An immersive small technology company called Metax LLC filed a complaint before a New York district court against Meta Platforms Inc., the social media company belonging to Mark Zuckerberg and formerly known as Facebook. Metax, who refers to himself only under the name of Meta, said in a press release that he was involved in “the immersive and experiential technology industry” since 2010 – and, more specifically, than ‘He was caught when Facebook changed his name in Meta at the end of last year.
The trial will begin with a severe accusation, claiming that Facebook “has violated the fundamental rights of fundamental intellectual property consecrated
In American law to erase a small business, Meta. “The trial also claims that it was a clear violation of the meta -merchant and intellectual property rights, because it has worked in the immersive technology industry for 12 years – well before Facebook decided To rename himself. As part of her prosecution announcement, Meta accused Facebook of “engaging in flagrant acts of unfair competition”. The founder and CEO of Meta Justin “JB” Bolognino affirms that his company tried to resolve The situation with Facebook in the past eight months in vain, “not leaving us the choice to proceed with the dispute”.
What makes this matter interesting?
According to Bolognino, his company is involved in immersive and experiential technology for years and has worked with many companies, institutions and leaders of the leading. Meta customers include well -known brands like Spotify, Google, Twitter, HP and Microsoft. The current dispute that she has with the company formerly known as Facebook has a lot to do with the fact that the name of the company, the fields of experience and customers are very similar to those of the company de Zuckerberg.
In fact, Meta’s trial says that not only Facebook works in the same immersive technology industry as the small business, but that it also offers “same immersive experiences” in “same events and places”, and that He would also be working with the “same creators and businesses”. This contrasts with Meta’s assertion that she came into contact with Facebook shortly after the latter company announced her brand change plan. By expressing concerns about the shared name, Facebook would have told Meta that the two companies had dealt with “radically different goods and services”.
As an additional salt in the injury, Meta stresses that Facebook is a controversial company, saying such controversy has “crushed” its ability to continue to operate under the meta-nom. “Meta is associated with toxicity which is inextricably linked to Facebook,” said the trial. Meta (Facebook, that is to say) has not yet responded to these allegations with a public declaration, but it is certainly not the first time that he has faced legal actions because of his brand change.
