Facebook Says It Owns 'Book'

An anonymous reader writes "The Chicago Tribune is reporting that Facebook has sued a tiny start-up called Teachbook.com over the use of 'book' in its name. The start-up, which has two employees, aims to provide tools for teachers to manage their classrooms and share lesson plans and other resources. 'Effectively they're bombing a mosquito here, and we're not sure why they want to do that,' Teachbook.com co-director Greg Shrader told the Tribune. Facebook said its use of 'book' in its name is 'highly distinctive in the context of online communities and networking websites.' Facebook apparently is alleging that no other online 'network of people' can use the word 'book' in its name without violating its trademark."

Comments

Cookbook

[Anonymous Coward]

So if me and some fellow chefs where to start a community called cookbook we are stepping on some sizzy tones?

Re:Cookbook

[Anonymous Coward]

Create the following sites:

facebook.co.??
fasebook.???
fazebook.???
phacebook.???
phazebook.???
vacebook.???

and so forth ...

Most of these stupidities regarding patents apply to the USA only.

Re:Cookbook

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of these stupidities regarding patents apply to the USA only.

This is not about patents, it's about trade marks - which exist in some form everywhere on this planet.

Re:Cookbook

[Anonymous Coward]

addresbook.com

Re:Cookbook

[Anonymous Coward]

There go my plans for fuckbook where you can find new friends to screw and play fuckville and fuckwars.
Well screw 'em Facebook can't have an account. The fuckers.

Re:Cookbook

[Anonymous Coward]

There go my plans for fuckbook where you can find new friends to screw and play fuckville and fuckwars.
Well screw 'em Facebook can't have an account. The fuckers.

Umm... They already have that:

http://www.fuckbook.com/

Re:Cookbook

[WrongSizeGlass]

addresbook.com

You may want to go to Amazon (you know, that 'book' place) and buy a 'spelling book' (aka a 'dictionary'). Do you need their web address?

Re:Cookbook

[Anonymous Coward]

They should go after faecesbook.com then (yes, it actually exists). It's a double trademark violation.

Re:Cookbook

[pgmrdlm]

So if me and some fellow chefs where to start a community called cookbook we are stepping on some sizzy tones?

Existing site: http://www.cookbooks.com/cookbooks_recipes/index.asp The whois information for this site:

Record expires on 30-Apr-2019.
Record created on 29-Apr-1995.
Database last updated on 26-Aug-2010 13:26:22 EDT.

If I was teachbook, I would point to this site and tell facebook to fuck off.

Re:Cookbook

[x2A]

"If I was teachbook"

they would be doomed.

Give Me A Break!

[divide overflow]

Perhaps next they'll go after everyone who uses the words cookbook, handbook, and textbook.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[LucidBeast]

... or buttbook, which is perhaps where this lawsuite should be booked under.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Asic Eng]

Not according to what they said: It's not that they are using 'book' -- we have no complaint against Kelly Blue Book or others [...] However they feel that: Teachbook was unfairly riding on its coattails by using the suffix "book" to reference the larger site's established reputation.

Given that teachbook is a social networking site but for a specialized niche, I think it's fair to say that they are doing that. In my opinion they should have that right, though. Trademark law makes sense - other companies shouldn't be able to impersonate yours, but that should be limited to there being an actual chance of confusion. Doing something similar as someone else, and profiting from an established market - well that's just capitalism. Facebook can always compete by having a better product.

Facebook argues: If others could freely use 'generic plus BOOK' [...] the suffix BOOK could become a generic term for [...] 'social networking services'

Again, I think that's probably true but that is how language works, and they should have to live with that.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[dynamo]

Not only must they live with that (..BOOK being a generic term for social networking services), but if there's such an obvious association, they should be thankful that they will be getting free advertising indefinitely, the way the big G does every time someone tells you to go google something.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Fumus]

Should Apple sue Intel over their i7 Core stuff? And every other iStuff product?
Come to think of it, yes. I'd like that. Maybe then all the retarded iNames would be gone.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Anonymous Coward]

Or Macbook.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[cheekyjohnson]

You mean to tell me that Facebook and Teachbook aren't the same thing!? Amazing! I had no idea.

Facebook should just have to deal with it. They aren't using the name "Facebook," so it's fine. If not, it should be.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Anonymous Coward]

book is only a generic term for social networks... BECAUSE of facebook lol. It wasnt before facebook made it so.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Anonymous Coward]

and your point is what?

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember North Face vs. South Butt? :-)

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100402/1600498852.shtml

Re:Give Me A Break!

[camperslo]

If facebook is going to try and muscle out the other bookies the mugbook is the place for them.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[richlv]

maybe they should rename themselves to facepalm

Re:Give Me A Break!

[mr_mischief]

I thought the phonebook was a way to look up your friends before facebook was. Or your little black book. Or your datebook. Or your yearbook. Or your address book.

Silly me.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[shikaisi]

Should Apple sue Intel over their i7 Core stuff?

First, Apple should sue Intel over the use of the word "Core". I mean, it's obvious that the words "apple" and "core" are inextricably linked.

If they win that one, then they can go after the Marine Corps.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[HangingChad]

Given that teachbook is a social networking site but for a specialized niche, I think it's fair to say that they are doing that.

If you go to http://www.uspto.gov/ and search for "book" you get over 9.000 results, including hankybook, partybook, planbook mobook. I'm pretty sure this is FB's record. Their description of services pretty much covers the earth, moon and stars online. It seems overly broad, even including peer-to-browser photo sharing services namely, providing a website featuring technology enabling users to upload, view and download digital photos. I'm not sure how it got through without being narrowed.

Normally there's a reference that says it's not an attempt to trademark a generic word (like "book") but I don't see that in FB's app. Probably because their mark is FACEBOOK and not FACE BOOK. I'm not entirely sure, I've only been through the process a couple times.

Seems like a stretch to me. If their name was "teacherfacebook", then I'd side with FB. But trying to trademark "book" in the context of any online collection of individuals seems way out of line. Since one could argue that online repositories are merely a modern evolution of books, then you're basically letting FB trademark the world.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Somewhat Delirious]

On a related note I think the article title should read any of the following:
Facebook throws book at Teachbook
Facebook books Teachbook on use of "book"
Facebook teaches Teachbook a lesson
Teachbook facing Facebook charges

I hope the next article will be titled:
Facebook tries to save face in book charge.

We'll have to wait what the next chapter brings I guess...
   

Re:Give Me A Break!

[VolciMaster]

it's obvious that the words "apple" and "core" are inextricably linked.

Baltimore

Re:Give Me A Break!

[El_Muerte_TDS]

And here I thought the name facebook was based on the well known real world counter part: yearbook

Re:Give Me A Break!

[boxwood]

in fairness to facebook, when you hear the name "teachbook" doesn't that make you immediately think "facebook for teachers"?

If *book becomes a generic term then you're one step away from referring to any social networking site as "a facebook".

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Canazza]

right, you, into the corner and think about what you've just done...

Re:Give Me A Break!

[kaiidth]

Cough cough ljbook.com cough. Which, incidentally, exists in the context of online communities and social networking websites. It's named 'LJBook' because it does what it says on the tin - it makes a book from a LiveJournal. What's more, they've been around for sufficiently long, well over six years from the looks of it, that they slightly pre-date Facebook.

That 'trademark' has been comprehensively diluted prior to Facebook even registering it, primarily due to the fact that it's such an obvious name that a whole lot of other people thought of it first. According to TESS (http://tess2.uspto.gov/) their trademark was filed in Feb 24, 2005.

IC 038. US 100 101 104. G & S: providing online chat rooms for registered users for transmission of messages concerning collegiate life, classifieds, virtual community and social networking. FIRST USE: 20041116. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20041116
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 78574730
Filing Date February 24, 2005

Perhaps the lawyers ought to have gone after HighPoint Technologies instead, who registered 'my+facebook' as 'external storage hard drives for sharing, accessing and downloading media through the Internet by using propriety hardware and software. The external storage hard drives allow users to upload and share media, play music and videos in addition to viewing photo slideshows by utilizing a software interface from a group of invited guest and users.'

As for other people to go after, TESS suggests the following:

AMBook - online files
PlanBook - lesson planning for educators, with sharing of plans via PlanBookConnect
MOBook - online travel planning
PartyBook - business networking
D VIdeobook - educational services
Gracebook - internet portal for social communications, the fiends
Placebook - geolocation software
TheLookBook - fashion online networking
BookBrowse - online book review centre from the 90s.
LiveYearBook
MarketBook
StudioBook
ShagBook (dates from 2006, this one)
Mobibook
Smilebook
Fieldbook
Whichbook
Sportsbook
Genebook
Sharedbook
Dealbook - online news, shared databases
and over eleven thousand others, which is enough to make you wonder whether some-short-word-plus the suffix 'book' is a distinctive enough trademark. Some guys who I wish Facebook would sue, just because there are some good headline opportunities there:

LameBook - which reposts everything lame and funny about Facebook. A full-time job, especially when they're acting out like this.

Comparing this one to the Victor's Little Secret case, concluded earlier this year, would seem to suggest that Facebook have a better chance against ShagBook. It's marketed to a fairly similar audience, but comes with added value sexual overtones, and is therefore likely to tarnish the mark. IANAL, obviously.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[delinear]

That makes no difference once the usage is generic enough. Just ask Xerox - they expend massive effort trying to fight the use of their trademark name as a synonym for copying.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple: "Marines! surrender!"

Marines: "WTF??? NEVER!!"

Apple: "In 10 minutes we'll start bricking your iphones one by one if you don't!"

Marines: "Wait, wait, let's talk about it..."

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see them go after http://www.ikhwanbook.com

Re:Give Me A Break!

[HungryHobo]

or refering to a list of your contacts as an "addressbook" or refering to a load of pictures and profiles of people you know as a "yearbook".

we can't have that!

Re:Give Me A Break!

[sznupi]

"I will google that on bing" (I've seen it somewhere)

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Anonymous Coward]

Prior art: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80386

Re:Give Me A Break!

[delinear]

They do have a legitimate point. It doesn't matter that you instantly make the distinction between Facebook and Teachbook, the courts have defined through precedent criteria that may mean there is room for confusion and these do not have to involve any actual confusion. They will take into account factors such as the defendant's intention in selection the mark (for instance, if "Teachbook" is a common teaching term that predates Facebook, they could argue the name derives from that, it's more likely in this case that they specifically chose the name to allude to the plaintiff's site, to convey the site's social networking purpose), and likelihood of expansion (if Facebook have plans to break up the site into sectors such as teaching, for instance, or if they already to this - I'm not a FB user so I wouldn't know). Of course, just because they have a legitimate point in raising the action, doesn't necessarily mean on the weight of the criteria that their case is valid, just that there is enough to merit the case being heard.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[deniable]

Cisco might object. It seems they own all of the new Apple product names. Has everyone seen the latest security bulletin on IOS 15?

Re:Give Me A Break!

[GaryOlson]

No, "teachbook" does not make any inference in my mind. Like the other examples listed in other comments : yearbook, address book, black book, notebook -- the word "facebook" is a conjugation of two objects [eg nouns] into a new object word. The word "face" does have an non-noun definition; but it is quite obvious Facebook derived the name from an extension of the concept in yearbook.
"Teach" is not a noun but a verb (except for certain uneducated dolts). Therefore "teachbook" does not convey the same context as the well known moniker.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[deniable]

muscle out the other bookies

This will end badly.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[deniable]

Would you want to face HP over trademarks? "We're the biggest IT company on earth. We own Palm. You've set a lovely precedent." :) Faceplant is another option.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think RedBook was out there long before Facebook?

Re:Give Me A Break!

[ascari]

So sites like Twitface.com and MyTwitface.com should be very worried then? Or could they pull off the "satire defense"?

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Anonymous Coward]

www.redbook.com Owned by Thomson Reuters...lets see them battle that one out!! heh heh!

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Muad'Dave]

Who's your friend?

Re:Give Me A Break!

[richlv]

hehe. "you wanted facepalm ? face palm now."

well, i guess hp would resort to all kinds of stupid lawsuits. their technical value seems to be smaller and smaller. right now i'm in an email exchange with their support about a laptop hanging in bios with a specific usb flashdrive attached. i keep getting replies that say something about "not enough power because drivers are available in windows"...

Re:Give Me A Break!

[interkin3tic]

Then they'll get the judge to throw the book at the defendants, then sue the judge until they take over the entire legislative branch of the government.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[kaizendojo]

I ran into a similar situation a few years ago. I was the co-author of some add ons for the open source program Joomla! that were for the educational market - we created the apps and gave them away for free. I bought the domain "schoolastech.com" and after running it for a year or two, I received a cease and desist notice from the lawyers for large publisher of k-12 education books that has a similar sounding name (no need to start this again, as I still hold the domain!). It turns out they wanted the domain, and they weren't offering anything for it but further threats. I offered an olive branch, saying that if they would make a reasonable donation of books to an inner city school that I donated my time to on occasion, we'd shut the site down.

However I also state that while we felt that we were not infringing on their trademarks, if they wanted to pursue it further I would be very happy to publicize the fact that they were leaning on a couple of guys who wanted nothing more than to provide free tools to the people that they directly market to, and that they should consider whether it was worth it turning into a very public PR situation.

I never heard from them again, and I still own the domain. I am still left to wonder how much of this was the law firm looking to make a few bucks as opposed to the corporation itself.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[TapeCutter]

"the courts have defined through precedent"

Precedents are often set by cases like this, ie: a large organisations attacking a tiny outfit who cannot possibly afford to defend themselves. It's not just corporations that do it, unions have also learnt to attack a small shop so as to set a precendent they can then use against the big boys.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the US. It's not about who is right, or what is sensible. It's about keeping the legal system rolling in cash while players waste their money on pissing contests.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[AltairDusk]

Apple: "Marines! surrender!"

Marines: "WTF??? NEVER!!"

Apple: "In 10 minutes we'll start bricking your iphones one by one if you don't!"

Marines: "You do realize we can flatten your headquarters in minutes?"

Apple: "Touchè"

FTFY

Re:Give Me A Break!

[boxwood]

those are not going to cause people to use facebook as a generic term.

The test is, will people ever say "my addressbook is a facebook for storing my contacts?" No. So those are poor examples, that only show you have no concept of what a trademark is.

Calling a social networking site *book does cause confusion. People might think teachbook is affiliated with facebook, because the name is similar and they provide a similar service.

When you hear the name teachbook, you think one of two things, a website that is selling books for teachers, or a site that is a facebook for teachers. They aren't selling books and if they were choosing teacherbooks would be a better name.

When you choose a name for a website you try to come up with a name indicating what your site does. If there was no such thing as "facebook", would the name "teachbook" indicate what this site does? No. People would just think it was some people with poor grammar trying to sell books for teachers. The name teachbook wouldn't work without the name facebook. So they are using the awareness of name facebook, which is trademarked, to describe what the function of their site is.

Would addressbook be called addressbook if facebook didn't exits? Yes. Would yearbook be called that if facebook didn't exist? Yes. Would teachbook be called that if facebook didn't exist? No.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[WrongSizeGlass]

"I will google that on bing" (I've seen it somewhere)

If you can't remember where you saw it you could try Binging it on Yahoo ...

Re:Give Me A Break!

[TheRaven64]

Facebook is a colloquial term for yearbook (the book that contains the faces of your classmates) in parts of the USA - I had an American girlfriend when Facebook launched who was surprised that I didn't know what a facebook was. It wasn't a word based on another word, they named the site after an existing generic term. Now they are complaining that the term is generic. Definite contenders for a 'you should have thought of that earlier' award.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[dominious]

yeah... im getting off your lawn.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[WrongSizeGlass]

From your link:

The Intel 80386, also known as the i386, or just 386,[1] was a 32-bit microprocessor introduced by Intel in 1985.

Apple from Wikipedia:

Established on April 1, 1976 in Cupertino, California, and incorporated January 3, 1977

Apples had 'cores' before 1985 ... heck, I seem to remember them as a kid back in the 60's. Rumor has it they go way back.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[tomhudson]

Just ask Xerox - they expend massive effort trying to fight the use of their trademark name as a synonym for copying.

They can relax - the new generation uses the terms "pirating" or "burning".

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Anonymous Coward]

Or your old college face book.

Face book is a generic slang term for a yearbook.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[tomhudson]

As others have pointed out, "facebook" was a generic term for the school yearbook - "a book full of faces" long before facebook.com ever existed. It generic.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[tomhudson]

I am still left to wonder how much of this was the law firm looking to make a few bucks as opposed to the corporation itself.

Since when is greed a mutually exclusive affair. Birds of a feather "do" flock together.

If the lawyers had been clued in, they could have forced the domain transfer the the domain name arbitration process for less than $5 as soon as you said you'd be willing to exchange it for anything - NEVER say that you are willing to seill/give it up. There are ways of wording it so that you are open to an *unsolicited* bid.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[mdwh2]

Given that teachbook is a social networking site but for a specialized niche

Is it, though? The article only says:

"the Northbrook, Ill.-based company, which provides tools for teachers to manage their classrooms and share lesson plans and other resources"

Not sure that implies social networking, unless you're diluting the term to mean any website where people can sign up for an account.

Not to mention that "facebook" was a pre-existing term to mean a school yearbook.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Anonymous Coward]

How does a union "attack a small shop"?

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Mitsoid]

I hate FB for doing this, but I do agree with them

Most *****book items or objects are not inherently lending themselves to be social networking sites. AddressBook is not likely to be a new social networking site, neither is PhoneBook.. In fact.. Book is not commonly used to represent a collection of people, except for the people stated in the book. Using Book as an expansive term to include anyone that wants to be included is a bit new on the internet.

Facebook i suppose is trying to say: ____Book, being a social networking site, is too close to their trademark.
In this case, the website wanted to make a 'social network of teachers' known as 'teacherbook'.... that's kinda boarder line if you ask me.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Anonymous Coward]

Scott Hanselman says it quite often in his videos and presentations.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[cygnwolf]

Well, for photocopying. I was waiting to see if someone had mentioned it before I opened my mouth.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[mdwh2]

I'm waiting for a company to bring out a phone with "phone" in the title, and for Apple to then sue them... Would be no less ridiculous than many of these cases!

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Rutefoot]

In the world of marketing that is one of the worst or best things that can happen to a brand, depending on who you ask. In extreme cases people might not realize a particular name is actually just a brand name (such as escalator or thermos). It then becomes very difficult to market your product properly and next to impossible to fix it after it's already happened. Worse, if you let your brand become that genericized you risk losing the ability to enforce your trademark. In the case of thermos or escalator, the two companies can no longer sue people for using those two terms because of how widespread those names have become.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[cygnwolf]

By the logic that's being thrown around here, though, Microsoft could sue Sunsoft and Terrasoft and all of the other *soft companies out there, because they obviously have prior-art for the *soft suffix...... It's even stupider than Bskyb suing Skype for the word Sky

Re:Give Me A Break!

[mdwh2]

But facebook is a pre-existing term for a yearbook. So Facebook started off as being an online facebook. Teachbook is a facebook for teachers.

I see no evidence that Facebook have promoted the use of "book" as a suffix - perhaps if they had a range of foo-book sites or products, that would be different.

And where does it say that Teachbook is a social networking site, or anything like Facebook, anyway?

Re:Give Me A Break!

[boxwood]

if they just "live with that" then they lose their trademark. If they defend their trademark and *book becomes a generic term anyway they still keep their trademark.

If you want scotch tape part of a trademarked name onto your name is not quite an obvious trademark infringement as xeroxing the whole name, but if you google for it, you'll find they are in the wrong. I'll give them a kleenex when they cry about it, but just because a trademarked word is in common usage doesn't mean you can slap it any product you want.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[darkfire5252]

they should be thankful that they will be getting free advertising indefinitely, the way the big G does every time someone tells you to go google something.

Google absolutely hates when someone says to go 'google' something, and with good reason. Trademark law is actually somewhat sensible when it comes to recognizing that language changes over time. A company is not allowed to trademark a word that refers to a type of product or a type of action (IANAL, and I'm sure I'm overlooking some finer points, but that's the idea). This includes precedent for invalidating a trademark if the trademark becomes equivalent to such a word later on. This is the reason you never hear the phrase "buy Band-Aids" or "buy Kleenex" in a commercial. They make a specific point of saying "buy Band-Aid brand bandages" or "Kleenex tissues". If usage changes to the point where you cannot refer to an adhesive bandage and have most people understand what you mean (i.e. only 'Band-Aid' refers to that item in popular language to the point that it causes confusion), then SmithCorp can sell "SmithCorp brand band-aids" and make the case that band-aid is a noun, not a trademark anymore.

If Google supports the usage of the verb 'google' as a synonym for 'search on the internet,' then it actually may become the case that you see an ad on TV advertising that "Bing is the best place to do your googling!"

Re:Give Me A Break!

[John Hasler]

It's generic in a different market. "Apple" is generic in the fruit business but Apple still has a trademark on it in the computer business.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Anonymous Coward]

But it wasn't a term for a social-networking service hosted on the web until Facebook made it so; and trademarked it as such. Teachbook is clearly choosing their name because of the existence of facebook.com, and not because some people (who are they?!) who might've referred to their school yearbook(s) as "facebook(s)".

If "Facebook" had instead called itself "FriendVille", it's probable that this other site would have called itself "TeachVille", and that's probably why Facebook has decided that they have to defend their trademark here.

-AC

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Coren22]

Just like Kleenex, does anyone really ask for a facial tissue? The Xerox one always bugs me, maybe because I am too young to remember Xerox in their heyday.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Coren22]

Huh? What?

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Coren22]

But surely you don't remember any iPods back then?

Re:Give Me A Break!

[boxwood]

set up a search engine called "doogle" and see how long it takes to hear from google's lawyers.

"But I'm giving you free advertising" isn't a good argument. Yeah when you say "go google somthing" thats good for google. But if you set up a competing product that has a similar name to google, how is that helping them?

When you create a product and name it similarly to a competing product, expect to hear from their lawyers. Thats the penalty for being unoriginal when naming products.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[boxwood]

do you think they would have named it teachbook, if there was no such thing as facebook? Seriously?

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Anonymous Coward]

Where was your girlfriend from? Obviously the US is a pretty big place, but I've never heard that term used for Yearbook and I have friends from about 20 or so States across the country. While they might never "use" the term, I'd be surprised that NONE of them have even heard it...

Re:Give Me A Break!

[tomhudson]

And their trademark is limited to their products, not computer products in general. Someone else can come out with Pear computers, pr Peach computers, and there's SFA that Apple can do about it. Teachbook is not infringing.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[mp3LM]

None of those are traditionally online. The argument is about the online perception.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[nomadic]

I always thought facebooks and yearbooks were different; facebooks would be given to you when you first entered school to let you know who people were. Of course, I never even heard of facebooks until I went to law school, none of my previous schools had them.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[tomhudson]

Doesn't matter. You don't enjoy the same trademark protection for a generic term. Ask Microsoft - it cost them $20 million to pay of Lindows when the judge said that if a settlement wasn't reached, he would probably find that Windows is not a valid trademark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._Lindows

As early as 2002, a court rejected Microsoft's claims, stating that Microsoft had used the term "windows" to describe graphical user interfaces before the product, Windows, was ever released, and that the windowing technique had already been implemented by Xerox and Apple many years before[4]. Microsoft kept seeking retrial, but in February 2004, a judge rejected two of Microsoft's central claims[5]. The judge denied Microsoft's request for a preliminary injunction and raised "serious questions" about Microsoft's trademark. Microsoft feared that a court may define "Windows" as generic and result in the loss of its status as a trademark.

Facebook, being a generic term BEFORE facebook.com used it, does not enjoy the same trademark protections as a "made-up" term, which is why trademark lawyers will tell you NOT to use an existing word. Xerox == made up == good trademark. Pepsi-cola == made up == good trademark. Apple == generic == not so good (as Apple Computer found out in their lawsuit with Apple Records, even though they were in completely different fields at the time - and had to be revisited yet again when Apple started selling music), Facebook == generic == not so good. Google == fairly good because, fortunately, they mis-spelled the word googol (1 followed by 100 zeroes).

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Anonymous Coward]

What would be next (or earlier), Coca-cola fighting Pepsi-cola for the use of "cola"?

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Anonymous Coward]

I went to Oberlin College, and every year they put out a freshman facebook. It was colloquially referred to as the fuckfinder.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[idontgno]

set up a search engine called "doogle" and see how long it takes to hear from google's lawyers.

Those guys are BAD. I went to g00gle.com (just like the email said I should) and somehow Google's lawyers infected my machine with all kinds of viruses! I'm really pissed!

I have no idea how I'm going to find some V1agr@ now!

Re:Give Me A Break!

[KnownIssues]

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary (referenced through dictionary.reference.com), the term facebook originated at least as early as 1983 for a directory listing names and headshots among U.S. college students.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[idontgno]

But facebook is a pre-existing term for a yearbook.

I've heard this assertion several times in this thread. It's also the first time I'm hearing it. Can you find any dated citations to that? (I guess we're claiming some kind of trademark "prior art"?)

Re:Give Me A Break!

[cheekyjohnson]

If they aren't using the same name, they should deal with it. Are they using Facebook? No? Then I don't see any harm. If the judge rules in the favor of Facebook (since Facebook is a big company, they most likely will), then something is truly wrong with the way things are being done. If people can't make the distinction between two separate names, then that's no fault of a website.

Besides, "book" is a very, very common word. It's idiotic that they think that they can stop people from using it in a website name after a generic word or something.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[TapeCutter]

They get an employee to join the union then make their demands on the employer. The employer stops laughing when the union sends in their lawyers. Remeber you can sue someone for whatever the hell you like, it doesn't have to make sense, you just need the victim to capitulate to set a precedent.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[bsdaemonaut]

There is no problem with perception, no one is going to confuse the two. If you read the site description they are barely even pushing the "social" aspect. Go to the website, except for the name there is no similarity. I think it would be an incredibly bad precedent to basically allow a company to trademark a regex. What is next? Is youtube going to sue teachertube?

Re:Give Me A Break!

[squiggleslash]

Well, in the Google case, there's the risk of trademark dilution that may end up turning the "generic as advertising" into something else.

If in ten years time people are saying "A "quadrophilion"? What the hell is that? Let's google it with that cool Bing app that's built into my HTC iphone, y'know, like the ad says "Need to google something? The best way to google anything is with the new Bing app, works on all the major iphone platforms", and it's true!", then any initial benefit Google might have had to having people using its name in place of "search" (or Apple have "iphone" used in place of "locked down third rate phone with nice PDA functionality" - included to demonstrate why nobody has dared tread on a more litigious company's trademarks) would be entirely lost.

Try as I may though I can't see how the act of adding the word "book" to a word when creating a social networking site of any size dilutes a trademark to do with a specific word/"book" combination. Nor do I see why anyone would confuse "Facebook' with "Teachbook", or, for that matter, "Squiggleslashbook". I don't think Facebook is doing the right thing here.

At least, that's my opinion, after painstakingly altavistaing the different aspects and moral philosophies behind trademark law using Yahoo.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[squiggleslash]

Not a facial tissue, no, but most people I know ask for a tissue. Likewise the classic "Xerox" example that many people give is also overstated - "photocopy" or just "copy" is overwhelmingly more common.

I would say that, in the US, better examples are Band-aid, Tylenol, and Coke. Part of the issue with the first two is that the "generic" is awkward to pronounce or remember (a-seed-ah-what-now?) Coca-cola doesn't seem to benefit in any way from the fact that people ask for Cokes at restaurants when they mean "any brand name cola product."

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, so this word allows us to separate the aristocracy from the rest.

A facebook is actually distinct from a yearbook. It's a book (usually much more utilitarian, softcover usually) that is released in the beginning of the year at private prep schools (especially boarding) and at least some Ivy league schools.

It's basically a student guide with photos. Hence, it's "just" a facebook, and not a year long memory book for the graduating classes.

It's basic purpose is to promote socialization, since private prep schools will likely have a lot of boarders that aren't from the same town.

I didn't go to a prep school or an Ivy League, but I have some family members that went to Exeter (same as Fuckerberg).

Re:Give Me A Break!

[squiggleslash]

Quite simple. They look for, say, a 7/11, or one of those places that sells candles that you're like "How the hell do they stay in business? I mean, they're nice candles, but do people really want candles enough to buy these overpriced scented things?", and then you come home and find your wife has bought fifty of them, and, anyway, they find one of those in the middle of nowhere, and then use the Union's Harrier Jump Jet to bomb the crap out of it.

Never did understand why, until now.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Compaqt]

The funniest thing about it is "facebook" is a generic noun!

"A reference book or electronic directory made up of individuals' photographs and names." http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/facebook

A facebook is a just a pictured list of students that they hand out to freshmen so they can get acquainted. Zuckerberg jumps from that to registering "Facebook" to wanting to control xyzBook ?

Origins of Facebook

Re:Give Me A Break!

[squiggleslash]

I've always wanted to create a company called "Disney Trademark Lawyers, LLC"

Re:Give Me A Break!

[jav1231]

Try randomly typing book.com and see how many sites you go to and how many are social in nature. That should be all the ammo Teachbook.com needs.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[mea37]

When you say a term is or isn't "geenric", you need to consider context. Trademarks cover words that had prior meanings all the time. Apple (the computer company) chose an exiting, generic term for their computers; but they brought the term into the context of computing equipment, and they rightly control its use in that context. Same goes for Facebook.

Suppose Facebook did start buildnig specialized sites for different groups. How do you suppose they might name them? Or the more directly relevant question: How is soemone first hearing about Teachbook supposed to know that isn't exactly what happened? That's precisely the type of confusion trademarks are designed to avoid; you specifically cannot attract business by creating the impression that you're affiliated with me (unless you are).

Did Teachbook choose that name as a derivation from the colloquial term for a yearbook? No. If not for facebook(.com)'s use of the term, the name would never have even occured to Teachbook. So it's not like you can argue that Facebook is trying to carve out some wide swath of namespace that people naturally would've wanted to use.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[jav1231]

Argh....I used tag brackets. Do anywordbook.com.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[radtea]

the term facebook originated at least as early as 1983 for a directory listing names and headshots among U.S. college students.

In that case it is doubtful that Facebook has much in the way of trademark rights even under common law. Trademark rights on words are extremely limited, even in a specialized business context. McDonald's can own "Big Mac" but not "hamburger".

Re:Give Me A Break!

[commodore64_love]

Bottom Line:

Facebook Corporation has turned microsoft... er, I mean... evil. Hopefully the 2-person teachbook partners will stand their ground, the judge will give the FB lawyer a very stern warning about patent trolling, and require said lawyer to repay all the teachers legal fees, or else be thrown in jail for violation of the SLAPP law.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't a word based on another word, they named the site after an existing generic term. Now they are complaining that the term is generic. Definite contenders for a 'you should have thought of that earlier' award.

You mean like, for instance, "windows" ?

Re:Give Me A Break!

[j00r0m4nc3r]

in fairness to facebook, when you hear the name "teachbook" doesn't that make you immediately think "facebook for teachers"?

When you hear the name "Textbook" does that make you think "facebook for texts"?

Re:Give Me A Break!

[HangingChad]

You may have a point. Then again Victoria's Secret sued people over Victoria and Secret separately, in the context of lingerie and apparel shops, and lost pretty much all of those cases.

I still think _BOOK is overly broad and their mark scope overreaches, but it's entirely possible the courts will see it your way. There will be plenty of discussion that _BOOK as in YEARBOOK or PICTURE BOOK are generic terms in broad usage.

I cam still hope that an over-reaching corporate dick that makes their living selling information about their users gets slapped down for being a bully.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Fishchip]

I'm not that terribly old, and I remember being told to go xerox things in primary school.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[shellbeach]

It's generic in a different market. "Apple" is generic in the fruit business but Apple still has a trademark on it in the computer business.

Er, the point being that "facebook" has been a generic term in the looking-up-people-you-might-know business decades before facebook.com sullied the world with its presence. (As many others have pointed out, that's the whole reason Facebook is called Facebook -- it was using a known word with appropriate connotations for their product.)

And in any case, from what I can gather Teachbook.com is about sharing teaching resources, not social networking. Even without the generic origins of Facebook's name, this is like them attacking a cookbook.com site which encouraged people to share recipes.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple: "Marines! surrender!"

Marines: "WTF??? NEVER!!"

Apple: "In 10 minutes we'll start bricking your iphones one by one if you don't!"

Marines: "You do realize we can flatten your headquarters in minutes?"

Apple: "Touchè"

Marines: "Noooo, not our Ipod Touches as well!"

FTFY

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Fishchip]

What you did there. I see it.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[internewt]

Which is why all people who work for, or are involved in anyway with a corporation, should be in a union. They level the playing field. Yes, it means you are stooping to the same level as the corporations in some regards, but if you don't you will always be fucked over.

The coup corporations have pulled is to convince the middle class, and most of the working class, not to unionise. How that coup works is why this post will probably get modded down.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[TooMuchToDo]

One sec, my co-worker is youtubing it on twitter.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[tsm_sf]

You are!

*bonk*

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Compaqt]

The difference here, though, is that "facebook" is a generic term.

It would be like the respective companies above tried to register "vacuum flask" and "moving staircase" instead of thermos and escalator.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Compaqt]

Just wondering what the big Z is going to do about:

MacBook
PowerBook
iBook

?

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Compaqt]

You're tool old to remember Xerox?

I'm too old to remember Mimeograph!

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if they have gone after F*ckBook.com yet.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[_avs_007]

Should Apple sue Intel over their i7 Core stuff? And every other iStuff product? Come to think of it, yes. I'd like that. Maybe then all the retarded iNames would be gone.

Actually, Intel used the "i" prefix long before Apple did... It all started when Intel tried to sue AMD for using "80386" as the name of their processor. Intel couldn't trademark a number, so they changed the name of the processor to "i386" This was before Apple had and products with the "i" prefix...

In fact, in my lab, I have a Cisco VoIP product that was sold as an "iPhone"... This product was also made before Apple released an iPhone. In fact Cisco sued Apple over the use of the iPhone trademark, as Cisco owns and used that trademark since 2000 after acquiring InfoGear.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[_avs_007]

Apples had 'cores' before 1985 ... heck, I seem to remember them as a kid back in the 60's. Rumor has it they go way back.

The Sun had a Core 4 billion years ago, long before an apple even existed.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Fumus]

Mod this informative!
 
If a company like Cisco has a known trademark and Apple can just march in and use the same name for a similar product, then what is the bloody point in all this? To protect the rich, but screw over the less rich?

Re:Give Me A Break!

[IndustrialComplex]

In that case it is doubtful that Facebook has much in the way of trademark rights even under common law. Trademark rights on words are extremely limited, even in a specialized business context. McDonald's can own "Big Mac" but not "hamburger".

Good luck if you open up a company called Windows Software (You know, for automated control of windows). What about 'Geek Squad'.

Or for one that isn't reviled by Slashdot:

Tractor Supply Company.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[NeutronCowboy]

What if someone names their site blackbook (keep your contacts nicely sorted, learn of new contacts through existing contacts), yellowbook (keep your business listings organized, learn of new businesses through existing businesses, follow them), etc.? Book is a generic term for a listing of things you know, with the prefix indicating something about what's being stored.

Kinda like Foo Software, which is generally recognized to not be able to sue Bar Software, because both contain the name Software.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[imtheguru]

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps8802/ps10587/ps10591/ps10621/qa_c67_561940.html

Parent is referring to items:

Note: AppleTalk Phase I and II, and Service Selection Gateway (SSG) feature are not supported in Release 15M&T. Refer to the following bulletins for more information:
AppleTalk Support Discontinuation: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps8802/ps5460/product_bulletin_c25-520459.html
SSG Support Discontinuation: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps341/end_of_life_notice_c51-501483.html

Re:Give Me A Break!

[tyrione]

``Go Xerox that for me.'' Xerox hated that phrase as well. They lost their case. That's the price you pay when your service brand name rolls off the tongue easily as the main action of what mainly made your service famous.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[tyrione]

Huh? What?

I believe its a reference from, ``The Long Kiss Goodnight,'' where Geena Davis is agent Baltimore and Samuel Jackson is a former cop.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[tyrione]

Ironically, they'll get their Trademark claim, after they lose this case, modified as now this claim has brought direct attention to it.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Anonymous Coward]

These all infringe on Facebook.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[BitZtream]

Yes, I think it is entirely possible that something related to teaching may have the word book in its domain name.

It is infact pretty common for teachers to use books.

It honestly took me a second to realize the problem was 'book' in the name. teachbook seems to make complete sense for teachers, regardless of facebook.com.

Yes, I think its pretty likely there would be a teachbook without a facebook. Just like cookbook, yearbook, textbook, rulebook and every other common way to combine book with something else that existed long before facebook started ripping off other peoples ideas. You know whats even crazier ... FACEBOOK IS ANOTHER NAME FOR YEARBOOK THAT HAS BEEN USED FOR 50 YEARS.

Facebook isn't an original name in the least, when you pick your name using an existing generic term for something, you have to 'protection' rights because you're stupid.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Anonymous Coward]

I gave up binging on Yahoo some time ago. Haven't fully purged, but still ...

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Anonymous Coward]

I topeka'ed it on Altavista but didn't find any results in the first 10 pages.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[x2A]

"but they brought the term into the context of computing equipment, and they rightly control its use in that context"

But only if they stayed out of the music business, because of the existence of Apple Records. When Apple launched iTunes, this broke that conditional use of Apple, and Apple Records I believe reinvoked their trademark dispute. I didn't pay any attention to know which way it went though, I guess they must've reached a settlement or maybe Jobs painted 'Gizmodo' on the doors of Apple Records during the night and had the police kick 'em in.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[_avs_007]

Mod this informative! If a company like Cisco has a known trademark and Apple can just march in and use the same name for a similar product, then what is the bloody point in all this? To protect the rich, but screw over the less rich?

It get's worse... If you read this article from Cisco, it says Apple even approached Cisco to try to license the trademark "iPhone", but couldn't reach an agreement, and came out with their phone and named it "iPhone" anyways.

Isn't that willful infringement?

Re:Give Me A Break!

[x2A]

Windows is only a 'generic term' (or "word") in English (or close approximations of) speaking countries, which is why MS won the Windows/Lindows case in, for example, Germany.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Anonymous Coward]

At least he's not flickr'ing it on redtube...

Re:Give Me A Break!

[x2A]

It does also express a certain level of success though, for your brandname to become a verb (like 'google' or 'hoover') shows a high level of market penetration (hehe) to the extent where your product has become somewhat ubiquitous, this normally means you must've sold a large volume of your product.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[DinDaddy]

Isn't that where Facebook got the idea, riffing on previously used terms like yearbook and phone book?

Re:Give Me A Break!

[x2A]

"(IANAL, and I'm sure I'm overlooking some finer points, but that's the idea)"

Like how Apple are pissed at people saying IANAL, because they had spent $billions on their iAnal product which they could no longer trademark.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[x2A]

They're not similar products to Facebook, so no trademark infringement.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[x2A]

or Apple have "iphone" used in place of "Locked down third rate phone with nice PDA functionality(tm)"

Fixed that for you ;-)

Re:Give Me A Break!

[x2A]

"I for one blah blah microsoft blah blah patent trolling blah blah lawyers blah blah in soviet russia"

*yawn*

You read nothing but slashdot, don't you?

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Rutefoot]

You're right on that point. However give it enough time after it's achieved generic status and you could start losing that market share and have a very tough time maintaining it or getting it back. But that is mostly just true with physical products. In the land of the Internet websites will be born and die out long before this would ever be an issue.

You can't blame FB execs for wanting/expecting their company/product to last forever though.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[x2A]

Not that generic... maybe in parts of America, but Facebook already has a population far greater than the population of America.

Yes that's right, there is a world outside of America, it has people in it, and a series of tubes connecting them.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[x2A]

And for music, Apple Corps (think 'The Beatles') holds (or held) the trademark, leading to those famous Apple v Apple cases (eg, when the now 'Apple Inc' started iTunes)

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly whomever modded this 'insightful' has no understanding whatsoever of trademark law.

For a good example of a similar case which came to a reasonable resolution, see Sparkfun.com's recent spat with SPARC.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[x2A]

Actually that doesn't really matter either. MS did win the case, just not in English speaking countries where Windows is a word. In Germany, for example, Microsoft won the case. This means Lindows couldn't use the term Lindows in Germany. This would fragment their brand (having to call it different things in different countries) and result in having to produce two different logos, different sets of images etc, so it made more sense for Lindows to change their name to a name they could use everywhere; Linspire.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[x2A]

"when you hear the name "teachbook" doesn't that make you immediately think "facebook for teachers"?"

Yes.

"When you hear the name "Textbook" does that make you think "facebook for texts"?"

No.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[x2A]

That's like comparing Apple suing iOrange. Soft is short for Software, that's what the connotation is. That's why various software companies put 'soft' in their name. It's like 'OS' for Operating System, which is why you don't get MS suing Apple for OSX because they own the OS as in DOS, or SunOS, etc.

Any connotations of Social Networking that the word 'book' has comes from facebook. It wasn't there before.

If Skype was actually called SkyPE, or PSkyE, then the comparison with BSkyB would be valid. But it's not, so it isn't.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[divide overflow]

Facebook argues: If others could freely use 'generic plus BOOK' [...] the suffix BOOK could become a generic term for [...] 'social networking services'

Cue the lawyers for Act 2:

If others could freely use 'FACE plus generic' [...] the prefix FACE could become a generic term for [...] 'social networking services'

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Golddess]

Coca-cola doesn't seem to benefit in any way from the fact that people ask for Cokes at restaurants when they mean "any brand name cola product."

And suddenly it makes a lot more sense why I was always silently brought a Pepsi instead of the goddamned Coke I'd asked for. Minus the goddamned part of course.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Ganthor]

Plenty of examples of "brands" becoming generic out there. The reason cited that this has happened was the lack of effort to defend the brand name against generic usage.

"Zipper" is one example.

I recall that a few years ago Sony lost a fight with someone using "Walkman" to describe all personal music players. (This was before ipod). Then I seem to remember (and perhaps more applicable here), Apple lost a fight over the use of the letter 'i' as a prefix.

We seem to want to get behind David in these situations.

I guess now the courts will decide.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[tomhudson]

And that's totally irrelevant - the suit is in the US.

And facebooks' "population stats" are skewed - how many dead accounts are there? How many dupe accounts?

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's irrelevent whether they would have or not.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[TheDarkNose]

Yes, but there was a settlement later (out of court, so the willfulness hardly matters). Besides, they profited from the deal, since they obviously go money from the deal. Then they combined that money with the $0.50 cisco made on their iphone. (Even the staunchest Apple hater has to agree the second product with that name was better.)

Re:Give Me A Break!

[aquila.solo]

Yeah, but Oracle would hold any rights to that property now.


What?

Re:Give Me A Break!

[insertwackynamehere]

But the problem is you are wrong. Facebook turned an everyday word into a worldwide recognized brand that represents social networking. Teachbook wasn't naming itself because it decided to append the word "book" to the word "teach" arbitrarily. Nor were they naming themselves after traditional "facebooks". They are a social networking site that decided to name themselves "Teachbook" because they are a social networking website for teachers and adopted the suffix "-book" backwardly from "Facebook". I feel bad for them because they sound like a small company but Facebook needs to actively defend itself if they do not want the backwards derived generalized suffix of "-book" to be used for social networking sites (something they may feel leads to people associating other "-book" sites with Facebook).

An example in not trademark terms: Cocaine comes from the words Coca (the plant the chemical was derived from) and "-ine" a suffix used for alkaloids. The drug was used as a topical anesthetic, originally. Later on, the suffix of "-caine" was taken from cocaine and used to name a lot of topical anesthetics such as procaine (tradename: Novacaine) and benzocaine. If cocaine had been a trade name and not a scientific name, I'm sure GSK or Bayer or whoever owned it would have probably prevented other drugs from being called Novacaine, etc.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[x2A]

"And that's totally irrelevant - the suit is in the US"

Not irrelevant at all. They're American, that's where the money they make comes, so of course that's where the case will be. Their brand name is world wide, and has a direct effect on how much money they, in America, will make. You know the 'www' that appears before their domain name when you go to their site? Do you know what the first two 'w's stand for? That should be a hint that things that happen in one country don't automatically stop at the border of that country.

"And facebooks' "population stats" are skewed"

And that is irrelevant, unless you're disputing that Facebook has a large number of users around the world.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[hyc]

blackbook.com already exists. So does datebook.com, playbook.com, and probably anything else you can think up. Since Facebook's trademark scope is so broad, I'd guess all those other guys will be in their sights soon too.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[deniable]

Thanks, but it was more just to wind up the folks that think IOS 4 is the latest and greatest, although "IOS no longer supports AppleTalk" could cause some confusion.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[tomhudson]

First, who the heck uses "www" any more? That is so last century. If you have any brains, you've configured your server to answer to http://domainname.tld./ Why redirect to http://www.domain.tld? Especially since www.com is a valid domain. Oh wait - facebook redirects to http://www.facebook.com/ - they're infringing on the www.com trademark!

It's a stupid lawsuit.

And the judge isn't going to hear evidence about possible confusion in other countries - that is TOTALLY outside his jurisdiction. Thats why countries have their own courts - it's part and parcel of being a sovereign nation, duh!

Re:Give Me A Break!

[vux984]

do you think they would have named it teachbook, if there was no such thing as facebook? Seriously?

Would OpenOffice be named that if microsoft's dominant productivity suite was called Microsoft Works?
Would IceWeasel be named that if the software it was a fork of wasn't called "FireFox"?
Would FreeCraft be named that if Warcraft and Starcraft had been called something else?
At the local grocery store there are even "Honey Nut Toasted O's" next to the "Honey Nut Cheerios". Would the knockoff even exist if the original didn't, never mind be named in such a way as to deliberately evoke the original?

Is there some element of trademark law that provides you control over marks and products that were influenced by the existence of an established mark or product? Of course not. As long as the teachbook logo is different enough etc, they should be in the clear.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[x2A]

"First, who the heck uses "www" any more?"

Says the person saying 'heck' hehe :-p

If the court rules that teachbook doesn't infringe on facebook's trademark, guess what? That's okay! The existence of teachbook can not then be used to demonstrate that Facebook haven't been protecting their trademark, which, if teachbook did infringe and facebook didn't go after them, then somebody else could. Either way, it's better to determine these things in a court so it is known than leave it to someone else down the line. Whether Facebook "win" or "lose" this case, they achieve their purpose of making sure 'teachbook' isn't a threat to their brand. Cuz let's face it, the only way teachbook could likely to be a threat to facebook is indirectly, as the legal weapon of choice of somebody wishing to move in on Facebook's brand. Facebook's action here is the minimum that is required to ensure that can't happen. That's due to laws that were in place long before Facebook were, so it's hardly their fault.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[tomhudson]

By your flawed logic, facebook should sue EVERY internet site, because they "might" be infringing. Show some common sense, please.

First, the biggest enemy of facebook's brand is facebook management doing crap.

Second, the laws do not require you to go after everyone who "might" in "some alternate universe" be infringing. The doctrine ofr "protect it or lose it" is not part of the Lanham Act, but rather something that has grown out of jurisprudence; you only have to go against apparent infringers. In other words, Apple Records could go after Apple Computer for distributing music, but Microsoft failed when they sued Lindows (and had to pay $20 million to get Lindows to agree to walk away from the name and settle the suit - gee, can I get someone to sue me and then pay me $20 million?), because (1) Windows is generic, and (2) there is no possibility in a reasonable person's mind that they could mistake the two.

So, (1) facebook was a generic term before facebook.com - it's where facebook.com took the name - the book of faces that is a yearbook, and (2) there is not enough similarity to cause confusion between facebook and teachbook.

Die, facebook, die!

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea i agree.. noone would ever think of connecting teach and book, they are so unrelated..

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hurry every college needs to band together and sue facebook into chapter 11 for stealing their campus slang for yearbook.

I really hope Facebook does not win this case.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Anonymous Coward]

Touché

Re:Give Me A Break!

[kaizendojo]

There are ways of wording it so that you are open to an *unsolicited* bid.

Tom, could you elaborate a bit? If I was to run into the situation again, I'd appreciate your insight - I may do the same thing, but I'd like to know that I at least had alternatives.

Thanks

Re:Give Me A Break!

[tomhudson]

"I've never put it up for sale, and while I *have* had a few unsolicited offers in the past, and out of politeness I *will* look at them, there's been nothing so far to make me change my mind."

You establish:

1. That you are not officially trying to sell the domain,
2. That if you respond to an unsolicited offer, it is not necessarily because you want to sell.

As in all negotiations, the person who speaks first loses. Remember that next time you find yourself on a used car lot.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[kaizendojo]

Great advice, Tom and I appreciate you sharing it. I'll definetely keep that in mind with a few other domains I have been keeping. Thanks.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Mr. Slippery]

Facebook needs to actively defend itself if they do not want the backwards derived generalized suffix of "-book" to be used for social networking sites (something they may feel leads to people associating other "-book" sites with Facebook).

The fact that Facebook may not want the suffix "-book" to be used for other social networking sites, does not imply that they have any right to use government force to enforce their desires.

No one is going to associate "Teachbook" with "Facebook" any more than they associate "Yellowbook (Facebook includes a phone directory), Bluebook (Facebook includes an on-line marketplace), Guestbook (Facebook pages often function like guest books for small businesses), or Photobook (Facebook includes photos).

Re:Give Me A Break!

[sherylC]

Facebook is a social networking website which was founded by Mark Zuckerberg, his college roommates and his fellow computer science students. Facebook has faced many controversies before and yet again its facing another. This involves facing off with the US court once again. Facebook wants to trademark the word face It is attempting to get "face" to be a brand name.

Re:Give Me A Break!

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if they win this case. I kinda think that Facebook picked on a little guy who can't defend themselves properly to use as a test case and to try and set precedent for the use of book in a website name being an infringement on their trademark.

Time to get some books...

[JoosepN]

...and go throw them at Facebook.

Prior Art

[ImNotAtWork]

Year book

Re:Prior Art

[c0lo]

Year book

Not a patent, but a trademark case/suit. Different fish, same stink when rotten.

Re:Prior Art

[Anonymous Coward]

According to Facebook:

"If others could freely use 'generic plus BOOK' marks for online networking services targeted to that particular generic category of individuals, the suffix BOOK could become a generic term for 'online community/networking services' or 'social networking services,'" Facebook argued in the lawsuit. "That would dilute the distinctiveness of the Facebook Marks."

Of course, the generic suffix "book" that they speak of has long been in the "public domain"; i.e. "Year book" (from which Facebook stole the idea. In fact Facebook used to only be available to people with school-based email addresses). Then there are the other historic generics like textbook, flip book, scrap book, etc and so on.

Too bad that in these cases the courts tend to rule in favour of the rich and famous instead of the fair. People with "Mc" in their names are screwed if they want to start ANY type of business (restaurant or not) because McDonald's has always been an asshole about the issue, and the courts have favoured the asshole. With Nissan things are better, but the legal costs and time (in years, going through the court system) have been horrendous.

In summary: if you're poor your screwed. If you can afford millions of dollars for lawyers then you may be able to get your way.

Re:Prior Art

[AK Marc]

Not a patent, but a trademark case/suit.

Proof of acceptance as a generic will invalidate a trademark. As such, "year book" is a valid defense against the suit. It is prior, but as you indicate, prior art doesn't matter, but proof of generic use of the word does. And year book and phone book and face book indicate a generic nature to "book" at the end, and the fact that facebook purposefully took "book" because of the generic nature of year book would seem to indicate that the "prior art" invalidates their trademark over "book."

Re:Prior Art

[Anonymous Coward]

You're missing the point entirely, even though it's spelled out in your quoted text. They don't care about people using the term "book", they care about people using the term "book" in the very specific instance of online social networking, since the usage of the term and the proximity of the services offered combined could lead to confusion (i.e. people thinking Teachbook is somehow endorsed by Facebook). McDonalds is a different matter, they tend to pursue what they see as trademark violations much more vigorously, but largely the courts find in their favour only where it is in the field of restaurants (and even then not always), the exceptions being where others are clearly using their name or mark to gain a competitive advantage in the market place. Actually apart from the odd anomaly the courts seem pretty good at only upholding McD's claims where there is room for genuine confusion, and they've lost a fair few even in the fast food sector.

Re:Prior Art

[hedwards]

Um, citation necessary, if a person uses their real name, they get guaranteed right to do so. Mike Rowe only lost his because it included Soft in the name of his store, thus causing conniptions for MS. Had he been using MikeRowe.com, he would've been fine.

Re:Prior Art

[cygnwolf]

Maybe they should go after yearbook.com too. Registered in '95 actually, way prior to facebook, and even uses facebook connect, or you can sign in with myspace or twitter too. And it's definately social networking, aimed at high school kids (remember facebook was originally aimed at college students). Whois Record Related Domains For Sale or At Auction GolfYearbook.com ($1,688) MilitaryYearbook.com ($1,888) YearbookReview.com ($1,895) WebYearbook.com ($1,888) NationalYearbook.com ($688) IYearbooksInc.net (Bid) YearbookForum.com ($1,688) StaffYearbook.com ($688) InternetYearbook.com ($1,588) YearbookSoftware.com ($300) YearbookManager.com ($1,200) YearbookCenter.com ($380) YearbookSurvey.com ($480) GraduateYearbook.com ($300) BonnarooYearbook.com (Bid) YearbookCamp.com ($350) GreenYearbook.com ($1,650) YearbookWorkshop.com ($1,888) MyCoolYearbook.com (Bid) 1 2 3 4 More > Reverse Whois: "Insider Guides, Inc." owns about54 other domains Email Search: is associated with about 52 domains Registrar History: 4 registrars NS History: 2 changes on 3 unique name servers over 3 years. IP History: 8 changes on 8 unique name servers over 5 years. Whois History: 211 records have been archived since 2004-03-08 . Reverse IP: 2 other sites hosted on this server. Log In or Create a FREE account to start monitoring this domain name DomainTools for Windows® Now you can access domain ownership records anytime, anywhere... right from your own desktop! Download Now> Registrant: Insider Guides, Inc. 280 Union Square Drive New Hope, PA 18938 US Domain Name: YEARBOOK.COM Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Insider Guides, Inc. Domain Administrator 280 Union Square Drive New Hope, PA 18938 US (215)862-1162 (215)862-1655 [fax] Domain created on 03-Jan-1995 Domain expires on 02-Jan-2022 Last updated on 24-May-2010 Domain servers in listed order: PDNS1.ULTRADNS.NET PDNS2.ULTRADNS.NET PDNS3.ULTRADNS.ORG PDNS4.ULTRADNS.ORG PDNS5.ULTRADNS.INFO PDNS6.ULTRADNS.CO.UK

Re:Prior Art

[xero314]

Actually Mike Rowe never lost anything, he made an out of court agreement with Microsoft. No one knows if he or Microsoft would have won the court case if it had gone that far. Now, Mike Rowe did make one major mistake. In his initial response to Microsoft he had asked how much they would offer for the domain, which put him potentially in violation with the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.

ApostropheDot.com anyone?

[Dark Stranger]

No one has registered apostropheDot.com yet!

Re:ApostropheDot.com anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about backslashdot.com? It could be a highly biased, glorified blog that praises Windows and slanders Linux.

Re:ApostropheDot.com anyone?

[cparker15]

colonslash.com

Wait...

Re:ApostropheDot.com anyone?

[tehcyder]

How about backslashdot.com? It could be a highly biased, glorified blog that praises Windows and slanders Linux.

But it would probably *still* be full of fucking Apple fanbois.

Re:ApostropheDot.com anyone?

[GameboyRMH]

pipecomma.com is also available.

Finally

[6031769]

At last we are shown the Facebook business model. Who knew there were so many people to sue?

uh what about this?

[bronney]

http://www.fuckbook.com/

Re:uh what about this?

[rednip]

Who said that they hadn't sent a C&D letter to them? Chances are that TheFacebook had sent to many others, but the teachers figured that publicity would help their cause, and 'the media' picked up on it. I'd say that they were right to do so, as publicity doesn't get any cheaper. Of course the longer they hold out on the name, the more expensive it could get (lawyers, judgement, etc).

Personally, I don't think that TheFaceBook has much of a case, particularly as 'Phone Book' would seem to be their 'root' concept.

Re:uh what about this?

[somersault]

Personally, I don't think that TheFaceBook has much of a case, particularly as 'Phone Book' would seem to be their 'root' concept.

From Wikipedia:

The original concept for Facebook was borrowed from a product produced by Zuckerberg's prep school Phillips Exeter Academy, which for decades published and distributed a printed manual of all students and faculty, unofficially called the "face book".

Bloody hypocrites..

Re:uh what about this?

[Jedi Alec]

Ah, to be fuckbook.com's lawyer in drafting a reply...so many options.

10 bucks says they're based/hosted out of a country that doesn't give a hoot about US trademarks.

Re:uh what about this?

[Dumnezeu]

They're not hypocrites. It clearly says that the name was borrowed , not stolen. I'm sure they're honest people and they'll pay the school sooner or later. We must consider Facebook to be innocent until proven guilty and, until now, there is no proof that they won't pay... right?

Re:uh what about this?

[MBGMorden]

Borrowed doesn't mean paying for it later. I'm anxiously awaiting the day when they give the name back.

Re:uh what about this?

[dunezone]

Everyone's a hypocrite once you involve money.

Re:uh what about this?

[boxwood]

not really. You seem to be confusing copyright law with trademark law.

The whole idea of a trademark is that a name is associated with a product or service. It makes it a lot easier for the consumer to compare products if they have names. So I can ask "how does Ubuntu compare to Windows?" instead of having to ask "how does the the operating system produced by Canonical Group Limited, 21-24 Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP, United Kingdom compare to the operating system produced by Microsoft Corporation, 1 Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052-8300, US?". That would be a real pain in the ass wouldn't it?

So you use an existing word (like Windows or Ubuntu), invent a word (Google) or stick a couple of words together (FaceBook) then market it so that people associate that word with your product.

The name is really arbitrary. The value of the name comes from all the time and money spent getting people to associate that name with your product. The name "facebook" didn't have much value as the unofficial name of a newsletter at some prep school. It does have value now that its associated with the most popular website on the internet. If facebook was called something else, it would still be just as popular. Its not like they became popular only because everyone loved the name "facebook".

Re:uh what about this?

[NeutronCowboy]

Yes, but it also means that it is illogical to argue that a common word of your trademark is a defining characteristic of your trademark.

Re:uh what about this?

[aztektum]

DUDE NSFW. While thinking Facebook is a bunch of fucks, I figured that was a parody. Color me suprised when I see the dicks, tits and asses.

They go after these guys

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet they don't go after the skeevy sites that advertise themselves as "The Facebook of Sex?"

reading it wrong.

[LingNoi]

Effectively they're bombing a mosquito here, and we're not sure why they want to do that.

Anyone else read this wrong as "bombing a mosque"?

Re:reading it wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason they are building a mosque at the world trade centre site, is to soon after, bomb it for the lulz.

Re:reading it wrong.

[n1hilist]

I read it as boning a mosquito :(

Re:reading it wrong.

[wvmarle]

No that's just to protect the new WTC. Those muslim terrorists wouldn't risk hitting one of their own would they?

Re:reading it wrong.

[somersault]

I thought you guys were joking, but a Google turns it up as real. The first place I heard this idea was on a comedy routine a few years ago. Personally I think it's in pretty poor taste. I know that these fundamentalist terrorists are qualitatively different from your "average" Muslim, but still.

Re:reading it wrong.

[Robert Zenz]

You haven't followed the news about the Iraq and Afghanistan, have you?

Re:reading it wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

izzt it in yet?

Re:reading it wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

No that's just to protect the new WTC. Those muslim terrorists wouldn't risk hitting one of their own would they?

Well yeah, they did. More than one.

Re:reading it wrong.

[Inda]

No, only you, as the rest of us are educated.

Re:reading it wrong.

[SpinyManiac]

It's not at ground zero. I wouldn't normally use Cracked as a reference, but I will today.

Re:reading it wrong.

[wvmarle]

I was joking.

And I am aware it is not ON ground zero, but nearby (thanks for the map SpinyManiac - didn't know the distance was that much, thought it was even less.

Also many Muslims say those fundamentalists are not real Muslims. Most Muslims that I know are pretty peaceful. And as long as they respect I don't believe in Allah they can go on believing in it.

And I'm very aware they would happily kill one another, especially if the other Muslim is another "type" like shi-ite or sunni or whatever they call it.

It remains simply sad that some people like to vent their personal grudge against other people, having no problem in killing people they do not know just because they happen to be US nationals for example, and abusing a religion to justify their actions.

Re:reading it wrong.

[BetterSense]

I thought "mosquito" was some sort of diminutive form of "mosque"

Re:reading it wrong.

[CeruleanDragon]

I admit it, that did pop to mind for a brief moment and require a re-read, but it's 8:38am and I just got into work and my Amp hasn't hit me yet, so I figured it was just my sleep-addled mind.

Re:reading it wrong.

[mcgrew]

Hmmm... "Mosque" is a misspelling of the Spanish word "mosca" ("fly"). "Mosquito" is Spanish for "little fly" (the "ito" suffix means "little"). So maybe you read it right after all?

Re:reading it wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes: all us Americans!

All your books are belong to us!

[captainpanic]

Resistance is futile.

Re:All your books are belong to us!

[Dumnezeu]

At least do it right, dammit! It's all your book are belong to us ("book" not "books").

Re:All your books are belong to us!

[stoned_hamster]

At least do it right, dammit! It's all your book are belong to us ("book" not "books").

but greed is good !

Bad! BAD FACEBOOK!

[Anonymous Coward]

No... No.... NO FACEBOOK. Stop that. Bad dog.

Someone get the hose...

No, I did not read it wrong

[captainpanic]

Effectively they're bombing a mosquito here, and we're not sure why they want to do that.

Anyone else read this wrong as "bombing a mosque"?

No, I did not read it wrong...
But I guess Facebook doesn't realize yet that Muslims have a Holy Book. The religions of the world will be sued next week.

Re:No, I did not read it wrong

[Chrisq]

But I guess Facebook doesn't realize yet that Muslims have a Holy Book. The religions of the world will be sued next week.

What's the betting that facebook won't be going after http://www.theholybook.org/

Re:No, I did not read it wrong

[c0lo]

Is any of the Holy Books a social networking site?

However, on this line, I do feel a sense of danger for the people of the book if they would start a social networking site.

Re:No, I did not read it wrong

[Zumbs]

That is because it is a .org address. Facebook only targets "*book.com" addresses.

Re:No, I did not read it wrong

[Chrisq]

That is because it is a .org address. Facebook only targets "*book.com" addresses.

If that were true there would be an easy solution:
teachbook.com => teachbook.org

Re:No, I did not read it wrong

[Danieljury3]

Maybe someone should make a .co.m address?

Re:No, I did not read it wrong

[EdIII]

That's actually impossible. It would require a single character TLD which does not exist, as far as I know.

You may have meant .c.om which would still be a single character domain in the country of Oman's TLD. I doubt that, or a two character domain, would be allowed. Two character domains are not allowed in the .com TLD either. There are notable exceptions that are grandfathered in like www.hp.com, but there will be no new two character domains allowed, and I am pretty sure that applies to all TLD's.

Re:No, I did not read it wrong

[Chrisq]

There are notable exceptions that are grandfathered in like www.hp.com, but there will be no new two character domains allowed, and I am pretty sure that applies to all TLD's.

Not the .uk tld, though this is exceptional because sites canot be registered directly within the TLD. Registration is within second-level domains such as .co.uk.

oh ffs

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh man, fuck off, Facebook, you giant corporate retard.

This trademark and patent stuff is getting beyond a joke. No-one will be able to do anything soon for fear of infringing on somethingorother from them or Amazon or Apple or MS or MPEG LA or blah blah because they claim they got to buttons or text or selling some bullshit first or some crap. No wonder innovation is drying up, piracy and sticking it to the man is rampant and no-one gives a toss about anything - everyone's too busy covering their own ass and hoping it will all magically go away.

There's protecting your innovation, trademarks, rights, etc. and then there's being a giant muppet. Facebook is a giant muppet.

Re:oh ffs

[chomsky68]

No-one will be able to do anything soon for fear of infringing on somethingorother from them or Amazon or Apple or MS or MPEG LA or blah blah because they claim they got to buttons or text or selling some bullshit first or some crap

But isn't that what they want? The point when noone dares to do anything is reached, they are going to laugh coz they achieved their aim, namely you're not going to be able to use anything but their products...

Re:oh ffs

[kaptink]

here here.. You should run for president. Given that this site really doesnt have anything to do with what facebook does apart from teachers talking with other teachers, it makes me wonder why. Perhaps the legal department needs something to do? Which is surprising given the number of dickheads spreading hate on fb. I think the question I am most interested in is how on earth can someone claim to own the rights to a word like 'book' .. Perhaps it is just a scaresuit. Anyway, lawyers are douchebags and trademarks are fail. Facebook has become a giant twat.

Re:oh ffs

[Anonymous Coward]

I represent the estate of Jim Henson; we are hereby issuing a Cease & Desist request regarding the above post due to your use of our trademark "Muppet".

Re:oh ffs

[maxwell demon]

here here..

Where?

Re:oh ffs

[cp.tar]

here here..

Where?

There there. </sheldon>

Re:oh ffs

[Drakkenmensch]

My idea to copyright the entire alphabet and own written language forever is sounding less and less crazy every day.

Re:oh ffs

[TheGratefulNet]

same thing with apple who goes after anyone who dares prepend a lowercase i to the brand name.

the fact that THAT is patentable or copyrightable is absurd.

our legal system is very truly broken and that is why people love 'sticking it to the man'. the man is corrupt and no one trusts 'him' anymore.

to get respect, you have to earn it. mega-corporations have earned our disrepect, lately, though.

Re:oh ffs

[plumby]

Apple's already got "i".

Re:oh ffs

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to vote pirate!

Re:oh ffs

[Ken V.B. Liar]

In Jim Munroe's "Angry Young Spaceman", English has become the lingua franca of interstellar trade and has been patented by Earth. Other planets have to pay a licence fee to use it.

Re:oh ffs

[Anonymous Coward]

Disney bought the 'Muppets' and owns the trademark on it. The estate of Jim Henson don't get a say in it.

wtf

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a little known fact. I own the word and concept of being 'Human'. Want to keep using it as well as existing as one? You may make payments, by the minute, of an amount to be determined by value per incident(it will be fair, don't worry).....or else your status shall be revoked forthwith.

Re:wtf

[delinear]

The fact that it's a little known fact is a defence in itself to any trademark claim you might bring (since nobody's going to confuse my being human with your ownership of the concept of being human if it's little known that you own said concept), so thanks :)

Re:Woot!

[valeo.de]

Very informative post. Better luck next time, eh.

Contact the EFF

[zoomshorts]

Someone needs to bitch slap Face**** hard and get an injunction against them for ever doing this
stupid shit again, anywhen and anywhere.

Re:Contact the EFF

[Khyber]

This would be called having them marked as a vexatious litigant.

Re:Contact the EFF

[Anonymous Coward]

It can take a while to file for vex. lit.

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation
"A single action, even a frivolous one, is not enough to raise a litigant to the level of being declared vexatious, though repeated and severe instances by a single lawyer or firm can result in eventual disbarment."

Lawyers love to threaten this type of action - in particular against those who have yet to lawyer up - however, the reality is that a single case is not enough.

You also have to be careful in making this type of accusation - tables can be turned.

Time to bring out the...

[martin-boundary]

... thesaurus.

www.teachalbum.com
www.teachalmanac.com
www.teachanthology.com
www.teachbulletin.com
www.teachcyclopaedia.com
www.teachcyclopedia.com
www.teachdictionary.com
www.teachdiurnal.com
www.teachencyclopedia.com
www.teachmonograph.com
www.teachgazette.com
www.teachhardback.com
www.teachhardcover.com
www.teachhow-to.com
www.teachmag.com
www.teachmagazine.com
www.teachmanual.com
www.teachcatalog.com
www.teachcatalogue.com
www.teachnewspaper.com
www.teachnovel.com
www.teachnovelette.com
www.teachomnibus.com
www.teachorgan.com
www.teachpaper.com
www.teachpaper.com
www.teachpaperback.com
www.teachpaperbound.com
www.teachperiodical.com
www.teachpocketedition.com
www.teachprimer.com
www.teachpulp.com
www.teachquarto.com
www.teachrag.com
www.teachreview.com
www.teachserial.com
www.teachsoftback.com
www.teachsoftcover.com
www.teachtext.com
www.teachtome.com
www.teachtract.com
www.teachtradeedition.com
www.teachfolio.com
www.teachtreatise.com
www.teachvolume.com
www.teachzine.com

fail

[bakamorgan]

I hope facebook looses a shit ton of money over this.

Re:fail

[Anonymous Coward]

No way they'll lose this. The legal system is designed to annihilate those with less money. Facebook cannot lose against such a small company. They could invent the most ridiculous charges and still win with all their money and lawyers.

Re:fail

[delinear]

He didn't say lose the case, he said lose money. You said it yourself, Facebook are likely to take a sledgehammer approach to the case and pour money into lawyers (after all, if they lose after making such a big stink that will be an open invitation to everyone else to jump on the bandwagon), and the defendents are a tiny company with likely not much money. I doubt FB would ever recoup more than they spent in a case like this, so they could effectively win the case but (unless there was a serious chance of this site stealing business from them which justified the expense) still lose money.

Re:fail

[mcgrew]

They'll have to loose a lot of money to loose their lawyers. lawyers aren't cheap, but once loosed they can often recoup their cost for you.

____book.com sites that predate facebook...

[mrstu]

Did some peeking on the wayback machine... domain names that were registered before facebook launched: flybook.com sportsbook.com buybook.com computerbook.com skybook.com Perhaps the most damning, though.... Buddybook.com.. this is from way back in 1999: "Welcome to Buddy Book.com, an innovative internet address book which helps keep track of all your online experiences." http://web.archive.org/web/19991128035308/http://buddybook.com/ It's not that similar to facebook, true... but it's a 'social' thing, which by their own logic, seems to be close enough... whoever owns that site ought to sue them!

Re:____book.com sites that predate facebook...

[weicco]

I guess that FB, or its owners, is planning something which is called Teachbook behind the scenes? (rhetoric question)

Re:____book.com sites that predate facebook...

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's the "like" button for post comments?

Re:____book.com sites that predate facebook...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr Stu, you be awesome.

Re:____book.com sites that predate facebook...

[Issarlk]

Buddybook 's owner is in big trouble then. I figure the next step in courtroom crazyness will be to retro-sue. That wouldn't be much more crazy than what we see now.

Re:____book.com sites that predate facebook...

[mrstu]

Quantum law: Time is an illusion, so they didn't come first after all!

Re:____book.com sites that predate facebook...

[cp.tar]

Quantum law: Time is an illusion, so they didn't come first after all!

Have you tried that one with your SO, proving it was not you who came first?

Re:____book.com sites that predate facebook...

[EdIII]

I think you may be under the impression that their trademark is invalidated by "prior art". That only applies to patents.

To my knowledge, the prior use defense in trademark law is fairly weak. It does not cancel the trademark, and only changes the weight of the evidence (conclusive to prima facie).

Additionally, it has always been my understanding that trademarks can be abandoned. So unless Buddybook.com had applied for a trademark, and defended it, Facebook had the path cleared to file for its own trademark on the same grounds.

On that note, this could be the precise reason why Facebook is suing in the first place. To show they are defending the trademark, which is something I always found strange about the law in the first place. It seemingly encourages lawsuits like this whether or not they are valid because the purpose of the lawsuit is not to "win" but just to "play the game".

Re:____book.com sites that predate facebook...

[mfarah]

Did some peeking on the wayback machine...

There's another fun one: bookface.com (although it was oriented to online books and scripts).

Re:____book.com sites that predate facebook...

[kaiidth]

Granted that prior use doesn't cancel the trademark, and yeah, that probably is why Facebook are suing, although there are a lot of other companies out there they should be suing if they're that worried about trademark dilution. However,
1) if there are (say) hundreds of other trademarks that use the same approximate construction and have some sort of 'online sharing' aspects, and
2) given that the other guys' trademark contains only partial elements of their own (ie. Facebook vs Teachbook share only the term 'book' and a monosyllabic generic prefix) and
3) given that 'Face' and 'Teach' don't sound remotely alike - 'Fazebook' would be a more obvious attempt to cash in, and
4) given that there are (say) hundreds of other trademarks that contain that same pattern

then you could legitimately ask whether 'Teachbook' resembles 'Facebook' more than it resembles any or all of the other options out there, especially given that their actual area of operation more closely resembles PlanBook, which also allows sharing of lesson files between teachers. That's why it's interesting to look at prior use - if it's common enough to be generic, then TFA's 'highly distinctive in the context of online communities and networking websites' is provably inaccurate.

A trademark should not be generic or reasonably required for use in that trade, nor should it be confusingly similar to other trademarks used in the industry. 'Facebook' arguably succeeds in that, although it is an arguable point given others' statements that the term is used locally as a generic description. The 'use of book in a name' construction mentioned in TFA would seem to fail that criterion. In short, if it's that common for the '*book' pattern to be used in trademarked names for social applications, and it is a long-standing tradition for it to be used in that way, then it would be surprising if the 'book' construction weren't considered generic. But the law is frequently surprising. Also, IA obviously NAL.

Re:____book.com sites that predate facebook...

[hedwards]

Of course the guy always come first, women don't have need or use for a decent time piece. Consequently you're going to be waiting around.

Re:____book.com sites that predate facebook...

[Threni]

(rhetoric question)

That's not a question - it's a statement with a question mark at the end?

Re:____book.com sites that predate facebook...

[mcgrew]

Time is an illusion

Lunchtime doubly so.

Re:____book.com sites that predate facebook...

[Manfre]

This is about a trademark, not a patent. Prior art doesn't matter.

Re:____book.com sites that predate facebook...

[weicco]

I realized the exact thing the minute I clicked reply button. But to my defence I can say that English isn't my first language :)

Re:____book.com sites that predate facebook...

[Onymous Coward]

I think it's legitimate use in informal situations. Often sentences contain implied words. Right? Isn't that right?

And if you stick a question mark at the end of a sentence, you add an implication of question-ness that might be explicated by adding words.

Feeling cheerful? Feeling cheerful [aren't you]?

F a bunch of facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

FU facebook, and FU those that even use facebook

rm -Rf / facebook...

[Anonymous Coward]

What about eBook?

If they really want to get vapourized

[hippo]

they should call themselves EasyBook.

Re:If they really want to get vapourized

[hippo]

on second thoughts: FaceJet which will bring on Facebook, Easyjet and the porn industry.

Re:If they really want to get vapourized

[orgelspieler]

Or JediBook. It will be an epic battle of the 'bergs to see who gets to take you to court first!

Nothing compared to what they did before...

[Ecuador]

Teachbook appears to be a social/community website, close to the area of what Facebook does. I would think that the "teachbook" name was chosen on purpose to be "facebook for teachers/teaching". Well, you can't do that without facebook going after you. IANAL so I don't know if facebook can or should prevail, but it seems to me that they sort of have a point.
Now, contrast this to a previous action of facebook: http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/10/facebook-placebook/
They went after a startup travel website, i.e. a site for you to book vacations in the places you visit called... well... placebook! I mean who better for the name placebook than a site where you book... places... The site in question had, in the end, to back down and change their name to triptrace: http://blog.triptrace.com/2010/08/19/we-tell-the-world-placebook-is-now-triptrace/ . Now THAT was ridiculous.

Re:Nothing compared to what they did before...

[wjh31]

on the other hand, getting sued by one of the worlds largest web based companies into having to change your name sounds like hella cheap publicity if you dont put up much of a fight

Re:Nothing compared to what they did before...

[tentux]

:)) True. They could place a decorated decagram shaped icon on their webpage with "Sued by Facebook" to gain notoriety...

Re:Nothing compared to what they did before...

[Anonymous Coward]

you do know that IANAL was made up by some guys who saw INAL (I'm not a lawyer) and thought it would be more funny to put I ANAL and it caught on....

Re:Nothing compared to what they did before...

[smcn]

I would think that the "teachbook" name was chosen on purpose to be "facebook for teachers/teaching".

What are you quoting? That phrase is mentioned nowhere on teachbook.com. In fact the only results that show up in a search for "site:teachbook.com facebook" are links to "share this on facebook", just like every other website on the internet. In addition the site looks absolutely nothing like Facebook. They don't even use the color blue for pete's sake. No brand confusion possible. This is bullying.

Re:Nothing compared to what they did before...

[drdiode963]

PlaceBook's video-- the only response possible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AW3tYWtEn0

Re:Nothing compared to what they did before...

[rahmal]

I'm actually the lead dev on PlaceBo- er, TripTrace. They did make us change our name... this was our FU to them... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AW3tYWtEn0&feature=player_embedded Seriously though, I can honestly say that we did not name ourselves PlaceBook, because of Facebook. Of course we noticed he similarities, we're not idiots. But we believe our claim to the PlaceBook was entirely justifiable. As Ecuador stated we are a site where you book places. Beyond that, our site is a book of places. As our homepage suggests, we're going to have a set of "place books", (i.e. Atlas, Travel, etc.) We ARE NOT a social site. In the end, we thought it would be easier to just change the name. But we're all pretty bummed about it. As for free publicity. Yes, having Facebook tread all over you does spark a little interest, and we hope that translates into people becoming fans of our site. In my experience though, having a good, memorable domain name that reflects what it is you do is more valuable than some cheap publicity. And as names go, PlaceBook, described us perfectly. And I believe Facebook's claim of infringment was completely unfounded.

Book burning

[Somewhat Delirious]

Normally I would be strongly opposed to that kind of thing but since Facebook appears to have completely lost the plot it seems we are facing the rare situation where a book burning is warranted.

Re:Book burning

[kanto]

Does the cult of Facebook even allow you to remove your account these days? But I understand your sentiment; I personally removed any and all traces of Red Hot Chili Peppers in my music collection after hearing they sued Showtime's Californication for the rights to the name, stating that all the ill-gotten gains from use of the name should be given to them.

Re:Book burning

[maxwell demon]

Does the cult of Facebook even allow you to remove your account these days?

Well, just start flooding your Facebook account with anti-Facebook stuff. I guess you'll get your account cancelled really quick.

Re:Book burning

[sgbett]

Simply commit the most heinous crime of being registered under your nickname. The banhammer soon arrived, without warning and much to my chagrin.

Yet, I complied with their demands and went straight back to the trough. It was at this point I realised how much of a problem I had, It's now next on my list of vices to be terminated.

Case Law

[Garth Smith]

'Effectively they're bombing a mosquito here, and we're not sure why they want to do that,'

The cynic in my thinks that the legal team wants a couple of easy wins under their belt and set a precedent for future disputes. Two educators working on a web site won't be able to stand up to Facebook's lawyers.

What about 'face'?

[Anonymous Coward]

When is Templeton Peck going to sue Facebook?

pick a different name... really

[somewhere in AU]

Well yes it appears to be just a "teachers" version of facebook really.. way too close for facebook itself to ignore..

They're just (unnecessarily) buying themselves a whole bunch of aggravation by trading off the similarity in name recognition by hovering in the same domain.

Others with WAY different applications such as www.redbook.com and www.bluebook.com would be well out of facebook's aim however.

Teachbook shouldn't complain too hard.

[wvmarle]

They shouldn't complain too hard. Before Facebook sued them I had never heard of the web site. Now I know about them. Free publicity!

The trouble is of course if Facebook really wants to bring it to court they may have a problem fighting it even though it sounds to me like a nonsense suit from Facebook's side.

A few more they could go after

[Chrisq]

http://www.theholybook.org/ (I would be very surprised if they did, as it would give the "religion of peace" an opportunity to show their own method of objection again)
http://flushaholybook.com/
http://www.domesdaybook.co.uk/
http://www.chooseandbook.nhs.uk/
http://www.hotelbook.com/
http://www.thegoodbook.co.uk/
http://adoptabook.bl.uk/
http://www.easytobook.com/
http://www.bid4abook.co.uk/
http://www.nielsenbook.co.uk/

That's just a few of them.

Re:A few more they could go after

[tdobson]

don't forget the 'fantastic':
http://www.pokebook.co.uk/

surely, surely that's liable?

Re:A few more they could go after

[boxwood]

not really. The word "book" in "teachbook" is a reference to facebook. When anyone hears "teachbook" they immedaiately think "facebook for teachers".

All of those sites are references to actual books.

Re:A few more they could go after

[Jeff DeMaagd]

No, teachbook.com is a social networking site, which is why Facebook is after it. None of your examples appear to be social networking sites. Whether you agree with that distinction for trademarks is a different matter, but it should not be that hard to discern the difference.

Re:A few more they could go after

[hedwards]

What makes you think that? Wouldn't it be more logical for it to be a reference to "Yearbook"? Considering that facebook is itself a reference to a reference to yearbook itself.

Re:A few more they could go after

[cparker15]

When I first heard "teachbook", I thought about teachers teaching from books. See also "das Lehrbuch" in German.

Re:A few more they could go after

[Anonymous Coward]

its not what I immediately think, course I dont have my head jammed up my own ass

Re:A few more they could go after

[Archangel Michael]

Yeah, because TEACHERS never have anything to do with BOOKS.

Phonebook ?

[abies]

I wonder if they will go after the telecoms - after all, phonebook is a kind of huge listing of phone-using community...

Re:Phonebook ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, like yellowbook.com

Although they don't have to worry about being kicked in the butt by David Carradine since hes dead Jim...

Corporate Abuse

[sonicmerlin]

And how is this tiny, 2 employee company supposed to defend itself? No matter how right it is, 2 people will be bankrupted in no time. This is the nature of our corporate-owned country, inhabited by masochistic neo conservatives who want giant, faceless institutions with no obligation to anyone to step all over them like cockroaches. With the power of our vote we could use the government as a tool to protect the little guy from those with the resources to do almost anything they want. Instead we have Obama, the most conservative "Democrat" in the history of our country, to lead us to... what exactly?

Re:Corporate Abuse

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama is all about small business. This is the type of thing Obama might actually care about if it could get his attention.

Re:Corporate Abuse

[mcgrew]

With the power of our vote we could use the government as a tool to protect the little guy from those with the resources to do almost anything they want.

With both major parties, and at least one of the three big "third parties" owned lock, stock, and barrel by the corporates, and with all of the mainstream media owned by corporations, that's not likely to happen any time soon, if at all.

Well, stop doing it!

[Psychotria]

Crap like this is the result of the US judicial system and your "elected" government. Your government enables this kind of rubbish. In the sentence before my last I surrounded elected with inverted commas. I did this because it seems to me as an outsider that the voice of the US people is incredibly diluted in US elections and things in general. Big business seems to have more of a say than individuals. There will be heaps of comments in this story saying how stupid it is, but your "elected" government doesn't care what you think -- it appears to care more about big business. What a load of shit. US, the land of opportunity? If you say so, but I am glad I don't live there. I'd rather pursue opportunity elsewhere in countries where opportunity really exists and is not an illusion created by a government. It's not facebook's fault that stuff like this can happen -- it's the US population's fault for _allowing_ it to happen.

Re:Well, stop doing it!

[Aeternitas827]

I hate to say it, but you're more or less on the nose here. The populace is less inclined to vote because a vote means little, and the votes that do come in are financed by big business and their ability to push advertisement.

Democracy, in concept, is a fabulous idea; but when it gets diluted not to the number of votes but to the number of precincts/states/electoral votes won, well, it's no surprise that we are where we are in the US. A vote should be a vote, not a vote to try and determine how someone else should vote (as is the case in electoral balloting), or how your particular group of votes ends up summed; the less targeted a financier is able to be without being able to be accused of buying votes, the better--and if each vote were counted truly for what it is, a decision of a person, not some group hierarchically above them, purchase of desired candidates would be harder, and (over time, at this point) the will of the people would be heard; the DMCA, for example, would be abolished, the recording/movie industries would be left clutching their testicles, yet artistic progress would still ensue; this is but one example. In all, the effects of pissing off 10% of the populace would be felt by the incumbent, and this would be known, and thinking would (hopefully) change. The power of the lobbies would be diminished (they could never really be abolsihed, but they will still try), and a closer modicum of democracy would prevail, and possibly an infusion of common sense.

Re:Well, stop doing it!

[Anonymous Coward]

--"Crap like this is the result of the US judicial system and your "elected" government..."

My kingdom for a mod point. Tragically, the American people have the nanny-state government they want and deserve. So much easier to live on some kind of government dole (social security, SSI, welfare, food stamps, unemployment, you name it ...) and bitch than to be truly independent and actually do something.

Re:Well, stop doing it!

[Anonymous Coward]

America, land of the free!(tm)

Re:Well, stop doing it!

[hedwards]

What you have to realize is that half of Americans roughly think fascism is a really good idea, and most of the other half are too stupid to notice. Electing judges is kind of funky, but it didn't used to be any worse than having them be appointed. These days it's getting worse as various organizations are spending more money to put judges on the bench that will be sympathetic. Things worked a lot better when Senators were appointed by a state's congressional delegation instead of via elections.

Re:Well, stop doing it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, Sarah... Alaska is actually part of the US and not a different country...FYI

Re:Well, stop doing it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed! I live here, but I would say it has to do with majority of politicians being in the pockets of BIG corporations. That is how terrible patents and trademarks have been allowed in this country.

Teachbook.com better win. Or I'm creating a website called efbooksucks.com, name says it all.

Re:Well, stop doing it!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, I tried to take your comment seriously, but use the term "inverted commas" to refer to quotation marks bothers me.

Anyway, from my experience, the government actually listens to the majority of the public most of the time. It's just that the corporations have the marketing departments that can almost brainwash others into their way of thinking. I don't know how many times I've had to explain that downloading music from OCRemix or other free sites isn't illegal, because the RIAA has got it into most people's head that music can't be downloaded for free.

and face?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone try to register a domain with the word "face" in it?

Interpretations of Law...

[geekmux]

OK, every now and then I've heard of the "letter of the law" vs. the "spirit of the law" with regards to arguments like this, but rarely does it stoop to the "uber-rich-greedy-asshole-who-wants-even-more" level of interpretation...

Companies like Facebook should really take a moment to realize that 15 minutes of fame doesn't apply to just Hollywood anymore. Keep tempting fate with douchebag moves like this, and they'll soon find out.

Re:Interpretations of Law...

[Sockatume]

I don't think it'll even fly on the "letter of the law". It's clearly bullshit, inasmuch as claiming infringement on a substring of a trademark is an uphill battle, especially for common words. They're hoping to scare this site into a juicy settlement which will give them ammo for scaring further sites.

Re:Interpretations of Law...

[TapeCutter]

Yes they are hoping to scare others but this is a two man outfit, the "juicy settlement" probably wouldn't be enough to pay for the wine and cheese at a FB board meeting.

also...

[tdobson]

http://www.pokebook.co.uk/

Ok, another one today.

[unity100]

one was yesterday, riaa crap was the day before. i was telling that its not that these copyright, patent, tm systems are 'exploited', its that they ARE exploitative and unworkable. and some people were saying that i was trolling.

every day another bullshit comes up because of these. what point does things have to come to, for some of you people to understand a SYSTEM is wrong, or unworkable ?

Where is diaspora already?!

[Methuselus]

Come on Diaspora, give these bullies a run for their money so they know that they're not the only kids in the sandpit.

Boycott

[Pesticidal]

Someone needs to start a facebook group about boycotting facebook!

Re:Boycott

[muckracer]

Likes this!

Re:Boycott

[aurelianito]

I already did it. It didn't work out. You can read on my blog for details (automatic english translation> )

Re:Boycott

[Ash-Fox]

The way you got kicked out seems kind of silly. Kicked out for false identity, then when you said you could provide "real life" evidence it was a "oh, you can't do that, you are perma-banned!"

Re:Boycott

[mordejai]

A friend of mine did that, and got his account terminated under false accusations.

Re:Boycott

[Anonymous Coward]

'Liking' is not allowed on Slashdot, only facebook. No 'liking' here, only 'modding'.

Re:Woot!

[Anonymous Coward]

Very informative post. Better luck next time, eh.

The domain is only up since 2007

[Yamagami]

From the whois record of techbook.com, seems like the record is from 29-jan-2007. I believe facebook has been around since that time no?

Domain Name: TEACHBOOK.COM
Registrar: ENOM, INC.
Whois Server: whois.enom.com
Referral URL: http://www.enom.com/
Name Server: NS1.M446.SGDED.COM
Name Server: NS2.M446.SGDED.COM
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Updated Date: 12-mar-2010
Creation Date: 29-jan-2007
Expiration Date: 29-jan-2011

Re:The domain is only up since 2007

[gmuslera]

So? Registering the domain with such generic word on it before allows facebook to sue them? Ok, then all domain owners that registered a domain before facebook with the "book" word in their names can sue facebook for 1% their income. Odds are pretty high that they will owe far more than what their earn... but they started the fire, is what they wanted.

Re:The domain is only up since 2007

[Yamagami]

It just means nobody can sue anybody for something as stupid as this. If they do, i'll sue anyone with the letter h followed by an a in their name, and who was born after 1976. That's my letter configuration! Mine!

You Fail

[Frosty Piss]

I hope facebook looses a shit ton of money over this.

Why? Facebook has a legitimate trademark issue. "TeachBook.com" is in fact a social networking website as is FaceBook.com. If you can't see the possible confusion / trademark issue, maybe it's because you are being intentionally ignorant. Look, I get it, you hate big mega corporations and think they should be stripped of all rights, even it they are rigghts that you yourself would insist on if you had the brains to be able to produce a popular product...

Re:You Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

Teach != Face

Where is the confusion?

Re:You Fail

[pinkushun]

Zuckerberg, is that you?

Re:You Fail

[Spad]

How about -space as a social networking suffix? or -dot or -gadget for tech sites or the file- prefix for download sites?

At which point does an entity get to decide that it owns a random word that forms *part* of its name? Just because they're the biggest? It would seem that they're not the first, so that argument doesn't stand up. Why -book and not face-, or will the face- lawsuits be coming shortly?

Re:You Fail

[mr_mischief]

"Social networking website" is nearly every website in existence these days to some extent.The idea of using a computer to let people communicate as a group long predates Facebook, MySpace, Google, Yahoo, LinkedIn, or Friendster.

Re:You Fail

[Bucc5062]

With FrostyPiss as a nickname...good possibility. I thought the same thing.

Re:You Fail

[thijsh]

Why -book and not face-, or will the face- lawsuits be coming shortly?

All the other 'face-' sites are (supposedly) bukkake sites. Although you could view a 100-on-1 cumfest as 'social networking' it's hardly competition to the fuckfest that Facebook is...

Besides, trademark only protects the exact name and alternate spellings that are so close they might be confused. So 'vasebook' is out of the question if you want to start a site about vases...
But at some point corporations lawyers decided they *own* regular words used by them, books, apples, you, me, I, etc. it's a long stretch to fall under trademarks, but it's not about right-of-law, it's about right-of-most-cash.

Re:You Fail

[bakamorgan]

I believe spad said it best "At which point does an entity get to decide that it owns a random word that forms *part* of its name? Just because they're the biggest? It would seem that they're not the first, so that argument doesn't stand up. Why -book and not face-, or will the face- lawsuits be coming shortly?" Oh well lets just go ahead and throw this in the court system and let someone make a coin over it, I'm sure someone in there is needing a few extra dollars they are going to make from this.

Re:You Fail

[u8i9o0]

At which point does an entity get to decide that it owns a random word that forms *part* of its name?

Easy, in 1988 when McDonald's counter sues (and wins) against McSleep.

Re:You Fail

[scrib]

What about the double-threats of spacebook.com, mybook.com, or facespace.com?

Re:You Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

facetime be damn.

Re:You Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't a certain tech company, popular with the /. crowd, once send their sharks / lawyers after everybody who announced a new product such as iFoo?

Re:You Fail

[hedwards]

So, a web company that ripped off it's name from somewhere else, who in turn ripped off a generic term for annual, is OK, trying to sue somebody that's in a different market because they claim to own every generic + book that deals with people? I'm sorry, but that's an asshole move at best, trademarking somebody else's idea and then using it to bludgeon other outfits for money.

Re:You Fail

[andyh3930]

What like Facepalm?

Re:You Fail

[delinear]

There could easily be confusion if people believe that the smaller site is in some way affiliated with the larger - it doesn't have to be an identical name, quite often a big company will be umbrella to smaller offshoots who use some derivative of the name, so it's not a huge to stretch to think, if Facebook ever did a teacher specific site, that they'd use the name Teachbook. More importantly, actual confusion is only one aspect of such a claim, the courts take many other criteria into account. And since the law is rooted in tort and principles of equity, they'll certainly be looking at the smaller site's motives in choosing the name - do you honestly believe they didn't choose the name to piggyback off the popularity of Facebook? After all "Teachbook" is meaningless. If you take a name that's close to another's trademark specifically to associate your business with theirs, don't be surprised if the court finds you weren't exactly acting with clean hands.

Re:You Fail

[delinear]

You seem a little confused. The entity doesn't get to decide anything - the courts do. The entity can only bring the challenge before them. Looking at it another way, at which point is it fair for an entity to defend it's business? If not the pretty specific "*book+social networking" then what, would you allow Fasebook? Fácebook? Facebook but with a slightly different hue of blue? How close is too close?

Re:You Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

facehook.com would be awesome. social networking about people who like to put metal hooks in their faces. i'll let someone else see if it actually exits...

Re:You Fail

[AmigaHeretic]

http://www.facespace.com/

Re:You Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

people who like to put metal hooks in their faces

bmezine.com I guess. Oh yeah, by the way: NSFW

Re:You Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

Does your breath smell like PENIS? I think so.

Scandalous!

[srussia]

They should call this whole affair "Facebookgate".

First book, next... bitch

[phonewebcam]

And so it begins. Bitchbook better stay parked, it has no chance.

Slashdot?

[mangu]

So if me and some fellow chefs where to start a community called cookbook we are stepping on some sizzy tones?

Considering that the url would be http://cookbook./ you are in serious trouble.

If part of a site's name may not be used if that part has been used elsewhere, then no url can contain a slash or a dot without violating Slashdot's trademark.

Re:Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

The BBC have a character called Dot Cotton in some monumental piece of crap that they broadcast that predates /.. Obviously that character would have dot in their address. BBC sue the ass off these nerds!

Re:Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure "dot" by itself is unique enough to give rise to a trademark issue, but if the BBC were to kill Dot off in the show by stabbing and commemorate the event with a Flash game called "Slash Dot", then the tables would certainly be turned. Turned indeed!

Firefly fans will be disappointed...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Shepherd seemed so free, after all.

Why don't they sue fuckbook.com?

[wzzzzrd]

Or, more interesting, sites that use facebook's name to generate traffic?

I work for a company that produces "AirBook",

[Michael_gr]

A training platform with e-learning, collaboration, student management and virtual community tools. Its first version came out in 1998. Wonder if they'll go back in time and sue us.

Time for...

[muckracer]

thisreallyisnotfacebook.com

i prefix?

[Tomulus]

Hmmm, does anyone remember if Apple sued Google over iGoogle?

Re:i prefix?

[mr_mischief]

It shows how restrained IBM's legal team is that they never sued Sony over the PS/2 trademark.

Trademark infringing reaction...

[deoxyribonucleose]

...facepalm!

iBook

[Anonymous Coward]

How about iBook ;-)

Facebook is in the right here

[hipp5]

I know others have said it but I want to say it again: Facebook is right. I know this reality hurts your mantra of hating Facebook, but they're right. Unlike the misleading story summary, Facebook is not claiming that they own "book". Facebook is claiming that they own "book" in the context of social networking sites. That's the difference between going after Teachbook.com and libraybooks.com. To me, "Teachbook.com" automatically suggests a social networking site, and one that might even be associated with Facebook. It'd be like if I started a computer company called Local Business Machines. And sure, they're just poor old teachers. But the way trademark law works is that you must actively defend your trademarks. If Facebook lets this one slide, the next one to come along will be collegebook.com or friendbook.com. When Facebook goes after them the judge will say, "obviously you don't care about your trademark because you set a precedent with teachbook.com. Case denied."

Re:Facebook is in the right here

[pinkushun]

It is funny that you should mention that the "book" suffix suggests a social networking site. I'm not on facebook, I'm not exposed to it as much, thus I do not see that suffix suggestive of a social networking site.

Re:Facebook is in the right here

[BiggerIsBetter]

I know others have said it but I want to say it again: Facebook is right.

Um, no.

How about a car analogy? General Motors cannot sue Tesla Motors or Bentley Motors for using the term "Motors" in their name, despite being in the same class of industry. Nor can Mitsubishi Electric sue General Electric for using the term "Electric" in their name, despite being in the same class of industry.

Now they may sound half similar but people won't confuse them just like they won't confuse facebook, fuckbook, teachbook, or any other *book website that happens to be somehow in realm of social-networking. If it involved people collaborating online, it's arguably social networking - it's just too broad a category for one douchbag company to own.

Re:Facebook is in the right here

[Even on Slashdot FOE]

Unless they pay enough lawmakers, in which case they can own it all they like.

Re:Facebook is in the right here

[TapeCutter]

"Facebook is claiming that they own "book" in the context of social networking sites....the way trademark law works is that you must actively defend your trademarks"

Yes that's what they are claiming, however this is NOT how trademark law works. Thier trademark is "facebook", they cannot own "book", "face", "ok", "ace", "boo" or any other common usage substring they can find in their trademark, regardless of context. If OTOH teachbook advertised itself as "facebook for teachers" then they would HAVE to defend their actual trademark to keep it.

bookbook.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone prepare the guys at www.bookbook.com to run for cover...

They should sue bimbook.com

[SpaghettiPattern]

They should sue bimbook.com. Not because of the book thing but because it confounds people by cleansing and thus diluting their filthy business. I for one was looking for OK bimbos but didn't get any there.

Ummm...

[Giometrix]

Wasn't teaching associated with books long before "social networking?"

Not your typical bullying

[rwhamann]

9 times out of 10, probably more like 999 times out of a 1000, I'll heartily agree that a company is being an ass about similar naming. Monster comes to mind as the biggest bad guy in this arena - going after anyone whether there is a clear association with electronic cables or not. Microsoft's laughable attempt to trademark Windows a decade or so ago. Apple's iFetish. The list of tech companies that have attempted to abuse trademark is very long.

This is different. I think anyone not ideologically bound to hate on big companies or maniacal about "information wants to be free" will see that Teachbook is trying to capitalize on Facebook's brand recognition. If I tried to create an online journalling site called Daybook.com, then Facebook wouldn't have a case. But a social networking site with the same name extension? C'mon - only those who wish to be obtuse about electronic freedom can't admit that this is clearly infringement.

Re:Not your typical bullying

[snakeplissken]

- C'mon - only those who wish to be obtuse about electronic freedom can't admit that this is clearly infringement.

No, I beg to differ, just because it's obvious that they are using the construction book because humans are good at patterns and won't need it explaining what kind of things teachbook offers, does not mean there is an infringement.
Trademarks are about identity, not inventing things. Facebook can't claim to have invented the social online, friends, friends of friends stuff and they aren't claiming they have. Will anyone think teachbook is associated with facebook? IMHO not likely, that same human ability with language and what Douglas Hofstadter called 'slipping' will actually cause others to go "oh, how clever, they're copying facebook! but it's for teachers/teaching!". The only thing that would alter this would be if facebook already had a pattern/habit of book sites that it also owned and that fact widely known, in which case perhaps teachbook could be assumed to be yet another facebook 'book' site. However, I don't believe there are such facebook sister sites.

It is possible you object to teachbook copying the idea of a 'facebook' for teachers, that you believe facebook have some natural right/interest in such. That would be a totally separate issue and I may be wrong so I won't get into it :)

In short, I believe we are watching yet another attempt at a form of cultural impoverishment, preventing a simple, inoffensive play on words adding to the sum of human experience. Granted, a tiny addition in the Whole Sort Of General Mishmash, but of a type we would all be worse off for if none such were allowed us by corporate diktat.

snake

Re:Not your typical bullying

[snakeplissken]

bugger!
for the phrase 'construction book' read:

[some_thing_to_do_with_us]book

snake

My new website

[bgarcia]

I'm thinking of starting a new website and calling it FacePlace.com.

No book in that name. I'm safe!

Re:My new website

[Anonymous Coward]

how about myfacespacebook.com?

Re:My new website

[Locke2005]

Call it FaceSpace.com, and you can get Cease & Desist letters from both FaceBook and MySpace!

Re:My new website

[FallinWithStyle]

FacePalm.com? Would probably be your reaction when you get a letter in the mail from FB's legal team.

Re:My new website

[tehcyder]

FaceBork.com, FaceBreak.com, FaceLook.com, FaceFook.com, FaceBonk.com, FaceBeeOhOhKay.com, FaceKook.com, FaceKoob.com...off the top of my head

Ever heard of Fijibook?

[TurboLofi]

I wonder if Facebook has ever heard about Fijibook: effectively a facebook for Fijians.

Re:Ever heard of Fijibook?

[stealth_finger]

They probably dont know where fiji is let alone they have interenet there.

Is Barnes & Noble next?

[bgarcia]

Do they know about book.com?

Ob xkcd ref

[rwa2]

http://xkcd.com/624/

Simple fix, they just have to rename themselves to teachhub or something... hawt.

I support public education... I married a teacher.

Flamebait article, flamethrowing comments

[SpeedyDX]

The legal concern isn't just that they're making a similar competing product, or that there will be confusion that Teachbook IS Facebook. The concern is that there will be confusion that Teachbook is a product of the Facebook team or that it is endorsed by Facebook or that it is affiliated with Facebook in any way. There are many families of products that share a particular element in their names, so it's not a far-fetched concern.

We've gone over this time and time again, for many different companies and products. Facebook is obliged by law to actively defend their trademark when the name of a competing product is similar and is in the same line of business. This is not a case where we can attribute any motivation to Facebook other than the fact that they're trying to carry out their legal obligations to retain their trademark. They risk losing the legal status of their trademark if they don't sue. Whether their claims are valid are for the courts to decide.

Other posts have said "what about this? What about that?" There are a few considerations to take. Did, e.g., Fuckbook file a trademark application for its name? Are cookbooks social networking sites? Some of the suggestions are simply absurd.

I mean, I hate trying to defend Facebook (indeed, I may even find Teachbook useful in a couple months' time), but you guys don't really have a problem with Facebook here. What you guys have a problem with is the law that requires Facebook to do stuff like this. But instead of recognizing this and having a meaningful conversation about whether or not trademark law is reasonable in its obligations, the editors allow flamebait articles like this on the site and get people all riled up not against the cause of the issue, but against only one of the many symptoms of the issue. Absolutely ridiculous. Quit feeding the trolls, guys.

Re:Flamebait article, flamethrowing comments

[Anonymous Coward]

I just have to say that not many people are intentionally trolling, or at least I hope not. I would not and did not think "oh silly trademark law making facebook do that... even though it seems like a reasonable law" and I doubt many other people have. So I appreciate the perspective you brought and you're right, but please don't think that people are intentionally missing the point, but I and most likely a great many others just didn't see it. Thanks again for the perspective.

Re:Flamebait article, flamethrowing comments

[Anonymous Coward]

If that really works that way (I'm clueless on common law being from continental Europe) why didn't they go after many other *book social networking sites -- which have been around longer like Casebook.com. I could think of a reason or two: deeper pockets, not to mention many more site fans with in depth legal knowledge. However if user-it-or-loose-it is true about TMs in USA, then this case is defensible for Teachbook by just pointing to the fact that Facebook isn't actively enforcing their trademark but just bullying the weakest opponents.

Re:Flamebait article, flamethrowing comments

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I thought that Facebook was a product of the hardwarebook team.

Facebook didn't choose a unique name, they chose a name that already was established. People already knew that *book was a database service on the net and facebook took that name so that they didn't have to promote a new trademark at the beginning.

They law does not require them to enforce a trademark at all, it only forces them enforce it equally if they want to do it at all. If they attack one service named *book they have to attack them all and there are a lot of them that existed before facebook.
Facebook is obviously in the wrong here, they chose a name that couldn't be trademarked (*book was already commonly in use.) and now they want to enforce a trademark they don't have.

Trademark law can very well be reasonable, you just can't expect to trademark anthing. Facebook can still enforce their full logotype and full name and they have the right to do so. This is similiar to why coca-cola can enforce the coca-cola trademark but can't do anything about cuba-cola, mecka-cola, pepsi-cola or kekeke-cola.

Re:Flamebait article, flamethrowing comments

[Anonymous Coward]

I call BS - the law does not require a trademark holder to sue anyone and everyone who could possibly in some minuscule way if looked at sideways be infringing that trademark. The courts are already inundated with idiots suing each other and most of that is because attorneys - and you sound like one of them - keep telling all their clients they have to sue each other or the sky will fall. Those same attorneys are the only ones that profit from this ridiculous suit.

Somehow someway in some strange universe on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean there is a whole continent of people from these group of countries with millions of people and surprise surprise - their companies have trademarks too - they dont sue each other every time they see another company with the same letter in their name as in their trademark.

Go F yourself and the horse you rode in on

Re:Flamebait article, flamethrowing comments

[Moridin42]

As far as I can tell, Teachbook didn't file for a TM, either.

So, if they have legal concerns, they're failing to alleviate them by filing against the newer service that is a whole lot less applicable to the general populace. Fuckbook is generic+book, and so socially networked that users risk viral infection, rather than just user's computers.

Cookbook.com redirects to cookbooks.com. It does let you browse member recipes, although I don't know how social or networked the membership may be.

I guess Facebook will also need to file against any social networking sites with Face + generic that may exist/pop up. Book isn't any less generic than face, you see. And they've gotta defend that trademark. Sometimes. When it suits them.

So, what a shock. Facebook run by douchebags. Not to mention that book has many meanings, one of which is a container of information. Facebook is a container of faces and information relating to those faces and a whole bunch of other shit now besides. But someone else using book in the way the language intends is something they should have to live with. Not to mention that Microsoft would be real busy if they made similar claims against software makers with *soft names. They don't, as far as I know. One of the few ham-fisted blunders they haven't made. They do still have their registered trademark, however.

Re:Flamebait article, flamethrowing comments

[anegg]

Your point is well-made, and I agree with most of what you say. However, I find that there is often value in the re-examination of practices and legal concepts by the ignorant legions of Slashdot contributors. Left alone, without review, legal practices such as trademark registration and defense become very specialized and separate from the real world. I think its useful for more-or-less ordinary people to run into the specialized jargon and practices and rant about them, possibly uncovering a certain amount of ingrown idiocy in the practices, and possibly effecting a change for the better. I've always been slightly idealistic, but without ideals, where would we be?

Re:Flamebait article, flamethrowing comments

[bufordt13]

Actually most cookbook sites are kind of social networking sites where people share recipes, rate recipes, talk about food, restaurants, and what they did last night.

Re:Flamebait article, flamethrowing comments

[tehcyder]

Actually most cookbook sites are kind of social networking sites where people share recipes, rate recipes, talk about food, restaurants, and what they did last night

. I'm not sure, but I'd hazard a guess that it involved eating a lot.

Re:Flamebait article, flamethrowing comments

[thejynxed]

And, to whit: http://www.cookbooks.com/ has been around since 1995.

Re:Flamebait article, flamethrowing comments

[DRJlaw]

Facebook is obliged by law to actively defend their trademark when the name of a competing product is similar and is in the same line of business. This is not a case where we can attribute any motivation to Facebook other than the fact that they're trying to carry out their legal obligations to retain their trademark. They risk losing the legal status of their trademark if they don't sue. Whether their claims are valid are for the courts to decide.

Facebook is legally obligated to defend the trademark "Facebook." Facebook is not legally obligated to attack any trademark of the form "****book," particularly when the "book" suffix is not unique to Facebook or even the primary point of distinction of the mark. See, for example, Yellowbook, or the numerous other examples that have been identified in these comments. This is simply an example of a large corporation engaging the classic Apple tactic of eradicating all remotely similar trademarks by massive legal budget. Any reputable trademark practitioner looking at the legal issue apart from budgetary realities would predict that Facebook would lose a trademark infringement lawsuit based solely on similarity of services and the suffix "book."

[Y]ou guys don't really have a problem with Facebook here. What you guys have a problem with is the law that requires Facebook to do stuff like this.

Citation needed. Statute and/or caselaw please.

Re:Flamebait article, flamethrowing comments

[future assassin]

>The concern is that there will be confusion that Teachbook is a product of the Facebook team or that it is endorsed by Facebook or that it is affiliated with Facebook in any way.

How retarded and a fucking stupid on-line socialite do you have to be to think that a website named Teachbook could have something thing to do or be endorsed by Facebook. Seriously step away from the keyboard. Teachbook.com Hmmm a website that teaches or is about learning? No, it couldn't mean that in the fucking real world.

Re:Flamebait article, flamethrowing comments

[NeutronCowboy]

Ummm..... in trademark law, you have to defend YOUR trademark. They didn't name their site teacherfacebook, they named it teachbook. It is generally understood that defending your trademark has to occur in cases where people could reasonably mistake someone else's trademark for yours.

I fail to see how teachbook is reasonably inferred to be produced by Facebook. I don't expect every company with Software, Architects, Precision etc. to be tied to the same company.

Trademark law is remarkably reasonable. Some people decide to abuse it. This is one of the cases.

Re:Flamebait article, flamethrowing comments

[unix1]

The concern is that there will be confusion that Teachbook is a product of the Facebook team or that it is endorsed by Facebook or that it is affiliated with Facebook in any way.

This is absurd - saying that everyone is apparently dumb and they can't tell two distinct words apart; and all because some mega-jackpot company wants to have exclusive trade rights to a common word forever. Coca-Cola failed at defending "Cola" as a trademark, yet I don't see people panicking and running around in confusion because they can't tell Pepsi-Cola apart from Coca-Cola and countless other Colas out there. And, "Cola" was not even a common dictionary word at the time, unlike the "book".

So, please stop insulting everyone for the sake of this nonsense argument.

Re:Flamebait article, flamethrowing comments

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because it is customary, doesn't mean that it is not unjust.

Slavery was customary at a time. In fact, you could say that it was REQUIRED in order for a producer to be competitive. A producer that didn't use slaves would go out of business. They had to use slaves to protect their competitiveness.

This doesn't mean that it wasn't unjust.

Re:Flamebait article, flamethrowing comments

[Anonymous Coward]

So why doesn't Microsoft sue Ubisoft or Microtrend? Or Wilson's Leather vs. Wilson Athletic equipment?

Facebook(TM) should concentrate on improving it's brand, doing R&D on good Internet Citizenship & Security, and not harassing the Little Guy.

The real situation on the Mexican border

[Anonymous Coward]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703632304575450761550490920.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories#articleTabs%3Darticle

Perhaps one of you armchair-leftists would like to chime in and defend our Douchebag-in-Chief for playing politics with our immigration policy and whoring out the Democrat party in hopes of winning the latino vote? There's a fucking war going on on our southern border, and we're still empire-building in a sand pit that no one gives a shit about. Meanwhile, Obammy is suing one of the few law enforcement officers trying to actually *GHASP* enforce the law! Hey Obammy, unemployment is WELL over the 8% you promised us if the porkulus bill was passed. Mexican immigrants are NOT coming here to do jobs that Americans won't. They're coming here to depress the price of the labor required to mow your lawn and to wipe your bratty kids' asses. Enjoy your vacation, and prepare for a huge helping of humble pie in the November mid-terms. Change my ass.

Just a guess

[fgaliegue]

If Faceboook were just a startup, without a worldwide recognition, would they have sued anyone that way? Obvious answer: no.

Obvious consequence: being rich and recognized makes you more stupid. How sad.

Their solicitors want to earn some more ...

[Alain Williams]

So they wind up & pursuade facebook that they ought to throw them some money on a frivolous action.

Re:Woot!

[DFurno2003]

+1

#_!:book

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll be more than happy to hear that in 1997 we registered about 40 Trademarks for stuff like Pornobook, Sexbook, Fuckbook, etc.
"Das Fickbuch" (The Fuckbook) has sold nearly 9000 copies in 1998.

Come on and sue me.
BTW:
Just checked the TM Database for some European countries. Facebook is not registered...

54 matches in /usr/share/dict...

[KonoWatakushi]

There are 54 matches in /usr/share/dict, though facebook isn't one of them.

$ grep .book$ /usr/share/dict/words | xargs echo
bankbook blankbook bluebook boobook cabook casebook cashbook chapbook checkbook classbook cookbook copybook daybook doombook dopebook guidebook handbook handybook herdbook hornbook hymnbook jestbook landbook lawbook logbook matchbook needlebook notebook outbook overbook passbook playbook pocketbook pollbook promptbook rebook roadbook schoolbook scorebook scrapbook shopbook sketchbook songbook spaebook storybook studbook stylebook talebook textbook tithebook waybook wordbook workbook yearbook

Re:54 matches in /usr/share/dict...

[ascari]

Zuckerberg should throw the book at every one of them!

it's not easy badtolling megasloth.con

[Anonymous Coward]

we have several .coms that start with the word 'easy'. over the years, we've been threatened by numerous companies who are sure they have rights to 'easy' attached to any other words. most of them come from the fuddles' school of gottiesque softwar 'business' practice, where each 'deal' begins with a threat. nothing new at all.

meanwhile (as even our own vocabulary is used against us); the corepirate nazi illuminati is always hunting that patch of red on almost everyones' neck. if they cannot find yours (greed, fear ego etc...) then you can go starve. that's their (slippery/slimy) 'platform' now. see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

never a better time to consult with/trust in our creators. the lights are coming up rapidly all over now. see you there?

greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of our dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children. not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one, & the terminal damage to our atmosphere (see also: manufactured 'weather', hot etc...). see you on the other side of it? the lights are coming up all over now. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be your guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. we now have some choices. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on your brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

"The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

"I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."--

"The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson

no need to confuse 'religion' with being a spiritual being. our soul purpose here is to care for one another. failing that, we're simply passing through (excess baggage) being distracted/consumed by the guaranteed to fail illusionary trappings of man'kind'. & recently (about 10,000 years ago) it was determined that hoarding & excess by a few, resulted in negative consequences for all.

consult with/trust in your creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by

Re:it's not easy badtolling megasloth.con

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why, but every time I see this troll I smile. I especially like the way it is rewritten every so often to start out as quite relevant.

what about face?

[roman_mir]

I BET they don't want to do this, too many people own faces!

Don't they HAVE to?

[argStyopa]

I know slashdot's all about the underdog, but doesn't Facebook HAVE to defend it's trademark legally, to at least have a footing to stop any general encroachment or watering down of their legal standing in the future? That doesn't mean that they can't come to some amicable arrangement quickly for a trivial amount, but I think they have to defend it.

Re:Don't they HAVE to?

[ascari]

Mea culpa: I have a face. I once owned a book. And now suddenly I'm very very scared....

Books.com - Barnse and Noble 1992

[tomhudson]

Beats Facebook (1997) by 5 years - so according to Facebook's logic, Barnes and Noble are the REAL owners, and Facebook has to change their name

Domain Name.......... books.com
    Creation Date........ 1992-10-09
    Registration Date.... 2009-09-27
    Expiry Date.......... 2010-11-20
    Organisation Name.... barnesandnoble.com llc
    Organisation Address. 76 Ninth Avenue, 9th Floor
    Organisation Address. 76 9th Avenue, 9th floor
    Organisation Address. New York
    Organisation Address. 10011
    Organisation Address. NY
    Organisation Address. UNITED STATES

Admin Name........... Paul Karatzas
    Admin Address........ 76 Ninth Avenue, 9th Floor
    Admin Address........
    Admin Address........ New York
    Admin Address........ 10011
    Admin Address........ NY
    Admin Address........ UNITED STATES
    Admin Email.......... domainadmin@BOOK.COM
    Admin Phone.......... +1.2124146000
    Admin Fax............ +1.2124146150

Tech Name............ Paul Karatzas
    Tech Address......... 76 Ninth Avenue, 9th Floor
    Tech Address.........
    Tech Address......... New York
    Tech Address......... 10011
    Tech Address......... NY
    Tech Address......... UNITED STATES
    Tech Email........... domainadmin@BOOK.COM
    Tech Phone........... +1.2124146000
    Tech Fax............. +1.2124146150
    Name Server.......... NS4.BARNESANDNOBLE.COM
    Name Server.......... NS3.BARNESANDNOBLE.COM
    Name Server.......... MAIL9TH1.BARNESANDNOBLE.COM
    Name Server.......... NS2.BARNESANDNOBLE.COM

Re:Books.com - Barnse and Noble 1992

[Anonymous Coward]

IMHO, Barnes and Noble should be notified so they can throw a suit against Facebook for trademark infringement.

Re:Books.com - Barnse and Noble 1992

[tomhudson]

I just sent an email to Teachbook, with the prior registration of Books.com by B&N, as well as the info that B&N bought the domain book.com (which was also registered prior to Facebook.com) back in 1998.

Since Facebook has already stipulated in their lawsuit that similar names are infringing and cause economic damage, they have already buried themselves legally. Good. The sooner facebook dies, the better off the rest of the world will be.

Die, facebook, die!

Re:Books.com - Barnse and Noble 1992

[morgan_greywolf]

Trademarks don't work like that. Barnes & Noble isn't exactly an online social network; they're a bookseller. Since they're considered to be in different businesses, under law there is no conflict.

Also, there is no concept of "prior art" in trademarks. If, for example, I have a registered trademark that I've used to identify my business, and I've used it successfully in commerce, it doesn't really matter whether or not you used the same thing or something similar first; I may still be able to successfully sue you after issuing you a cease and desist.

IANAL, etc.

Re:Books.com - Barnse and Noble 1992

[tomhudson]

And what's to prevent B&N from using book.com as a social network for book lovers? It's not like facebook isn't also a generic term before facebook.com was created. Facebook doesn't have a leg to stand on.

You'll send a C&D, I'll tell you to take me to court or STFU. That's SOP for anyone in a domain name dispute, which is what this is. Nobody can mistake teachbook with facebook. For one thing, teachbook sounds like a place for people with a bit of an education.

Remember how Microsoft settled the Lindows case when the judge was indicating that he would find that Windows didn't enjoy copyright protection because it was a generic term. Same situation with facebook - it was already a generic term for yearbooks, so facebook's trademark is invalid.

Re:Books.com - Barnse and Noble 1992

[Anonymous Coward]

when the judge was indicating that he would find that Windows didn't enjoy copyright protection because it was a generic term.

Holy crap, Windows might not be copyrighted because of a quirk of trademark law? I can't figure out if that's good or bad news!

Re:Books.com - Barnse and Noble 1992

[tomhudson]

Sorry ... slight brainfart there, thanks for pointing it out :-)

Re:Books.com - Barnse and Noble 1992

[morgan_greywolf]

You'll send a C&D, I'll tell you to take me to court or STFU. That's SOP for anyone in a domain name dispute, which is what this is. Nobody can mistake teachbook with facebook. For one thing, teachbook sounds like a place for people with a bit of an education.

MTV vs. Adam Curry.

And people might very well mistakenly get the idea that 'Teachbook' is somehow affiliated with 'Facebook'. That's Facebook's main case right there.

Re:Books.com - Barnse and Noble 1992

[dgatwood]

If you just want to consider online use of the mark that predate Facebook and don't limit it to social networking, you'd have to add:

• World Book (1995)
• PowerBook.com (1995)
• TextBook.com (1995)
• BlueBook.com (1995)
• YellowBook.com (1995)
• ebook.com (1997, technically one day after facebook.com was registered, but since the term has been in general use in electronic commerce since the early 1970s, it effectively predates it)

And the eBook thing is what's going to get Facebook's claim on "Book" completely thrown out. Ultimately, Facebook and other social media sites are essentially an online book of faces, a yearbook with more interactivity. Facebook chose its name precisely because of that association. As the term eBook had been used in commerce to describe electronic books for decades prior to Facebook's formation, one can fairly trivially argue that the word "Book" in Facebook naturally rose out of the use of language and is descriptive rather than distinctive, and thus is not eligible for trademark protection.

Moreover, the preexistence of at least half a dozen online sites that use "Book" in the name, coupled with the fact that AFAIK there are no other sites maintained by Facebook, Inc. with "Book" in the name (they have not shown a pattern of use such that other companies with "Book" in the name would create confusion) and the fact that trademarks generally apply to an entire area of commerce, where the area of commerce is much broader than "social networking".

More to the point, social networking is a feature of a website that has evolved out of the basic functionality inherent to web sites. It is essentially the same sort of telecommunications service as any other website, just with different features, and thus should not be eligible for protected use of the word "Book" given the wide range of other websites that use the term. However, what would cinch it would be a social networking website that parodied Facebook prior to their 2006 registration of the trademark. Like, say MyYearBook.com (2000).

In short, I think Facebook is likely to lose this one. They're doing due diligence to protect what they think is protected by their trademark, but they're wrong. Hopelessly wrong, in fact.

Re:Books.com - Barnse and Noble 1992

[x2A]

"Facebook doesn't have a leg to stand on"

Neither do you, really. Facebook have to defend their trademark to keep it. If they "lose" this case, they haven't actually lost the case; what has been shown is that 'teachbook' doesn't infringe the trademark, therefore, nobody can use the fact that 'teachbook' exists as a defence against their new trademark infringing name. If facebook don't go after it, and it is later shown that teachbook does infringe, but facebook didn't go after them, then facebook loses trademark rights.

This isn't really facebook's 'fault' here, this is just a consequence of how the law works. Facebook loses their trademark if they don't establish whether teachbook infringes or not, and stop it's use if it is found to be.

Still I do find myself wondering whether they would be calling their site 'teachbook' if 'facebook' didn't exist. They'd probably be calling it 'teachspace' instead. It does sound a little copycatty to me, but this is for the courts to decide.

Re:Books.com - Barnse and Noble 1992

[x2A]

I don't think that's really how it works. Facebook aren't saying they own "book", despite what the sensationalist title says. They're saying that teachbook are calling themselves teachbook because of facebook, which sounds pretty plausable really. Would 'textbook' be called 'textbook' without 'facebook'? Yes, because 'textbook' is a word. Would 'teachbook' be called 'teachbook' without 'facebook'? Maybe not, they might've gone with 'teachspace' or 'myteach', this is what the courts have to decide. Whatever they do decide, it cannot be shown that Facebook haven't defended their trademark, so they get to keep their trademark rights.

Facebook aren't right or wrong, they're just following their legal obligation to protect their trademark, which means first establishing whether teachbook infringes, which requires this action. If you have a problem with people having to go through these steps to establish whether a name infringes on their trademark, or whether not protecting your trademark is grounds for losing your trademark rights, I think it's the law you have a problem with. Ignorantly take it out on facebook all you want, that won't change or mean anything.

Re:Books.com - Barnse and Noble 1992

[tomhudson]

The case you cite backs me up - MTV settled out of court :-)

Re:Books.com - Barnse and Noble 1992

[tomhudson]

Teachbook doesn't have to show that they don't infringe.

Facebook has to show:

1. That their copyright registration is valid and exclusive (it's not exclusive - the term was generic for yearbooks before facebook ever appeared);
2. That there exits substantial opportunity for confusion between facebook and teachbook (not a chance in hell of that)

Facebook only has to go after sites that the name is so close it might cause confusion, such as "facesbook.com". This was just facebook being its usual stupid self.

Die, facebook, die!

Re:Books.com - Barnse and Noble 1992

[insertwackynamehere]

While this lawsuit is pretty stupid, your hatred of Facebook is almost more stupid. Do you fancy yourself a hero, a white knight of sorts, saving the masses from the evils of social networking? How exactly are regular people getting screwed over by Facebook? And don't give me a vague "but the privacy issues!" as an answer. For the most part, do you truly believe that a regular person using Facebook is ignorant to some sort of massive evil controlling them and expanding upon that, do you believe that you, or others like you, should be the ones to decide what is acceptable because it is for the good of the people?

Your vanity, your massive ego or whatever it is that drives you to believe you have a greater understanding of reality than others is disgusting and reminiscent of all the great dictators of the twentieth century.

Re:Books.com - Barnse and Noble 1992

[tomhudson]

No, I just think facebook is seriously f*ed up. This lawsuit is just another symptom - the fish rots from the head, you know.

Die, facebook, die!

What about my site BookBook?

[clickety6]

Do you think they'll come after me for bookbook.com?

It's a social networking site for chickens...

Re:What about my site BookBook?

[GreatBunzinni]

And after that they will go after bookbookbook.com, a networking site for Swedish chefs.

Re:What about my site BookBook?

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the domain name used by Chicken House, a book publisher: doublecluck.com

wastebook

[Anonymous Coward]

If they really want to get this locked down, they should register EVERY word combination with BOOK in it...or TAKEAHIKEBOOK.

Makes me glad I will never ever have an account there to support such nonsense.

Only stupid people use Failbook aka Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

Failbook and all other social media sites are designed for the stupid people in mind. Want to communicate with others? Use fucking email or even the phone. Hell why not fucking visit real friends? As for the fucking images or other information why not build a fucking website. If you can't use email or code a fucking website then you are obviously too fucking stupid to even exist let alone use a computer.

This endeavour will be...

[Anonymous Coward]

This endeavour will be about as successful as Apple's attempt to own the letter "i"

Actually...

[Push Latency]

In my experience, a directory/book for private high schools and colleges which shows a head-shot of each student and faculty member, gives their address on campus and their home address, has been called a "Facebook" for a long time. And seeing as Facebook was originally open to only .edu users, I'm pretty sure that was the idea.

That's what it was called at the school I attended in the early 90's anyway.

easy fix

[jimmyfrank]

Change the name to asocialnetworkingsiteforteachersbecausefacebookissuingus.com

Spacebook?

[oneiros27]

Better not tell 'em what NASA's site is called, then.

Spacebook

[rmcclelland]

NASA runs an internal site called SpaceBook. Facebook has to watch it's image with the new movie coming out.

Quickbooks has been around for a long time

[klubar]

Quickbooks (the accounting software) has been around for quite a while; also workbook and workbooks (in the accounting and Excel) sense has been around. Also, I believe the term "facebook" has been around forever in the sense of a freshman book of photos. which is of course where facebook (tm) (r) (patented) (etc) got the term.

FB, Monster: all fools!

[TAN5TAAFL]

LOL. They should ask Monster Cable about how this worked out: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081212/1622033110.shtml Monster Cable actually filed a trademark infringement suit against Cookie Monster at one point. Good luck with that, Facebook! TAN5TAAFL

*book.com beware

[rmpotter]

So all of these other perfectly good English words had better beware the wrath of Facebook:

bankbook, bluebook, casebook, cashbook, chapbook, checkbook, cookbook, copybook, daybook, domebook, guidebook, handbook, herdbook, hornbook, hymnbook, kabook, lawbook, logbook, matchbook, needlebook, notebook, passbook, playbook, pocketbook, pollbook, promptbook, schoolbook, scrapbook, shopbook, sketchbook, songbook, storybook, studbook, stylebook, tablebook, textbook, wastebook, wordbook, workbook, yearbook

Some of these already have .com domains with memberships and features like "friends", photo sharing, etc. Let's hope someone throws the book at Facebook over this.

Typo - $5, not $5. sorry.

[tomhudson]

That was $5k - not $5 bucks - don't know where the "k" went.

Why can't we have an "append update to post" function? Put a time-stamp on it if you're worried about people gaming the system.

How long have books and teaching gone together?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, it's not like the 2nd word wasn't something a teacher requires to oh I don't know - Teach!!

So books and teaching have gone hand in hand for the longest time, much longer than facebook's been around.

And honestly, I'm not sure I'd want my site connected in any way shape or form to the largest viral / spyware injection platform, not to mention personal information selling site on the planet.

oddly enough - my codeword for posting this was "repress" - how appropriate.

muppet is trademarked

[syousef]

There's protecting your innovation, trademarks, rights, etc. and then there's being a giant muppet. Facebook is a giant muppet.

I think you'll find that muppet is copyrighted, trademarked and patented ;-)

If only the Watergate Hotel was so protective

[hivebrain]

we wouldn't have to worry about those mom and pop scandals riding someone else's coattails by just adding -gate to the end of their name.

What about "face?"

[wombat1966]

I suppose they also own "face" so using expressions like "face time" will land you in court. Or maybe it's only if it's one word: "facetime." Perhaps they've got the patent on the little tiny space in between words. Pam http://www.talksocialnews.com/

How about face?

[Janacek]

Are they also going to sue face.com? http://www.face.com/

One word "Perfect"

[azvoodoo]

Didn't WordPerfect try this shit also?

AOL 2.0 strikes again...

[rivaldufus]

anyone else feel that facebook is a reversion to the AOL days? Too bad they can't provide a browser within the browser - and that dial up isn't so popular anymore.

luckily for me...

[nycguy]

I put Facebook on my shitlist.

Skybook is in deep shit

[cyrilc]

After Rupert Murdock said that he owns the word Sky thus suing Skype, I bet that the website skybook is in deep shit and will be next in line to be sued by both Sky and Facebook.

Re:My new website -- PlaceBook

[Anonymous Coward]

This site - PlaceBook - got sued earlier this month: http://blog.triptrace.com/2010/08/02/facebook-stomps/ (www.placebook.com) Their blog gives a solid backstory and the YouTube Place Book video is a crackup. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AW3tYWtEn0 But they changed their name last week.

Well it's clear they didn't follow...

[sarkeizen]

...the google motto. I mean like in the early days when Google was following it.

Phone book

[tach315]

Phone book

Only two employees, eh?

[mea37]

"The start-up, which has two employees, aims to provide tools for teachers to manage their classrooms and share lesson plans and other resources. 'Effectively they're bombing a mosquito here"

Hmm... I wonder why Facebook might think a start-up with two employees has enough potential that they need to take the situation seriously. There must be some reason; maybe something from their past.

The size of the offending company just doesn't have anything to do with anything. Either they're violating a trademark or they're not; just because youre small doesn't mean you get a free pass, and it doesn't mean failure to defend the trademark wouldn't be an expensive mistake for FB to make.

Good news...

[weazzle]

So I'm safe to launch facenook.com

What about the other substrings?

[Mark Trade]

What about "ace" - that's in "facebook", too. Or "ok"?

Book in teaching software

[phorm]

Also, the *book syntax has been around for a long time in teaching software, longer than I remember facebook being popular. Two examples I can think of off the top of my head that I've seen teachers using are "gradebook" and "markbook"

FB really doesn't have a case here, and hopefully the defendants have enough cash to fight back... (and hopefully the jurisdiction in question has SLAPP laws).

Does Google own most large numbers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does Google own most large numbers?

book, land

[trb]

In 1983, ComputerLand was suing companies for trademark infringement, especially BusinessLand. This is covered in an InfoWorld article, you can google for: computerland businessland infoworld

An apocryphal story says that the judge threw out the case, asking, "who are you going to sue next, Disneyland?" Disneyland is mentioned in this article, but not in the context of the decision.

I hope....

[wpiman]

I hope they throw the book at them......

eBay had done that before against *bay.*

[cf18]

e.g. http://www.forbes.com/2007/10/05/lawsuits-litigation-sba-ent-cx_ll_1005lawsuit.html

Brazen Hypocrisy

[canajin56]

Facebook launches their "Places" service that is functionally the same as "Foursquare"'s service. Facebook's logo for "Places"? A four in a square. A FOUR IN A SQUARE. And they have the balls to go after somebody for "diluting" their trademark on a generic term for a yearbook, by using the word "book". Simply incredible. I hope they lose and have to pay a legal costs and a few million in punitive damages.

prior art exists.

[swschrad]

anybody who would start a corporation using the root word from the old complaint, "dude, am I faced!" probably has no knowledge of firms like "x Booksellers", "x Book Store," "Book Nook," "Wise Book Publishing Co." and the like.

we can only hope they are barred from trademarking company names containing either "face" or "book."

incidentally, I think all the letters of the alphabet have been used before, as well. I think the whole site should be open sourced.

microSOFT

[bussdriver]

How many corps in the 70s+ had SOFT or software at the end of their names?

Clearly nobody went around stopping that...

Then there are fads with COM, COMM, Bell, mart, tree, micro, tech, sys, systems, .com....

compuglobalhypermeganet.net

B...b...but

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny - they didn't go after assbook!

Damn!

[Locke2005]

There goes my plan to name my social networking site comeonherfacebook.com!

Also, McDonalds is claims to own 'Mc' prefix

[cooldev]

See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/25/mcdonalds-lawyers-italian-restaurant-name

Therefore, I'm planning on making an eBook reader just to name it a McBook*. If enough heavyweight lawyers at McDonalds, Facebook, and Apple descend on me they may collapse into a black hole.

* Pronounced "em cee book" of course.

ts;dr

[Dr.Boje]

Too stupid; didn't read.

What asshats

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Slashdot should sue Facebook. Slashdot obviously has trademarked the letters A and O which Facebook is using.

The main problem is that the little guy can't afford to lawyer up for court costs that are a drop in the bucket to Facebook.

Yes, not the yearbook

[IdahoEv]

It's not the yearbook, it's the book of incoming freshmen released at the start of school. It makes it easy to, for example, figure out the last name of the hottie you met yesterday by looking up all the girls named "Lisa" and seeing which one looks like the one you remember. It often even has a first name index to make finding people you've just met easier.

Common at small colleges / liberal arts schools across the US.

PHq PHaceBook

[kjhambrick]

PHq-em

Trademark

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly, I think it makes sense. They don't own "book", they own "...Book". They're not suing textbooks.com or the CIA World Factbook. They're suing a company that's using the "...Book" pattern to mean "a social networking site", and it legitimately might cause confusion on the part of some consumers who may think the "...Book" pattern to mean association with FaceBook. And in this context, they have to defend their trademark lest they lose it and lose the ability to enforce it when violations get even more egregious.

That said, they should settle - Teachbook should change it's name, but be allowed to keep it's domain for a few years. A little annoying for Teachbook, but ultimately, they come out ahead, with the huge amount of publicity here that they never would have received otherwise.

Does that mean they will finally

[Archfeld]

go after F-u-c-kbook, I get spammed by them constantly

I hate it when...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate it when people repeat the subject line in the message when they use "..."

Its also where police mugshots are kept.

[crovira]

I'd like to see some lawyer from FaceBook(TM)® try to tell the nice officer at the front desk of the 68th precinct in Brooklyn to stop calling it that.

"Fuggedaboutid! We got a room in the back where you'z can go and sober up. It ain't a request bub. Get your ass back there ... NOW!"

Trademark law is unfair and illogical but...

[Anonymous Coward]

When I go to the site my first reaction is niche myspace/facebook for educators.. From their own site:

"Manage your professional profile and all information in your account by choosing to share with administrators, colleagues, parents or public"

To me its not unreasonable to see how someone could draw the connection with "book" and social networking in this context. Its hard for me to see how they are not drafting off the name of the mega popular facebook site in the social networking space. Maybe that is not their specific intention but its an association I'm assuming most visitors will make anyway.

I think trademark law is fundementally unfair. Organizations with higher salience can override prexisting and local use... And the world is just too fricking big for every globally reachable Internet facing site to claim a global trademark on their favorite doodle, color scheme, dictionary word and all subjective incidental variences.

Setting an example

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously this is a move not to ensure that nobody can use ***book but to discourage tiny broke startups from using it for fear of being sued by giant evil Megacorpbook

I'd question the lawyers

[cheros]

Isn't there somewhere a rule that punishes lawyers for frivolous lawsuits? No?
Well, that's at least one industry that hasn't gone to hell in the crisis then..

Re:My new website: MyBook.com

[theNAM666]

Hey man thiz is Zuck. I'm starting this MyBook.com thing furz wen I lozer the lawsuit over pwning the FaceBook. U wanna partner with me?

I'd love to see facebook sue...

[SupremoMan]

I'd love to see facebook sue Khwan book. The Jihad unleashed on them would be delightful.

Failbook

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if they're so willing to sue this little two person startup, how come they haven't sued Failbook? (Http://failbook.com) Fail, Facebook. Fail.

Other "books"

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps they should go after F*ckBook too!

Trademark Cancellation

[sabt-pestnu]

I was going to say, "does it matter, if they've got a registered trademark", ... but it does.

Trademarks can be opposed, and even cancelled. From Wikipedia:

The advantage of having a registered mark is that after five years of unopposed use, the mark becomes "incontestable". An incontestable mark cannot be attacked on the grounds that it is merely descriptive (even if it is). This means that the defendant in a trademark infringement suit cannot directly attack the plaintiff's mark, but must instead focus on showing a lack of a likelihood of confusion. Even without incontestability, a registered mark has a presumption of being a valid trademark, placing the burden on the defendant to attack the plaintiff's mark.

Opposing a trademark is either a prelude to a civil suit, or undertaken during/after one. ... so given that preexisting trademarks did not oppose the registry of Facebook, in a few years, it could become "incontestable".

Note also that Facebook has a number of registered trademarks of "Facebook" (SN 77189479, 78981126, 78962629, 77125103) although SN 78920322 is probably the 'main' one. (And yes, it's a kitchen sink 'goods and services' mark, as the GP said.) While some of these marks were filed in 2010, many of them were filed in 2006. Want to challenge? Got a short window, and a big set of lawyers to hurdle...

Facebook as a term

[Anonymous Coward]

In spite of the obvious ripoff this site is, (just like redtube, and all those other "tube" sites in the wake of YOUtube) it is worrysome that even a subset of your name can be allowed to be trademarked, or similar sounding things like the MikeRowSoft.com case.

Merriam-webster lists no meaning for the term. at all, with or without a space separating the words. Dictionary.com recognizes that the term is old, but obscures it an etymological note below two more *alternate* meanings, not giving proper honor to the original one. Imagine the same happening to the American "Yellow Pages?" What will we tell our grandchildren?

For years (decades?) before facebook.com, my university also published its face book to acquaint us with the other 500 freshmen coming in your year. I guess the only thing missing was using the term as its name.

so no more jungle book, cook book, ebook

[ohiovr]

Whats next, apple trademarking the letter i?

a clear message from FaceBook

[amoeba1911]

By exclusively condemning TeachBook.com, FaceBook sends us a clear message that the company fully commends web sites like HotFuckBook.com and FaceBookofSex.com...

I am getting sick of imaginary property lawsuits. They are unimaginative, and the only people that benefit from them are lawyers at the expense of people who want to give an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. Crooks run the world. In the olden times people would form an angry mob with pitch forks and torches and stab the asinine lawyers in the face. Too bad everyone is too brainwashed by American Idol and Survivor in general to do anything about it. Television is the greatest crowd control system ever... and somehow they found a way to make people pay to watch it.

This is just a case of a

[Anonymous Coward]

A moron in a hurry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_moron_in_a_hurry

facebook sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck facebook. its funded by the CIA to spy on the whole world

My name is John Applebook ; I`m 47 Years old

[__aavqan3009]

So screw you Facebook....

am i the only one who saw this?

[stoned_hamster]

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/08/25/0436219/LucasFilm-Sues-Jedi-Mind-Over-Jedi Facebook is now playing the copycat game! I really expected better from them....... oh wait, i forgot the whole issue with the privacy settings! this is EXACTLY what they would do!

This proves...

[DaVince21]

...that lawyers are simply bored out of their minds, trying to find something to do to pass the time.

What about sharebook.com?

[Anonymous Coward]

they existed long before FB