a solution from FiftyThree, which stated that they could do practically whatever they wanted. Moreover, it continued with FiftyThree even applying for a trademark with a description that practically described the scope of Figure 53. Ashworth understandably did not like this at all and appealed to FiftyThree that such a coexistence was not possible and that they had to change their name. In the end, Ashworth and his company were also vindicated by the patent office, which did not approve FiftyThree's trademark with such rhetoric, and the app's creator Paper by FiftyThree he eventually applied for a new trademark under the terms that Ashworth had originally proposed.
The Figure 53 case is not directly related to the current one between FiftyThree and Facebook, but it perfectly illustrates the fact that FiftyThree used to behave as recklessly as Facebook does now. If FiftyThree hadn't stopped the patent office, Figure 53 would have been figuratively left with eyes for crying. And it is possible that the same is now waiting for FiftyThree, which he claims, that a great deal of work and effort is hidden in the name. But if FiftyThree didn't care before, will Facebook care now?
what he treats, he also loses