Figma Sent a Cease-and-Desist Letter To Lovable Over the Term 'Dev Mode' (techcrunch.com) 73
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Figma has 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 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 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.
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 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.
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)
a trademark of a purely descriptive phrase is Straight up illegal.
Citation, please.
Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. 1052(e)(1); see TMEP 1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.
A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of an applicant’s goods and/or services. TMEP 1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re TriVita,
Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 874, 114 USPQ2d 1574, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71
Re: Valid? (Score:2)
"(A)n amendment to the Supplemental Register would be an appropriate response to this refusal..."
Which they did. Not to mention that a 2(f) claim of acquired distinctiveness (15 USC 1052(f)) would also be viable in appropriate circumstances.
In short, there is no particular hard barrier to the registration of a descriptive mark. Generic, yes, descriptive, no.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Do you think that's what happened here? To start with, this all happened with the same examiner.
Okay, then, substitute "different examiner" with "hopelessly overworked examiner trying to not get further behind". The same fundamental problem with patent and trademark lawyers repeatedly submitting requests to re-review the rejected submissions until the examiner or examiners run out of energy to fight it still exists either way. They're overworked, and they don't have adequate time to spend on reexaminations, so mistakes are made. And if you resubmit enough bad applications often enough, eventually o
Re: (Score:2)
There are ways to use descriptive marks descriptively, which if done by a competitor would indeed yield no liability, and there are ways to use descriptive marks that, in spite of their descriptiveness, would nonetheless function as an indicator of source or origin, etc.
I'm assuming you mean things like the styling of the mark?
What you're looking for, if you want to argue on the basis of the actual record in this actual case, is genericism. There, you look at the dictionary, and you're good. Apple means apple, it's generic for apples. Apple does not mean fruit salad, it's descriptive for fruit salad. That does not mean your APPLE'S brand fruit salad is is actually capable of distinguishing your fruit salad from others, nor does it mean that a competitor placing the term APPLES prominently on a container of fruit salad will face any liability for doing so, but it absolutely means that APPLE'S is registrable for fruit salad.
Yeah, that's fair. Likewise, dev mode means dev mode. It's generic for a developer mode and has been for decades. But I guess the point the original poster was trying to make was that it is generic because it is descriptive, which means unless they can show that it has evolved a second meaning in commerce that is clearly different and distinct from the surface descriptive meaning, it isn't a valid mark, and won't hold up in court.
I suppose that do
Re: Valid? (Score:2)
It's like patents, the government gets paid for the application and for the approval...
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.
Re: comedy gold (Score:2)
Congress did not instruct Trademark Office examiners to get into the weeds as to whether, in the context of a single-party proceeding, as a matter of broad principle, a de
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me, exactly, what DEV MODE downloadable computer software is.
i can't exactly, precisely because
- "dev mode" isn't "downloadable computer software" in the first place, it's a characteristic of any software or hardware ... wait for it ... it is a generic term
- it has no exact definition because
it's a mode of operation that enables acccess to advanced options or tools relevant to development or debugging. the exact description can vary wildly depending on the software's form, platform, content and purpose, but the term just describes that generic function and has long b
Re: (Score:2)
you're beating that dead horse to a pulp already. when lost in contradiction with imperfect law, try logic.
i get i can't create a computer line and call it "apple computers" because reasons, so you can be sure about who built your new comupter, but i can still use the word apple in any other context, specially if the context is about vegetables, fruits or desserts.
then again one guy registering the name "dev mode" for a function of his software and wanting everybody else to suddenly stop calling similar fun
Re: (Score:2)
Dude... The browser I'm literally looking at right this second as I read Slashdot has a developer mode! Half a second to switch it on, and half the window will be filled with the dev tools so I can view the page source, examine the network timings, headers, and response codes, or disable various obnoxious javascript headaches. All three major non-microsoft browsers have it. All three pre-date those crooks at figma as a company! And I guaran-fucking-tee that they are by no means the only software on my
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)
Could be?? (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
It's not an examiner's job to reject patents. Their job is to help applicants get their ideas patented. Meaning helping them adjust their application to make it a valid patent if it isn't already.
Source: I personally know an examiner.
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't firing people for being useless. Only for PR. (And sometimes they fuck things up so badly they need to try to rehire the ones they just fired...but usually they ignore the problems they cause.)
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could fine the company for sending in a clearly invalid application. It's basically fraud.
Why do you people always get mad at the workers rather than the ones trying to exploit the system?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you people always get mad at the workers rather than the ones trying to exploit the system?
Ummm.... because the PTO examiners (workers) allow them to exploit the system? (duh!)
Re: (Score:2)
You forget that trademark is a bigger weapon to companies than copyright.
For example: parody is protected from copyright. It is not protected from trademark. Jack Daniels got this win for corporate America; which makes it all the more sweet they're getting fucked by tariffs. Unfunny fucks.
So, to the new pro-corporate business that is our government; more trademark protection is good. Bad trademarks are good. If you trademark words you can prevent people from saying them without violating their freedom of sp
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:3)
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-stamps the filing with a Registration number in November 2024.
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 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.
Re: Procedural fails at USPTO (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Check out Page 3 of 26. The USPTO rejected the original filing for being descriptive (as I summarized and you repeated) however they explicitly DID NOT amend to Supplemental Register on their own; it was not automatic because the filing as-is did not qualify for automatic referral. Rather, the USPTO indicated that they may amend from Principal to Supplemental as per their instructions at https://www.uspto.gov/trademar... [uspto.gov]
Regardless of my opinion about the term's generic na
Re: Procedural fails at USPTO (Score:2)
They ABSOLUTELY explicitly amended to the Supplemental Register. It cannot happen otherwise. Quoting from Applicant's 9/13/24 response to the office action:
"Applicant has submitted specimens and alleged use in commerce, and thus the application is a use-based application for which amendment to the Supplemental Register is possible. Applica
Re: (Score:2)
In the initial rejection, the USPTO examiner did not behind-the-scenes auto-submit the application to the Supplemental Register. This is as indicated and stated BY THE GODDAMN EXAMINER in the initial rejection document, as I cited. Amendment pathways were thus provided therein. Does this make sense to you, self-proclaimed keyboard warrior genius?
The Figma attorneys then amended the original (rejected) filing to the Suppleme
Re: (Score:2)
You keep deviating from the crux of everything I've said (whilst actually corroborating exactly what I said) and nit-picking over a colloquialism of "generic" for the usage of "Dev Mode" rather than the legal categorization of "generic" in trademark law. Bravo! You selectively take words out of context. Bonus points for you!
To summarize: I summarized the saga, you nitpick over 1 word by arguing with your reframing of literally everythin
Re: (Score:2)
You should know that no reasonable person would presume these Anonymous Coward replies were from any other account (especially since the Slashdot system already notified me that it was y
Re: (Score:2)
And out of all of your bullshit, at no point did you ever concede to ANY OF YOUR OWN misinterpretations. Yet you continue your condescending attitude as tho
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.
I trademarked the term cease-and-desist (Score:2)
Now pay up or come up with another term.
USPTO strikes again (Score:1)
We all hoped the USPTO had stopped granting silly permissions to companies to take ownership of commonly used terms.
We know a strong protection of IP is important (especially to a capitalist system) but this lot have been making stupid decisions for decades. They really didn't 'get' the digital age at all.
dev mode? (Score:2)
Which idiot at Figma... (Score:1)
It will lose at the first court case (Score:2)
I mean there is plenty of prior art showing that dev mode is a generic term. They're doing a patent troll technique; they're going after the small fish in order to either eliminate them or force them in to selling. The people that got the patents for emoji's tried that shit.
The only valid method of trademarking Dev mode is if you stylized the text and trademarked the styling.