Apple bought the trademark from FaceTime Communications, a company in instant-messaging automation and security. Apparently FaceTime Communications may be transitioning to a new brand soon:

http://www.facetime.com/LearnMore.aspx

Well, to be fair, you were infringing on their trademark (or whoseever trademark it was previously).

That depends on what their app did. From what I can make out with Google cache, it was a timer app.

The two trademarks Facetime Corp held (and which Apple has supposedly bought) orient around "computer software used for communicating over global computer networks using voice, text, fax, or e-mail."

A timer app called Facetime doesn't on the face of it appear to violate either of these other Facetime trademarks but.. trademarks are a wishy-washy world of legal wrangling, so it seems Apple's prepared to just push their weight around since they own the store and have the right to do so.

They're both software. Its easily conceivable that a non-moron could search for one and mistake it for the other. This case seems like an actual violation whose enforcement would be much more reasonable than most other disputes that have made the news the last few years.

The only "not great" thing is that it is Apple that have introduced this as a problem, not this app developer. Which is a bit brutish.

It would be "less brutish" if the app developer were to have done it?

Well I was trying to choose a relatively non-negative word. Apple made an app, then "bought" a name - and then enforced it.

Kosher, yep I guess. A little forceful; yes definitely.

It's not something most people would make a habit of doing.

Whether they own the store or not has nothing to do with it. It's a straightforward legal claim. They have sent the same kinds of notices to app developers for other trademark owners. It's especially straightforward because they have published their own app with that name, so it's not just a matter of over-zealous trademark protection.

As the gp said. A trademark dispute is not necessarily a straightforward legal at all. Buying the claim of one side and using your power to enforce an otherwise tenuous sounds like ... uh bullying.

No, bullying would be to involve lawyers.

Apple has enforced the (unregistered) trademark of a fellow indie game developer the same way. Documentation was provided, the other party changed the name of their app, and everyone continued on their way without tears or lawyers. All quite civil if you ask me.

Would they enforce the indie-game developer's trademark if it were against an app that was: 1) not a game at all; and 2) came out a year before the indie game of the same name? That seems to be the case here--- Apple is claiming a trademark case against an app in a different genre than its own "Facetime" application, and which came out a year earlier.

Sometimes trademarks don't matter much and everyone can happily and informally settle the question. But it quite possible for a given trademark to be the main asset of a small business and thus when a larger business can happily use "informal" methods to take possession of that trademark, it would qualify as bullying - if you can get away without lawyers, it's actually worse bullying in this cases since you don't need any legal standing.

I don't know the exact story here - I'm just reacting to a claim that Apple informally deciding everything is inherently fair.

So Apple records should get Apple to cease selling music.

All you'd have to do is Google to avoid making a very, very silly comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer

Not silly as that is the very case I was alluding to.

Given the general level of discourse (and lack of historical knowledge) around here these days, you'd probably be better served by adding some kind of sarcasm indicator. :)

whoosh

User bcwood posted this in a neutral, matter of fact, way. Then I wonder why almost all the subsequent comments are so argumentative and biased. Chill, guys. Is being polite and cool not the thing to be on Internet?

HN comments are often argumentative. Commonly the top comment on a submission attacks an incidental error in it, ignoring the point of the submission. This may be partly due to startups being scrappy. Or maybe because it's on the internet. However on HN, at least it's usually done politely and civilly.

The other kind of useless (noise aot signal) comment is the meta-comment. Like yours (and now mine).

The recommended solution is to ignore what you don't like. By focusing on the good, the bad falls away - especially on a time-based "news" site like this one. Tomorrow, it will be gone. Good advice for startups (ignore your competition; get on with making something great). Life too.

Think of the interesting comments have left neglected and unloved because of the time you spent reading these annoying ones.

I have noticed it too. I think it's mostly just old fashioned karma whoring...

So I guess the issue isn't that people on HN sometimes make emptily argumentative comment - but that people on HN vote them up.

I think so.

Thank you. I'm actually not upset about the situation, I just found it an interesting enough situation to share.

Ya this bothers me too. Though I'm guilty of it on occasion. I think it's the same reason that the famous "Someone is wrong on the internet" xkcd comic is so funny... [1] People have no etiquette and in many cases it's easier to bash and be argumentative on the internet because it's so impersonal. I can think of a number of people that post often here where I skim past their posts because they have built a bad reputation with me. I think the contrapositive also applies, there are some people that post enjoyable comments (even when I don't agree with what they are saying) and I make a point to read those. There was some discussion about a feature to make it easier to find people you find interesting... like maintain a list or something. But I don't think it's made it to the official features request page.

[1] http://xkcd.com/386/

I can't see which comments were so argumentative and biased, and impolite. They all seem fairly normal to me. Is there any particular example you could point out (seriously)?

The bottom line is that you must take care of the IP aspects of your online business. We tend to forget such things as registering your copyright, your trademarks and maybe some patent (if you came up with some groundbreaking stuff, such as the "buy now" button).

I married a lawyer, so she handles this for me. That's a potently dangerous strategy, so if your risk aversion is higher, you may try reading this book instead: Legal Guide to Web & Software Development http://www.amazon.com/Legal-Guide-Software-Development-CD-Ro...

Change your apps name. Not that big of a deal.

(context - http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/11/steve-jobs-to-develop... )

This is a classic "pick your battles" or "know when to fold'em" moments I think. This is technically "press" for your app, so hopefully some real good will come out of it when you come back to tell us the new name.

Better yet, have the new name ready before getting this press! A huge opportunity has just passed by.

Just out of interest, how long had your app been in the App Store?

It had been on the App Store for about a year.

And what do we learn from this? Make sure you trademark your application's name soon. I learned it the hard way too, BTW...

Yes, but I wonder how many people do this?

Speaking of trademarks: Isn't 'iOS' owned by Cisco? Their Internet Operating System is running on their routers...

Yep, and Apple licensed the rights to the name.

http://blogs.cisco.com/news/comments/cisco_and_apple_agreeme...

Makes sense. Apple didn't want to give away the name of one of their new products/features before launch, but needed your app gone before launch also.

I am interested that they didn't just say, "We own the trademark Facetime, GTFO." Maybe they just have an automated system that does this kind of thing? I assume you will change the name to something else and everything will be OK, right?

I would guess they didn't want to reveal anything about their plans before the announcment yesterday, which is why they were kind of vague about the whole thing. Yes, I'll just rename the app (not sure to what yet), and resubmit.

Timeface

Personally, I don't like the name anyway. I am not a face, and nor are my friends. That name is just a reminder of the hollowness of online communication.

What's next, bodytime? Will that be the currency of the future (I got actual bodytime with x)? Except bodytime is already used for the stupid demand of employers that their workers are physically present in the office.

Facetime is a widely adopted contraction of Face to Face time; which is in itself a widely accepted concept in the digital age (I find it mildly ironic that it has been adopted for this form of communication as well - because it defies the original meaning of the word :))

I think you can find a better name that does more justice

Agreed. I was actually never that excited about the name. I worked with a designer on the app, and the name was her idea.

Eh, not surprised, you expect fair play from Apple?

This is in fact fair play. Do you dispute that the trademark was taken and that the app name did not infringe?

It appears that the app name did not infringe, yes. Apple's trademark is for communications software and his is for a timer program.

That's not how trademarks work.

You register in a class, here in the UK FaceTime wasn't registered until this March. It's registered against the Nice Classificiation (http://www.wipo.int/classifications/nivilo/nice/index.htm?la...) meaning that if you want to use the term FaceTime for anything encompassed by classes 16 or 35 then you need to license the trademark.

Apple are an international company and need to abide by trademark restrictions in other jurisdictions in which they are operating commercially.

FaceTime appears to have been registered using the Madrid system in more places than just the US.

So, whilst the US-only classes are quite narrow this is not the end of the locus of operation and so international trademarks have to be considered.

If it was only registered in March 2010, doesn't that cause a problem for using the Madrid-system registration to enforce the trademark against products that were released in 2009, like this one? At least in the U.S., the various presumptive benefits of having a registered trademark are much weaker if you're trying to enforce it against a usage that preceded the registration. It seems they would have to rely on the older FaceTime Communications USPTO marks in order to establish priority, but those marks are only in the narrower U.S. classes.

I only did a quick search (UK, US), there could be community (EC) registered marks that are earlier but these should have shown up (in the UK search).

Trademarks are unregistered IP as well as registered. Registration gains you more protection and makes suing people easier but it can be done with an unregistered mark (or that's how things work in the EC).

It doesn't matter when any product was made in as much as the registered mark is a sign of the origin of goods/services it is not a product mark. If there is no other IP protection on your product I can rip it off and sell it as long as I don't use your trademark.

I don't know sufficient to comment on priority of registrations in the US both in the specifics and in general, sorry.

The purpose of trademark law is to prevent the public from being misled as to the origin or quality of a product or service, and to identify the commercial source of products and services. There would likely have been confusion between two apps with the same name in the App Store. Apple registered the trademark, submitter did not. It's a pretty cut and dried case.

Yeah, those losers. They really should have just said "Hey, we're releasing a brand new feature called FaceTime and we need you to change your apps name. Oh yeah, and just don't tell anyone. Thanks!"

That is exactly what I'm saying, sans sarcasm.

To say what is, as it is, without resorting to secrecy, is indicative of strength.

Time will tell, but I believe Google & Android will win over Apple for this exact reason.

And I'll repeat, Apple lacks in Cohones.

Secrecy buys Apple:

  - Protection of IP until a few weeks from launch date
  - Rapt attention for what amounts to a PR presentation
  - Synchronized media buzz for new products
  - Strong early sales leading to additional media buzz

Hype of course, do you really not see that?

I don't think that is true, and I am sure Apple doesn't think that is true.

Whatever you say about Apple, they very carefully manage there brand, and part of that is keeping things secret, controlled releases of information, and building up large buzz before there regular announcements. It seems to be working for them.

A cool brand name they probably thought long and hard about before adopting it. A brand that will have resonance with the general population at the cost of alienating some developers. This is what 'crossroads between liberal arts and technology' is about; changing the pecking order in the technology business: Apple first, normal people second, developers a distant third.

Shouldn't it be "iFace" anyway?

How does the Facetime brand alienate developers exactly?

Developers hate frivolous and silly names for protocols and software packages. Just look at Cocoa, Groovy, Sinatra, PubSubHubbub, and acts_as_taggable_on_steroids.

I wasn't aware of anyone having emotions about any names since I heard an 18 year raging about how to pronounce "GNU" when I was in college.