Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Says It Owns 'Book'

Posted by samzenpus on from the first-book dept.

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."

10 of 483 comments (clear)

  1. uh what about this? by bronney · · Score: 4, Insightful

    http://www.fuckbook.com/

    1. Re:uh what about this? by rednip · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
  2. oh ffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:Give Me A Break! by Asic+Eng · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

  4. Re:Give Me A Break! by dynamo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:You Fail by Spad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  6. Re:Give Me A Break! by mr_mischief · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Flamebait article, flamethrowing comments by SpeedyDX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Flamebait article, flamethrowing comments by anegg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

  8. Re:Give Me A Break! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or your old college face book.

    Face book is a generic slang term for a yearbook.