I detest Meta as much as the next guy but I can't bring myself to feel bad for Threads Software Limited here. This is what you get when you pick your company name out of a dictionary in an attempt to be trendy/minimalist.
Yes-like Meta, or Threads, or Apple, Glean, Element, X, Zoom, etc.
If you choose a generic word for your brand name, don't be surprised when a bigger company chooses the same generic word and ruins your SEO. This has happened before. Maybe it's not fair, but it's extremely foreseeable. It seems much easier to me to choose a creative name in the first place than to risk a legal battle wherein you have to prove that really you should be able to use that dictionary word because you thought of it first. As other commenters have pointed out, since Threads (Meta) and Threads (software) operate in different spaces, Threads's (software) claim for exclusivity is tenuous anyway.
Precisely. If you chose your product/company name to be a common word in the english language you should expect it to be more difficult to exclude others from using it too. I don't think there's anything wrong with this, it's just the consequence of a non-distinctive trademark.
This should apply for both threads software and meta.
I'm a bit surprised how many people here have sympathy for companies trying to enforce exclusivity over common names. Let anybody use "threads" if they want.
Shouldn't you feel "bad" for Meta then? They apparently both "picked the name out of the dictionary in an attempt to be trendy/minimalist" _and_ knew about Threads Software Limited before they put the name into use anyway.
