Snap Suing To Trademark the Word 'Spectacles' For Its Smart Glasses (theverge.com) 79
Snap is suing the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for rejecting its application to trademark the word "spectacles" for its digital eyewear camera device. But the USPTO has maintained that "spectacles" is a generic term for smart glasses and that Snap's version "has not acquired distinctiveness," as required for a trademark. The Verge reports: In its complaint filed Wednesday in US District Court in California, Snap claims that the Spectacles name "evokes an incongruity between an 18th century term for corrective eyewear and Snap's high-tech 21st century smart glasses. SPECTACLES also is suggestive of the camera's purpose, to capture and share unusual, notable, or entertaining scenes (i.e., "spectacles") and while also encouraging users to make 'spectacles' of themselves." Snap first introduced its camera-equipped Spectacles in 2016 ("a wearable digital video camera housed in a pair of fashionable sunglasses," according to its complaint), which can take photos and videos while the user wears them and connects with the Snap smartphone app. [...]
Snap's new complaint posits that there's been enough media coverage of Spectacles, bolstered by some industry awards and its own marketing including social media, to support its claim that consumers associate the word "spectacles" with the Snap brand. Snap first filed a trademark application for Spectacles in September 2016, "for use in connection with wearable computer hardware" and other related uses "among consumer electronics devices and displays." During several rounds of back-and-forth with the company since then, the USPTO has maintained that the word "spectacles" appeared to be "generic in connection with the identified goods," i.e. the camera glasses. Snap continued to appeal the agency's decision. In a November 2021 opinion, the USPTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (pdf) upheld the decision, reiterating that the word "spectacles" was a generic term that applied to all smart glasses, not just Snap's version. Despite the publicity Snap claimed its Spectacles had received from its marketing and social media, the board noted in its opinion that Spectacles' "social media accounts have an underwhelming number of followers, and the number of followers is surprisingly small," which didn't support the company's argument that there had been a high enough level of consumer exposure to Snap's Spectacles to claim that consumers associated the word with Snap's brand.
In its Tuesday complaint, Snap's attorneys argued that "spectacles is an old-fashioned term popular in the 18th century," and that it "is not often used today in the United States," especially by Snapchat's young audience. "This indicates that modern-day usage of "spectacles" in the United States -- especially among a younger demographic of consumers who are the relevant consumers of Snap's SPECTACLES camera product -- is not commonly understood to mean eyeglasses, and certainly not a wireless-enabled video camera product." But the USPTO appeal board said in November that the evidence didn't support that argument, and that the word "spectacles" still retains its generic meaning and therefore can't be trademarked. The board noted that in its own marketing, Snap had demonstrated that its Spectacles "eyeglasses form is a feature, function and characteristic of the camera, not only functionally but aesthetically." Snap's lawsuit, which names acting USPTO director Drew Hirshfeld, seeks to have the appeal board's November decision reversed.
Snap's new complaint posits that there's been enough media coverage of Spectacles, bolstered by some industry awards and its own marketing including social media, to support its claim that consumers associate the word "spectacles" with the Snap brand. Snap first filed a trademark application for Spectacles in September 2016, "for use in connection with wearable computer hardware" and other related uses "among consumer electronics devices and displays." During several rounds of back-and-forth with the company since then, the USPTO has maintained that the word "spectacles" appeared to be "generic in connection with the identified goods," i.e. the camera glasses. Snap continued to appeal the agency's decision. In a November 2021 opinion, the USPTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (pdf) upheld the decision, reiterating that the word "spectacles" was a generic term that applied to all smart glasses, not just Snap's version. Despite the publicity Snap claimed its Spectacles had received from its marketing and social media, the board noted in its opinion that Spectacles' "social media accounts have an underwhelming number of followers, and the number of followers is surprisingly small," which didn't support the company's argument that there had been a high enough level of consumer exposure to Snap's Spectacles to claim that consumers associated the word with Snap's brand.
In its Tuesday complaint, Snap's attorneys argued that "spectacles is an old-fashioned term popular in the 18th century," and that it "is not often used today in the United States," especially by Snapchat's young audience. "This indicates that modern-day usage of "spectacles" in the United States -- especially among a younger demographic of consumers who are the relevant consumers of Snap's SPECTACLES camera product -- is not commonly understood to mean eyeglasses, and certainly not a wireless-enabled video camera product." But the USPTO appeal board said in November that the evidence didn't support that argument, and that the word "spectacles" still retains its generic meaning and therefore can't be trademarked. The board noted that in its own marketing, Snap had demonstrated that its Spectacles "eyeglasses form is a feature, function and characteristic of the camera, not only functionally but aesthetically." Snap's lawsuit, which names acting USPTO director Drew Hirshfeld, seeks to have the appeal board's November decision reversed.
Spectacles, testicles (Score:4, Funny)
"Spectacles, testicles, wallet, and watch" has been around for a hundred years at least. Don't leave home without them.
KISS (Score:2)
Re:KISS (Score:5, Interesting)
Calling a band KISS is somewhat novel, because kissing has little to do with bands.
Calling a pair of smartglasses spectacles... sounds purely descriptive to me. That's not imaginative, that's literally what they are.
You can't say that the band KISS is literally a kiss in the same way you can say that these smartglasses are literally spectacles.
Re: (Score:1)
The recent trademark dispute is arguably a dilution of the brand because Wicked Kiss is a KISS cover band. If they made their own music, there would be little successful argument unless they purposefully tailored their music to sound like KISS stylistically. But if the band sounded like Van Halen and was called Wicked Kiss? There would be no dilution of brand because no one would realistically confuse the two.
Re: (Score:2)
They should call themselves KITH, and then put someone with a lisp as their lead singer.
Re:Spectacles, testicles (Score:4)
"Spectacles, testicles, wallet, and watch" has been around for a hundred years at least. Don't leave home without them.
I predict that they'll call their beta release train "Testacles" [sic].
Re: (Score:3)
"Spectacles, testicles, wallet, and watch" has been around for a hundred years at least. Don't leave home without them.
I predict that they'll call their beta release train "Testacles" [sic].
Specs-testicular!
Re: (Score:3)
It's a common usage word, around for a long time, but not really archaic. Heck, their excuse for why they should get exclusive ownership of the word is based on a homonym (I'm not sure if it qualifies as a homonym or not because the etymologies are so closely related, so maybe just alternate definition) of the word that means an "entertaining scene". In that sense, spectacle(s) is very much in modern common usage. It's astounding that they think that is a good argument.
Re: (Score:2)
"Spectacles, testicles, wallet, and watch" has been around for a hundred years at least.
Smart Spectacles, Virtual Testicles, Smart Watch, and Online Wallet. Don't visit the Metaverse without them!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Spectacles, testicles, wallet, and watch", the process for making the proper Catholic sign of the cross (assuming you wear the watch on the left hand)
Wallet and watch are the left and right inside breast pockets of your suit jacket. Wallet goes on the left, over your heart, to be drawn out with the right hand. The pocket watch goes on the right side.
Up, Down, Left, Right.
The phrase dates back to at least the early 1700s.
hmmm I wonder... (Score:2)
Can I trademark SHOE for an electronic footwear product?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Nah, shoe is a common word. You should try CLOG.
Then, when the USPTO rejects your application, you can argue that clog is an old-fashioned term popular in pre-WWII rurality and that it is not often used today in the United States, especially by your young audience; that this indicates that modern-day usage of "clog" in the United States -- especially among a younger demographic of consumers who are the relevant consumers of your CLOG camera product -- is not commonly understood to mean footwear, and certain
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, shoe is a common word. You should try CLOG.
Actually it in the Usage Windows(TM) for example although it was agued and then settled with Apple(TM) both companies have been able to trademark nouns/common words due to the way they are used and the main objector came to an agreement. Spectacles though will have to deal with spectacle sellers not just in the US but all over the world for trademark issues e.g. https://www.selectspecs.com/ [selectspecs.com] or https://www.thespectacleplace.... [thespectacleplace.com.au]
Re: hmmm I wonder... (Score:2)
Absolutely - shoe was a popular term in the 18th century, so clearly itâ(TM)s fine.
Not (Score:5, Informative)
Very Appropriate (Score:5, Funny)
They're not suing, they're appealing. They're not going to win. Enjoy.
Indeed, you could say that they are going to make a spectacle of themselves.
18th century or 1800s? (Score:1)
Do they really mean 18th century, or 1800s? The word "spectacle" as a noun, often shortened to "specs" was known to me as a child in the 1970s, nevermind the 1800s. I have to side with the government on this one. It's a quaint old word for glasses to me. GehZ can stick it. Application: REJECTED.
Re:18th century or 1800s? (Score:4, Insightful)
Specsavers is going to be pissed!
Re: (Score:3)
Coming soon: Smart pants named Pantaloons! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's in the dictionary you say? Pish posh! Nobody uses that word anymore! It's now legally mine!
Re: (Score:2)
It's in the dictionary you say? Pish posh! Nobody uses that word anymore! It's now legally mine!
awww, snap!
Re: (Score:2)
snap? Pussy, say what you mean.
Re: (Score:2)
snap? Pussy, say what you mean.
Whoosshh!
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.urbandictionary.co... [urbandictionary.com]!
Re: (Score:2)
snap [merriam-webster.com]
: to grasp at something eagerly : make a pounce or snatch
There is also the name of the Parent company.
Re: (Score:2)
It's in the dictionary you say? Pish posh! Nobody uses that word anymore! It's now legally mine!
Maybe "Smart Trousers!" I can see it now: you share files via a "Trou Drop."
Re: (Score:1)
Irenicus disliked that.
Ya know, (Score:5, Funny)
Snap is making a spectacle out of themselves.
Even more generic (Score:5, Informative)
I'd even go one step further and say that "spectacles" are a generic word for "glasses", at least it is in British English.
Re: Even more generic (Score:2)
Exactly. Wonder if google will try trademarking biscuits for chrome?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how much criticism they should get for something like this. Certainly, they should not be granted a trademark for a single commonly used word. On the
Re: Are they completely out of touch? (Score:2)
There is a difference between trademarking a common word and trademarking it for a product that is the literal definition of that word. If I name my band Toilet it makes sense to let me trademark it. If I sell toilets, it does not make sense because then I would force all other toilet makers to rename their product.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Are they completely out of touch? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You're just proving the point.
The point was that trademarks are given out far too readily and without much regard for how much other people or companies use them. I don't see how one company claiming all use of the color blue in credit cards is a counter example to that, even if it only effects other companies who produce credit cards. Likewise for logos shaped like fruit. Likewise for everything else that I said.
Snap isn't threatening all of their competitors, they're only threatening the competitors who use the word "spectacles." J
Re: (Score:2)
Spectacles are just glasses, sorry. (Score:1)
Pick some unique name or make one up, pff companies these days. Snap. Block. Zoom. verbs honestly make bad company names.
Bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
"Snap's new complaint posits that there's been enough media coverage of Spectacles, bolstered by some industry awards and its own marketing including social media, to support its claim that consumers associate the word "spectacles" with the Snap brand."
I'm a "consumer" and I'd never heard of Snap before this shitstain of a company attempted to steal and then claim ownership of a common English word.
So fuck this crappy, thieving little company. Fuck 'em up, down, and all around. If I ever see their products in a store, I might accidentally break a few pairs, and then I'd yell, "Oh SNAP!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You might have heard of Snapchat, and that's probably the only name associated with this company that has the common familiarity that they're claiming for this generic term.
Re: Bullshit (Score:2)
I'd wager legions of simps would disagree with you. Snap seems to be advertised only slightly less than OnlyFans when it comes to adult entertainment. ;-)
YMMV, see store for details, some restrictions may apply. Calm down I'm just speaking from my own experience
Lexical piracy (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Harry Potter then. That's for young people. Exposes them to British English.
There are Harry Potter theme parks in the US that have got a lot more media coverage than Snap.
Re: (Score:3)
(Jethro Tull 's) primary audience is at/near retirement age
But 'near retirement age' is the exact demographic for spectacles.
Ageing-prog-rockers-with-rapidly-declining-eyesight UNITE!
Re: (Score:2)
Jethro Tull's 1973 "The Hare Who Lost His Spectacles" should be a sufficient bridge to popular culture.
That hare should not have bungled in the jungle, and he would still have his spectacles.
Maybe Snap can call their glasses "Cross Eyed Marys".
Or maybe call it "Aqualung", for that immersive VR experience. (That would be OK, since there is no domain confusion between glasses or computers versus something that Jacques Cousteau invented... "Sitting on a virtual park bench. Eyeing little avatars with bad intent."
Re: (Score:2)
You should keep such ideas Under Wraps unless you want to experience Watching Me Watching You (with my augmented reality overlay). As long as you don't Look Into The Sun while wearing these glasses you'll be fine, though.
Have they considered getting Dr. Bogenbroom to make some Wind Up ones?
My God, what are we doing with all these puns.
Spectacles has always meant eyeglasses to me (Score:3)
The USPTO needs a big fat FUCK OFF [ytimg.com] stamp that they can apply to applications like this one from (retarded) Snap.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are assuming that the lawyers have *NOT* told those in charge at Snap that the claim is baseless, that they are wasting their time and money fighting it and to drop it for their *CLIENT* to instruct them to appeal anyway or they will find new lawyers who will appeal for them. At that point most lawyers who have mortgages to pay etc. etc. will shrug their shoulders and file the groundless appeal anyway.
It's is usually the clients at fault for going against the advice of their lawyers rather than idiot la
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really good point.
Re: Spectacles has always meant eyeglasses to me (Score:1)
Not really (Score:2)
Snap's new complaint posits that there's been enough media coverage of Spectacles, bolstered by some industry awards and its own marketing including social media, to support its claim that consumers associate the word "spectacles" with the Snap brand.
I read the news, including "technical news", all day, every day. I never heard of this product before today's Slashdot article.
Try again, Snap.
Why not SnapSpectacles? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Have not heard (Score:1)
Snap's new complaint posits that there's been enough media coverage of Spectacles, bolstered by some industry awards and its own marketing including social media, to support its claim that consumers associate the word "spectacles" with the Snap brand.
I have zero association with the word Spectacles and Snap, and I try to keep an eye on the AR space. I had no memory they were called that. That argument I think will be shredded in any polling done on the subject.
I'd go further (Score:4, Interesting)
and ban any single word found in the dictionary from being trademarkable.
Re: I'd go further (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No one has a TM on Windows. The TM is on Microsoft Windows.
Re: (Score:1)
Apple, then?
Re: (Score:3)
Windows actually is a registered trademark for Microsoft. However, it's a registered trademark specifically in relation to computing and technology. Bear in mind that a trademark isn't granted on *any* use of the term, but with respect to specific industries (which was the bone of contention with the term "Apple" when Apple moved into the music distribution business and tried to throw its weight around in that industry). If Microsoft wanted to start up in the business of glazing - even say smart glazing - t
Re: (Score:2)
What is wrong with single word trademarks? There's loads of them, and they don't seem to cause any problems. From where I am sitting I can see:
'Hefty' trash bags
'Ivory' soap
'Dove' chocolate
'Club' crackers
'Temptations' cat treats
'Mesa' serving tray
'Diamond' walnuts
'Tide' detergent
'Bounce' fabric softener
All of which I just brought home in my 'Sonata'
Which of these single word trademarks is causing a problem for anyone?
sounds like a pretty flimsy claim (Score:3)
Snap's new complaint posits that there's been enough media coverage of Spectacles, bolstered by some industry awards and its own marketing including social media, to support its claim that consumers associate the word "spectacles" with the Snap brand.
I have multiple VR headsets and have worked with the hololens and hence am reasonably knowledgable in the space of who makes what. I knew Snap had a product but if you had said spectacles I definitely would not have associated it with them. I doubt anyone much outside its user base associates the word with them.
Best reason to say, "screw you snap" (Score:2)