Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lamebook Sues Facebook Over Trademark Infringement

Posted by samzenpus on from the when-parody-attacks dept.

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."

8 of 108 comments (clear)

  1. Facebook threatened to sue first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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."

  2. RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    "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."

    1. Re:RTFA by John+Hasler · · Score: 5, Informative

      Like getting a judgment now would in ANY way bias a future judge to rule in favor of them should facebook sue.

      Wrong. If Lamebook is granted a declaratory judgement in their favor it will be exactly as if Facebook had sued them and lost.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  3. Here's what's REALLY ACTUALLY happening by KingSkippus · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  4. They're defending themselves. by KingSkippus · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  5. Re:It's Simple But Where's the "Advertising" tag? by ddxexex · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My understanding of them suing was not for the free advertisement but rather the fact that the lawsuit will happen in Texas rather than a "Facebook-friendly" court. And Facebook was probably going to sue them anyways, so they took the initiative and did something to improve their chances of winning. I don't see anything wrong with survival instincts and I give them credit for sticking up for their 1st amendment rights.

  6. Re:Parody yes, but lamebook gets ad revenue by KiloByte · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  7. Facebook Statement under Truth Serum by skywire · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.