Search
Microsoft Unveils AI Agents to Boost Workplace Productivity and Compete with Google Endor Labs Recieves Investment for Application Security with AI Code Experts Warn AI Benchmarks Misrepresent Model Capabilities You're Politeness with ChatGPT Costs OpenAI
Microsoft Unveils AI Agents to Boost Workplace Productivity and Compete with Google Endor Labs Recieves Investment for Application Security with AI Code Experts Warn AI Benchmarks Misrepresent Model Capabilities You're Politeness with ChatGPT Costs OpenAI

Figma Sparks Trademark Battle with AI Startup Lovable Over "Dev Mode"

ETHICS

SYNTAX
Written by: SYNTAX
16 April 2025

In a striking turn of events, Figma, the renowned design software company, has initiated a trademark dispute with Lovable, a burgeoning AI startup, over the term “Dev Mode.” This confrontation not only highlights the complexities of trademark law but also underscores the competitive tensions between established tech giants and innovative newcomers in the rapidly evolving landscape of digital design and development.

Figma confirmed it sent a cease-and-desist letter to Lovable, urging the startup to cease using the term “Dev Mode” for its new feature. This move follows Figma’s trademarking of “Dev Mode” last year, a term that is widely recognized in the tech industry. The term typically refers to a special mode within software that unlocks advanced features for developers, allowing them to manipulate and test code more efficiently.

From a legal perspective, Figma’s actions can be seen as a necessary step to protect its brand identity. Trademark law operates on the principle of “use it or lose it,” meaning that if a company does not actively defend its trademark, it risks losing it altogether. By sending the cease-and-desist letter, Figma aims to reinforce its claim to the term “Dev Mode,” preventing it from becoming generic and thus diminishing its brand’s value.

However, as some commentators have pointed out, the trademarking of common terms raises ethical questions about ownership in a field that thrives on collaboration and shared language. Lovable’s co-founder Anton Osika has publicly acknowledged the cease-and-desist letter, sharing it on social media with a lighthearted emoji, suggesting a mix of defiance and acceptance of the situation.

This dispute is not merely a legal tussle; it situates Figma and Lovable within a broader narrative of competition in the tech industry. Lovable has positioned itself as a direct competitor to Figma, introducing innovative features such as “vibe coding,” which allows users to generate code from natural language prompts. This approach aims to streamline the design process, potentially disrupting traditional workflows established by companies like Figma.

Figma, valued at approximately $12.5 billion, appears to be flexing its muscles against this emerging competitor. A spokesperson for Figma noted that they have not sent similar letters to larger companies like Microsoft, suggesting that Lovable represents a more direct threat. This perspective echoes a broader trend in the tech industry where established players become increasingly vigilant towards disruptive startups that threaten their market share.

In recent commentary, Figma CEO Dylan Field has offered a more nuanced take on the rise of AI-driven design tools like Lovable’s “vibe coding.” While he acknowledged the appeal of rapid prototyping, Field stressed that true innovation requires more than speed—it demands tools that help users reach polished, user-ready outcomes. He pointed out that current AI still falls short on essential design elements such as usability, hierarchy, and creativity. These reflections underscore a broader challenge for emerging platforms: transforming quick outputs into finished products that can hold up under real-world scrutiny.

The community’s response to this trademark conflict has been mixed. Many industry professionals have voiced their concerns about the implications of trademarking common terms, suggesting that it could stifle creativity and collaboration within the tech ecosystem. The situation highlights a crucial debate about the balance between protecting intellectual property and fostering a culture of innovation.