TL;DR:
Semple, a multi-disciplinary British artist, promised to build “a brand new suite of world-class design and photography tools, with an uncanny similarity to the tools you’ve been indoctrinated in.”
“There’s a really urgent need for a suite of creative tools for creators that they actually own rather than rent. In a way, this first started when Adobe and Pantone decided to paywall the Pantone colors and I created Freetone — which was a free color plugin so creators could continue to access their palette,” he says.
“I have lawyers, and I’ve taken advice. We have solid plans in place. I would also point out that nobody has seen the final branding and no software that infringes on any of Adobe’s trademarks has been produced,”
“I have successfully challenged IP owned by Tiffany and Co, Pantone, Mattel, and others over the years. I feel we have a good and thorough understanding of where the legal line is and an ability to get as close to that as possible without overstepping it.”
Does anyone else think this will go to court over copyright infringement? Purposefully similar name and same industry.
Yeah, I do think that they should pick a different name as theirs is very easy to mistake for Adobe. I had to read the headline twice because the first time it sounded like Adobe was taking on itself. I understand the desire to give them a “fuck you”, but that name will just cause confusion that will likely hurt both brands.
I hope that “final branding” that no one has seen yet involves an entirely new name and that this one was just used in the meantime to generate publicity.
I read it as Adobe battling Adobe as if there was some inner strife. And I’m a pretty good reader, if I do say so myself.
This is so obviously stupid, because that $235k they raised will end up going straight to Adobe all because they wanted to be edgy?
Copyright? Only if the code is the nearly the same.
Are Adobes patents still valid?
The trademark will end up in court, where the standard is “likelihood of confusion.”
“Abode” will absolutely get destroyed thru the legal process even if they don’t lose the lawsuit.
Its trademark, not copyright. And it is deliberate. A lawsuit is likely to generate more value in publicity and news coverage than the case will cost.
That’s why they deliberately chose an infringing mark.
I’m not sure its a sure thing for adobe (the established company) that this newer company is infringing per se. You need to do business with the trademark to ‘use’ the mark - the caption makes it sound like they will change their mark before doing any business? On the other hand, advertising counts as doing business where the mark is associated but that can get a bit tricky…
If we assume this is not an advertisement, then it’s just like anyone else scribbling down the logo of another company on a sheet of paper and saying I made a thing
mike rowe couldn’t keep mikerowesoft.com. it’s his actual name, too. no way abode is allowed to exist in any space remotely adjacent to documents, software, or media/arts.