This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-37308729

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Littergram 'gets deadline' from Instagram to change name Littergram 'gets deadline' from Instagram to change name
(about 1 hour later)
The owner of an anti-litter app says he has been told he has until Friday to confirm with solicitors for Instagram and Facebook he will change its name.The owner of an anti-litter app says he has been told he has until Friday to confirm with solicitors for Instagram and Facebook he will change its name.
Littergram invites people to share pictures of rubbish on their smartphone and report it to their council.Littergram invites people to share pictures of rubbish on their smartphone and report it to their council.
Danny Lucas, of Wrotham, Kent, has been asked to change it to a "unique name that does not call to mind" Instagram.Danny Lucas, of Wrotham, Kent, has been asked to change it to a "unique name that does not call to mind" Instagram.
Facebook, which owns the US photo-sharing giant, said it was "obliged to protect its brand".Facebook, which owns the US photo-sharing giant, said it was "obliged to protect its brand".
More news from KentMore news from Kent
Lawyers for the US photo-sharing giant Instagram, which was bought by Facebook for $1bn (£629m) in 2012, said the name was "not acceptable".Lawyers for the US photo-sharing giant Instagram, which was bought by Facebook for $1bn (£629m) in 2012, said the name was "not acceptable".
Mr Lucas said he thought the case had been closed in May.Mr Lucas said he thought the case had been closed in May.
"We agreed to not trademark it... they agreed to us trademarking it for t-shirts, bags," he said."We agreed to not trademark it... they agreed to us trademarking it for t-shirts, bags," he said.
Mr Lucas said he was then given until the end of April to confirm a change in name.Mr Lucas said he was then given until the end of April to confirm a change in name.
He then assumed the matter was closed when Facebook said in May "they were merely taking steps to stop us trademarking".He then assumed the matter was closed when Facebook said in May "they were merely taking steps to stop us trademarking".
In a statement, Facebook said: "For several months we've being engaged in a conversation to see if there's a way for them to have an app which is different enough to Instagram, but ultimately Littergram is a photo-sharing app which operates in a similar way. Facebook said it had been talks about how to find a way for them to have an app which was different enough to Instagram, but ultimately Littergram was a photo-sharing app which operated in a similar way.
"We therefore asked them to change their name to avoid infringing our trademark. The company said it had therefore asked them to change their name to avoid infringing the Facebook trademark, but so far had merely taken steps to object to their registration of the name as a trademark.
"At this point, we've merely taken steps to object to their registration of the name as a trademark. Facebook added they were obliged to take reasonable measures to protect their brand.
"We're obliged to take reasonable measures to protect our brand."
'Avoid court''Avoid court'
In response, Mr Lucas said: "It's exactly not what they're saying now, because they're saying change your name.In response, Mr Lucas said: "It's exactly not what they're saying now, because they're saying change your name.
"We're not trademarking it. We'd already agreed not to do that in November 2015.""We're not trademarking it. We'd already agreed not to do that in November 2015."
He added he was happy to discuss the matter further with Facebook.He added he was happy to discuss the matter further with Facebook.
"Don't go to the courts because we've not got the money for that," he said."Don't go to the courts because we've not got the money for that," he said.