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/). 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).
I think you miss the problem here. There is very little confusion between BoltBus and Bolt.co in the sense that they are in completely different industries and the likelihood of confusion is low.
As bolt.co is claiming, there are many people who appear to be confused between instagram's offering and the company's product (they are arguably in the same space and possibly competitors).
Trademarks are classified by "Goods and Services". A bus company is clearly different from a mobile app. A mobile app (Instagram) is clearly the same as a mobile app (Bolt). For the purposes of trademarking, the similarity of a "mobile voice and messaging" app and a "mobile photo sharing" app is not quite as clear. I'm sure some lawyers would be happy to help clear it up.
So, while I get your intention, that's not how trademarks work. If Bolt doesn't have a trademark, they should stop complaining.
Instagram/Facebook is NOT going to do anything about the name. Just look at the history. Facebook launched an iOS app and called it "Paper." And guess what? There was a very popular app, which was called "Paper" too.
From recent cases I only remember Microsoft to change their mind in regards to their "Metro" OS. However, even in that case Microsoft decided to back off because "Metro" was a big retailer that sold Microsoft's products, so bad blood could cause bottom line to take a hit.
The difference is that Instagram is trying to build a similar product with the same name, whereas the mentioned bus company is just a bus company that has a few stops in the United States. So most of the people living on this world will never even get chance to confuse the two of them.
I put together a simple layout for my company's blog and made this link very explicit specific, see: 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.
> 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.
I'm pretty sure you can get trademark protection for short, common words, as long as they are not descriptive or common for the protected areas. You can name your car bar and your bar car, but not your bar bar and your car car.
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.
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..
Sure the public appeal is a better option for a small start up to put pressure Instagram to use a different name rather than a behind the scenes legal notice...
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)
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.
I think the difference here is that the Bolt web browser was discontinued in 2011 (according to the Wikipedia article you linked), whereas the OPs "Bolt" voice/SMS service is very much an active project.
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"
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.
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!
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.
I have a feeling Facebook is becoming a bit of an integrated app holdings company. Where as Amazon and Google have turned their infrastructure to the public, Facebook appears to be using it and its large investment dollars to be building a type of decentralized(partly) tech conglomerate.
It's almost as if they took their lessons from the struggles in becoming a platform for third parties and decided that there are only a small number of core applications people use. Instead of waiting for, and having less control of these high profile apps, Facebook instead is just owning them outright.
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.
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.
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).
[+] [-] bhandziuk|11 years ago|reply
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/). 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.
[+] [-] sheetjs|11 years ago|reply
As bolt.co is claiming, there are many people who appear to be confused between instagram's offering and the company's product (they are arguably in the same space and possibly competitors).
[+] [-] Mc_Big_G|11 years ago|reply
So, while I get your intention, that's not how trademarks work. If Bolt doesn't have a trademark, they should stop complaining.
[+] [-] Smirnoff|11 years ago|reply
From recent cases I only remember Microsoft to change their mind in regards to their "Metro" OS. However, even in that case Microsoft decided to back off because "Metro" was a big retailer that sold Microsoft's products, so bad blood could cause bottom line to take a hit.
[+] [-] diminish|11 years ago|reply
I'm curious who got this name earlier.
[+] [-] TheHippo|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aespinoza|11 years ago|reply
Bolt Bus will definitely not be confused with the Bolt App.
[+] [-] bhouston|11 years ago|reply
Bolt (the Disney movie): http://cdnvideo.dolimg.com/cdn_assets/abd7aa3a4851f515796d9d...
Bolt Browser: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolt_(web_browser)
[+] [-] uptown|11 years ago|reply
I always find it annoying when the blog company logo doesn't bring you back to the company's homepage.
[+] [-] scott_s|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikejarema|11 years ago|reply
I put together a simple layout for my company's blog and made this link very explicit specific, see: 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.
[+] [-] Alupis|11 years ago|reply
They will need to compel Instagram into doing so.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] brandonmenc|11 years ago|reply
"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|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] thomasz|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dblacc|11 years ago|reply
I have a feeling the guys at King disagree with you.
[+] [-] ivraatiems|11 years ago|reply
But maybe that was obviously the point to everyone, and my comment is rendered unnecessary.
[+] [-] sbarre|11 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] JoshTriplett|11 years ago|reply
> We've been using the Bolt name in the mobile messaging market for a year, and technically we have to "police our mark", otherwise we risk losing it.
> We don't want a legal battle over this, and we think it's not too late for you to consider an alternate name before launch.
[+] [-] vjvj|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dlsx|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] goodside|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] renekooi|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freehunter|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davb|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kevando|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pathy|11 years ago|reply
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|11 years ago|reply
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|11 years ago|reply
'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!
[+] [-] dimillian|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coder23|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eps|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jaredmcdonald|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coldcode|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] daddykotex|11 years ago|reply
Since Instagram is owned by Facebook and Facebook has launched Slingshot, a Snapchat rival, I'm wondering why they need another one?
[+] [-] fred_durst|11 years ago|reply
It's almost as if they took their lessons from the struggles in becoming a platform for third parties and decided that there are only a small number of core applications people use. Instead of waiting for, and having less control of these high profile apps, Facebook instead is just owning them outright.
[+] [-] ivraatiems|11 years ago|reply
Their goal is more data, not less competition.
[+] [-] minimaxir|11 years ago|reply
Facebook must be trying for a round 3.
[+] [-] chrischen|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rahimnathwani|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] karjaluoto|11 years ago|reply
tl;dr Using a word to name a company is easy, but indefensible.
[+] [-] badman_ting|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frogpelt|11 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolt_%28website%29
[+] [-] bdcravens|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MichaelApproved|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eddieroger|11 years ago|reply
0. https://blog.hipchat.com/2012/02/17/they-may-just-be-chat-bu...
[+] [-] toufka|11 years ago|reply
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7171724
[+] [-] shekhar101|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] huntleydavis|11 years ago|reply