Slashdot Mirror
Lamebook Sues Facebook Over Trademark Infringement
designersdigest writes "Here's a head scratcher, at first glance at least: Lamebook, a hilarious advertising-supported site that lets Facebook users submit funny status updates, pictures and 'other gems' originating from the social network, is apparently suing Facebook over trademark infringement."
From TFA:
"The complaint is for a declaratory judgement, which means Facebook threatened to sue Lamebook over trademark infringement, and now the tiny company is suing them first in order to get a preemptive decision from the court that there is, in fact, no wrongdoing."
"So here’s what’s going on here. The complaint is for a declaratory judgement, which means Facebook threatened to sue Lamebook over trademark infringement, and now the tiny company is suing them first in order to get a preemptive decision from the court that there is, in fact, no wrongdoing. Most probably, Lamebook is doing this to keep the lawsuit in Texas."
Lamebook is quite obviously a parody site, something that is protected by the First Amendment. Facebook (which has already tried to claim trademark on all ----book sites) has already threatened to go after Lamebook. If they do so, it will be tried in whatever Facebook-friendly court district that Facebook wants.
In order to help protect themselves, Lamebook is suing them preemptively to declare that they have the right to their parody site and avoid being put in a position where Facebook simply outspends them in litigation.
I say good for 'em, and I hope they win. This is a MUCH better long-term strategy than simply not responding to Facebook or mocking them until they get shut down.
Quoting TFA - Emphasis mine.
So here’s what’s going on here. The complaint is for a declaratory judgement, which means Facebook threatened to sue Lamebook over trademark infringement, and now the tiny company is suing them first in order to get a preemptive decision from the court that there is, in fact, no wrongdoing. Most probably, Lamebook is doing this to keep the lawsuit in Texas.
According to the complaint, Facebook counsel first contacted Lamebook back in March 2010, asking them to cease and desist using the Lamebook mark and change the name and look of its website. They repeated this request several times over the next few months and are now threatening to take the small company to court to get their way.
Basically, Lamebook’s counterargument is that its site is a clear parody to Facebook and as such does not infringe or dilute the Facebook mark, and enjoys protection under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Did you even read the article? They're not the ones who initiated this action. Facebook has already contacted them several times threatening to sue, and they have every reason to believe they will. If they do, then Lamebook, which has a site that is protected by the First Amendment, will be forced to defend themselves through a trial and umpteen appeals in a faraway district, likely one that is very unfriendly to them.
All they are doing is asking for a declaratory judgment that they have done nothing wrong so that they won't be litigated into either bankruptcy or submission. From there, some news outlets picked up the story, because it is of interest to the tech community.
Will they benefit from the free advertising as a result? Maybe so, but that doesn't change that the motive is probably primarily self-preservation, not revenue generation.
Copyrighted by whom? Not the Facebook user who posted it; you waive your right to copyright the moment you sign up for a Facebook account. There is an argument to be made that Lamebook is profiting off of Facebook's "copyrighted" content, but Facebook didn't create the content. They just force their users to hand over rights to it. It's a clusterfuck all the way around, and unfortunately the only ones left with no rights at all are the users.
Copyrighted by whom? Not the Facebook user who posted it; you waive your right to copyright the moment you sign up for a Facebook account.
That's not even remotely true. It's the second item in the Facebook terms:
You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook
parody is covered by the first amendment
The 1st Amendment matters only for the government's actions against you, not a private company's. The issue here is purely about copyright and trademarks, and the law that allows parody is Fair Use, not the 1st Amendment.
lamebook is generating income (ad revenue) based on facebook's trademark
Which is not forbidden. Fair Use rights are not restricted to non-commercial uses. Just look at parodies like Space Balls, a major movie that grossed $34M.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
According to the article, Facebook has publicly responded with
It’s unfortunate that after months of working with Lamebook to amicably resolve what we believe is an improper attempt to build a brand that trades off Facebook’s popularity and fame, they have turned to litigation. We are confident in our position and believe we will prevail in court.
What they would be saying under sodium pentathol:
We are miffed that after several months of bullying Lamebook with threatened litigation over their building of a business that takes natural and legal (but you'll never get us to admit it) advantage of the social phenomena created by Facebook, under a brand name that no human being would come close to confusing with ours, they feel forced to defend themselves in a court of law. We are certain that our deeper pockets will overwhelm justice in court.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Seriously, is everyone retarded? Yes, the first amendment dictates that the US government shall not infringe on its people's right to free speech and assembly, and yes, parody is (with certain conditions) exempt from copyright as Fair Use.
These two facts have nothing to do with each other.
So STFU about amendments already.
Wrong. The only difference between a nerd and a geek is the former is socially awkward.
I agree with the poster who commented that this isn't 'news for nerds' though, but anyone who hasn't see the quality of /. stories decline rapidly over the last five years or so must be new here.
Westside story is not a parody, it might be ridiculous, but it's not a parody.