Snap continues to make a spectacle of itself as it tries to trademark the word spectacles
- Reference: 1641561545
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2022/01/07/snap_spectacles/
- Source link:
The dispute has rumbled on for a while. In 20 September 2016, Snap filed a federal trademark application for SPECTACLES, following up the application with amendments alleging actual use.
The USPO issued its first refusal months later on 27 December. Snap appealed, and so the legal game of ping-pong continued until the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) finally affirmed the refusal to register the applications. This was "on the ground that the SPECTACLES mark is generic, and, alternatively, that it is highly descriptive and has not acquired distinctiveness," according to [1]the complaint [PDF].
[2]
However, that "final" decision is subject to review.
[3]
[4]
Snap's original foray into smart eyewear was not a soaraway success. A year after it first released the gadgets, the business took a $39.9m charge in [5]calendar Q3 of 2017 , for "inventory-related charges" as customers stayed away from the [6]vaguely creepy things .
Still, Snap ploughed on with the devices, which have now reached version 3. An Augmented Reality (AR) model is also being touted by the company, although is aimed at "creators" rather than being sold directly to the general public.
[7]UK competition regulator to Meta's Facebook: Sell Giphy, we will not approve the purchase
[8]Google Cloud partially fixes load balancer SNAFU that hit Discord, Spotify, others today
[9]22-year-old Brit accused of Twitter SIM-swap heists charged with $784k cryptocurrency theft
[10]Google experiments with user-choice-defying Android search box
While Snap lightly skipped over this apparent failure in its complaint, the business pointed to the publicity the smart glasses had received as justification for trying to patent the word. It went on to insist that the word "spectacles" was "an old-fashioned term popular in the 18th century" and "not often used today in the United States." Heck, Snap even had its own "highly stylized" font made for the purpose.
Ultimately, Snap wants the TTAB's decision reversed "on the basis that the primary significance of the term SPECTACLES as used in connection with cameras, wearable computing devices, computer hardware, and peripherals is as a trademark, that the term SPECTACLES is not generic, and that the term SPECTACLES is inherently distinctive, or in the alternative that the term SPECTACLES has gained secondary meaning."
[11]
The Register asked both Snap and the USPO for comment, and will update should either respond. ®
Get our [12]Tech Resources
[1] https://regmedia.co.uk/2022/01/07/snap_uspto_complaint.pdf
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YdhxvzyRs7t2zGfJQQm5YgAAAIM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YdhxvzyRs7t2zGfJQQm5YgAAAIM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YdhxvzyRs7t2zGfJQQm5YgAAAIM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://s25.q4cdn.com/442043304/files/annual/sec-show-(10).pdf
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2016/09/27/snapchat_rebrands_as_snap
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2021/11/30/uk_competition_regulator_facebook/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2021/11/16/google_cloud_outage/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2021/11/04/joseph_oconnor_uscharges_sim_swap/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2021/09/22/google_android_search_box_experiment/
[11] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YdhxvzyRs7t2zGfJQQm5YgAAAIM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[12] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
As long as there's some of the investors' money left to spend they might as well keep trying.
Now now, don't be completely sarcastic. There is always fresh money to be had in the next VC round. It is called throwing good money after bad money. A typical thing in the tech-VC-sector.
Where is that boat with glasses. Ah yes, it is that spectacleless sinking affair.
might as well keep trying.
And why not just spell it with a "K" replacing a C-- e.g. SPEKTACLES, SPECTAKLES or some other letter variation. It works quite well for a lot of brandifying.
Unless, of course, the whole point was to use an actual word that was still in use, in order to hijack search results.
There should be options
Trademark "comb" "handkerchief" "toothbrush"....
Still at least the Americans are being sensible here.
Re: There should be options
Or for a more multi-functional device:
“SpectaclesTesticlesWalletWatch”
The Americans may think "spectacles" is an "old word", but here in Canada, it does get used. I'm sure it gets used EVERYWHERE in the world that isn't arse-backwards.
I use the word spectacles; "Glasses" is a little ambiguous.
Exactly! I mean when I think Glasses it's usually associated with the word Pint and the expression, "Yes I will have another, thank you."
I cant possibly say why though...
Depends on the context, which is usually present.
I don’t get sold a pint of beer in Boots when asking for glasses.
Apart from the pint of Old Spectacled Hen they gave me once! ;)
"Spec Savers" might have a word, I think, if they ever tried this on in the UK. ("Spec" being shorthand for spectacles in the UK, which is still very much in current use.)
should've
trademarked it themselves then!
(Specsavers have got form - they trademarked "should've" from their marketing strapline "Should've gone to Specsavers" a few years ago.)
Re: should've
I did a programme of supporting IT work for the Specsavers marketing team in Guernsey about 10 years ago and met the chap that actually came up with that line. Whilst I'm not overly interested in the vagaries of marketing as a profession - at the time it was considered one of the most valuable corporate slogans in the UK.
Awful company to work in IT for though. I originally thought it was due to the limited pot of people they had to choose from on a small island, and the insular mentality; but no - it was just as bad on the mainland sites.
Spectacular hubris?
Move along, there's nothing to see here.
Catholic Church wants a word...
...about the mnemonic for the act of crossing oneself:
Spectacles, testicles, wallet & watch
You could see that decision coming
Especially with the right prescription specs
Sorry, couldn't resist. I'd better get me coat
Bunch of pricks
Up there with Peloton. Off they can fuck.
Aimed at "creators"
Code for "the general public can't give a damn".
it's clear to see that.......
they are gathering / consolidating IP and patents that will be part of their 'assets' for sale when snap inevitably collapses.
Snap's entire business model is to claim millions in R&D. Release a product that doesn't do whats claimed, looks awful, has terrible controls and is just utterly shitty.
Then they claim millions more in further R&D and 'marketing'. Rinse & Repeat. Someone should be referring them for a massive tax audit, as surely their entire business model can't be fully legal?
Snaptacles
They should call them snaptacles, oh wait maybe I should trademark that.
Is it in the dictionary?
If the word can be found in the OED then you don't get to patent/trademark it as your own.
Snap is making a spectacle of themselves...
But at least this way a product no one was thinking and talking about is reaching the news. What about the Facebook glasses made with Luxottica? I never read about them anymore since the announcement of the partnership? After all, everybody needs to look like Neo in the Metatrix...