Figma Sent a Cease-and-Desist Letter To Lovable Over the Term 'Dev Mode' (techcrunch.com)
- Reference: 0177030751
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/25/04/15/203233/figma-sent-a-cease-and-desist-letter-to-lovable-over-the-term-dev-mode
- Source link: https://techcrunch.com/2025/04/15/figma-sent-a-cease-and-desist-letter-to-lovable-over-the-term-dev-mode/
> Figma has [1]sent a cease-and-desist letter to popular no-code AI startup Lovable , Figma confirmed to TechCrunch. The letter tells Lovable to stop using the term "Dev Mode" for a new product feature. Figma, which also has a feature called Dev Mode, successfully trademarked that term last year, according to the [2]U.S. Patent and Trademark office . What's wild is that "dev mode" is a common term used in many products that cater to software programmers. It's like an edit mode. Software products from giant companies like Apple's iOS, Google's Chrome, Microsoft's Xbox have features formally called "developer mode" that then get nicknamed "dev mode" in reference materials.
>
> Even "dev mode" itself is commonly used. For instance Atlassian used it in products that pre-date Figma's copyright by years. And it's a common feature name in countless open source software projects. Figma tells TechCrunch that its trademark refers only to the shortcut "Dev Mode" -- not the full term "developer mode." Still, it's a bit like trademarking the term "bug" to refer to "debugging." Since Figma wants to own the term, it has little choice but send cease-and-desist letters. (The letter, as many [3]on X pointed out , was very polite, too.) If Figma doesn't defend the term, it could be absorbed as a generic term and the trademarked becomes unenforceable.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2025/04/15/figma-sent-a-cease-and-desist-letter-to-lovable-over-the-term-dev-mode/
[2] https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=98045640&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch
[3] https://x.com/BillHeyman/status/1912182928471412932
Re: (Score:1)
> The ol' "we have to send cease and desist letters!" is bogus. The law requires you to defend your (silly) trademark. It does not require that response to be cease-and-desist letters or even lawyers at all.
For example?
comedy gold (Score:5, Insightful)
> it could be absorbed as a generic term
it is already a generic term. it should never had been registered as a trademark.
PTO is out of control (Score:2)
The patent office went into retard mode when they approved this patent.
Re: PTO is out of control (Score:2)
What patent?
Re: (Score:2)
They initially rejected it. Figma complained and I assume the person at USPTO just rubber stamped it to shut them up. It's their money they'll waste on lawyers defending this and its subsequent invalidation.
Google Trends is damning to their case (Score:5, Informative)
Figma did not release their "Dev Mode" feature until June 2023, but Google Trends shows "Dev Mode" in use as a query term going back to 2006. [1]https://trends.google.com/tren... [google.com]
[1] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%22Dev%20Mode%22&hl=en-US
Could be?? (Score:3)
> If Figma doesn't defend the term, it could be absorbed as a generic term and the trademarked becomes unenforceable.
Could be? It fucking is a generic term already. What a fucking fail from USPTO.
Why hasn't Trump & Elon fired those fucking rubber stamping monkeys at the USPTO yet? They've clearly been useless for decades (this story further proves it). Talk about a waste of money (and oxygen).
Re: (Score:2)
> Ah yes, fire everyone and expect things to magically get better.
Couldn't get any worse, could it now.
> You sound like someone who calls into sports radio after a big loss.
And you are a pussy that can't even put its name to a post.
Re: (Score:2)
> Ah yes, fire everyone and expect things to magically get better. You sound like someone who calls into sports radio after a big loss.
In this particular situation, one might reasonably argue that continuing the current behavior of the USPTO is worse than having them do nothing. Rubber-stamping useless patents and trademarks just makes doing a business a regulatory minefield without doing any of what trademarks and patents were intended to do, and I see little evidence that we would not be better off as an industry if the whole notion of patents — and maybe even trademarks when used for something other than companies and entire prod
Court (Score:2)
Go ahead and take them to court, Figma. I'd like to see you try to defend a commonly used expression.
Procedural fails at USPTO (Score:2)
[1]https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNu... [uspto.gov]
This a huge procedural fail at the USPTO. Here's a rough summary of what happened:
Figma lawyers filed trademark paperwork for the term "Dev Mode" in 2023. USPTO rejected it as being simply descriptive. USPTO tasked Figma lawyers to amend their application with proofs in how they're using it in commerce. Figma's lawyers submit a PDF (of screenshotted webpages) where "Dev Mode" is used from Figma's own website . USPTO acknowledges the submission. USPTO examiner rubber-stam
[1] https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=98045640&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=documentSearch
USPTO are a bunch of rubber stamping monkeys (Score:2)
> The upshot? USPTO examiner backed down from arguing for the term's generic and descriptive nature; they stated that its use on Figma.com was enough evidence that Figma is using it to identify (something). USPTO did not conduct any reasonable Prior Art search beyond a heavily-filtered keyword search in their own database. Since there was no active "Dev Mode" filing the USPTO rubber-stamped it, no further questions. Any sensible judge/adjudicator upon challenge of this Registration would immediately invalidate it. But in the meantime, the USPTO keeps the registration fees and the trademark attorneys stay in business with this stuff.
USPTO is just a bunch of rubber-stamping monkeys. And waste of oxygen.
Ligma (Score:2)
Lovable should refer them to their law firm, Ligma.
Re: (Score:2)
> refer them to their law firm, Ligma
Who will, in turn, refer them to the response given in Arkell v. Pressdram.
Valid? (Score:5, Insightful)
> Since Figma wants to own the term, it has little choice but send cease-and-desist letters.
I think the trademark is already invalid because it's already in common use.
Re:Valid? (Score:5, Insightful)
The phrase "Dev mode" is generic and purely descriptive. The trademark should never have been granted.
If you look at the case file on a UTPO Search the Office initially Rejects the trademark application because it's descriptive.
Then Figma follows up by using a sleight of hand trick; filing Alleged first use of the mark in commerce and Some amendments. None of which address the fact that a trademark of a purely descriptive phrase is Straight up illegal. But apparently it's enough to trick the Office at USPTO into approving the trademark.
Re: (Score:2)
> The phrase "Dev mode" is generic and purely descriptive. The trademark should never have been granted.
Yeah, but it's kind of like patents. There are countless patents for perpetual-motion machines, which we all know don't and can't exist. There are also tons that are essentially duplicates of ones that had already been granted earlier. Unfortunately, to get these issues resolved means going to the courts.
> a trademark of a purely descriptive phrase is Straight up illegal.
Citation, please. It's true that it's an issue to be litigated, but nobody is going to go to jail for it.
I fully expect that as soon as somebody moves to challenge this particular trademark in court, it wil
Re: (Score:2)
> The phrase "Dev mode" is generic and purely descriptive. The trademark should never have been granted.
> If you look at the case file on a UTPO Search the Office initially Rejects the trademark application because it's descriptive.
> Then Figma follows up by using a sleight of hand trick; filing Alleged first use of the mark in commerce and Some amendments. None of which address the fact that a trademark of a purely descriptive phrase is Straight up illegal. But apparently it's enough to trick the Office at USPTO into approving the trademark.
This is what happens. If you don't like the answer, appeal and it will likely get looked at by a different examiner who will be overworked and may not pay adequate attention to why the original application was rejected. It's a trick that a lot of unscrupulous companies do. And it should really be grounds for rejection of all future trademarks by that company, or at least massively heightened scrutiny from that point on.
Re: Valid? (Score:2)
It's like patents, the government gets paid for the application and for the approval...