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."

84 of 483 comments (clear)

  1. Give Me A Break! by divide+overflow · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. Re:Give Me A Break! by camperslo · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    4. Re:Give Me A Break! by richlv · · Score: 3, Funny

      maybe they should rename themselves to facepalm

      --
      Rich
    5. 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.

    6. Re:Give Me A Break! by shikaisi · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

      --
      No left turn unstoned.
    7. Re:Give Me A Break! by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    8. Re:Give Me A Break! by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    9. Re:Give Me A Break! by delinear · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    10. Re:Give Me A Break! by deniable · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

    11. Re:Give Me A Break! by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Informative

      "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.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    12. Re:Give Me A Break! by AltairDusk · · Score: 4, Funny

      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

    13. Re:Give Me A Break! by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 3, Funny

      "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 ...

    14. Re:Give Me A Break! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    15. Re:Give Me A Break! by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Funny

      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".

    16. 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.

    17. Re:Give Me A Break! by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    18. Re:Give Me A Break! by Rutefoot · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    19. Re:Give Me A Break! by boxwood · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    20. Re:Give Me A Break! by nomadic · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    21. Re:Give Me A Break! by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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).

    22. Re:Give Me A Break! by bsdaemonaut · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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?

    23. Re:Give Me A Break! by mea37 · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    24. Re:Give Me A Break! by HangingChad · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    25. Re:Give Me A Break! by _avs_007 · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    26. Re:Give Me A Break! by _avs_007 · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

  2. Time to get some books... by JoosepN · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...and go throw them at Facebook.

  3. ApostropheDot.com anyone? by Dark+Stranger · · Score: 2, Funny

    No one has registered apostropheDot.com yet!

    1. Re:ApostropheDot.com anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  4. 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. Re:uh what about this? by somersault · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    3. Re:uh what about this? by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    4. Re:uh what about this? by Dumnezeu · · Score: 3, Funny

      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?

      --
      Yes, it's sarcasm. Deal with it!
  5. reading it wrong. by LingNoi · · Score: 2, Funny

    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"?

    1. Re:reading it wrong. by SpinyManiac · · Score: 2, Informative

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

      --
      It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
  6. 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.

    1. Re:oh ffs by chomsky68 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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...

      --
      I'm Not Antisocial, I'm Just Not User Friendly
    2. Re:oh ffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      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".

  7. ____book.com sites that predate facebook... by mrstu · · Score: 5, Informative

    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!

    1. Re:____book.com sites that predate facebook... by cp.tar · · Score: 2, Funny

      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?

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
  8. If they really want to get vapourized by hippo · · Score: 2, Funny

    they should call themselves EasyBook.

    1. Re:If they really want to get vapourized by hippo · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  9. Nothing compared to what they did before... by Ecuador · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
  10. Book burning by Somewhat+Delirious · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --
    The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
  11. A few more they could go after by Chrisq · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:A few more they could go after by boxwood · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:A few more they could go after by hedwards · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:A few more they could go after by cparker15 · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

      --
      Have you driven a fnord... lately?

      You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.

  12. Phonebook ? by abies · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  13. Well, stop doing it! by Psychotria · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  14. also... by tdobson · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  15. Where is diaspora already?! by Methuselus · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

  16. Boycott by Pesticidal · · Score: 5, Funny

    Someone needs to start a facebook group about boycotting facebook!

    1. Re:Boycott by muckracer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Likes this!

  17. The domain is only up since 2007 by Yamagami · · Score: 2, Informative
    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

  18. Scandalous! by srussia · · Score: 3, Funny

    They should call this whole affair "Facebookgate".

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
  19. Re:Contact the EFF by Khyber · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  20. Re:You Fail by pinkushun · · Score: 5, Funny

    Zuckerberg, is that you?

  21. 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?

  22. They should sue bimbook.com by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

    --

    I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
  23. Ummm... by Giometrix · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    --
    Download free e-books, lectures, and tutorials at bookgoldmine.com
  24. Re:You Fail by Bucc5062 · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    --
    Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
  25. My new website by bgarcia · · Score: 3, Funny
    I'm thinking of starting a new website and calling it FacePlace.com.

    No book in that name. I'm safe!

    --
    I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
  26. Re:You Fail by thijsh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  27. Ob xkcd ref by rwa2 · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

  28. 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?

    2. Re:Flamebait article, flamethrowing comments by bufordt13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  29. Re:Facebook is in the right here by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  30. Re:Cookbook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

  31. 54 matches in /usr/share/dict... by KonoWatakushi · · Score: 3, Informative

    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

    1. Re:54 matches in /usr/share/dict... by ascari · · Score: 2, Funny

      Zuckerberg should throw the book at every one of them!

  32. Books.com - Barnse and Noble 1992 by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Informative

    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

    1. Re:Books.com - Barnse and Noble 1992 by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Informative

      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!

    2. Re:Books.com - Barnse and Noble 1992 by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      My blog
    3. Re:Books.com - Barnse and Noble 1992 by x2A · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "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.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  33. Re:Don't they HAVE to? by ascari · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  34. What about my site BookBook? by clickety6 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

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

    --
    ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
  35. Actually... by Push+Latency · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  36. Re:Cookbook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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/

  37. luckily for me... by nycguy · · Score: 3, Funny

    I put Facebook on my shitlist.

  38. Yes, not the yearbook by IdahoEv · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.