Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Denies Disputed Page To Both Mercks
itwbennett writes "In follow-up to yesterday's story about how Merck in Germany is threatening legal action to take its vanity Facebook URL back from Merck U.S., Facebook apologized for its 'administrative error' in reassigning the URL but said that if the two companies can't play nice, no one will get the URL."
Here, drink this soda and see if you still feel that way.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
This is a Mercky issue to wade through...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
wise like king Solomon.
No, I can't believe it either.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Fantastic, so now Facebook has the right of determining valid trademarks, on top of all the personal data it collects. I may be cynical here, but I get the feeling that 'playing nice' will involve the largest payment in combination with the best legal team.
What next - people with their names as facebook urls having to "play nice" with others with the same name who come later?
Two companies have just been bitch slapped for getting uppity about a common name in world market. How many other inane intellectual property disputes could have been resolved or prevented by doing this?
Letting the bidding begin!
Check your premises.
cutting the URL in half! Then we will see who it truly belongs to.
Really, wtf? Both companies have more than enough resources to set up their own domains and webpages where they can do whatever they want, without any kind of interference whatsoever. Why would they need to be on Facebook at all when they can have their very own place on the Net? This Facebook craze is going waaaay too far, IMHO. Individuals who don't want to or can't set up their own domains can go with it, no problems, but big companies?
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
In this chapter, we have two private corporations fighting over a subdirectory owned by a third corporation.
All of these "people" are insane.
Pretty sure Facebook has all the rights to Facebook.com/*anyname* and always will.
If they want to sell/give it to the highest bidder, or the american branch of a company, or the Mars Rover, they can.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
No soup for you Merck!
How about they cut the facebook page in half and give each Merck a half.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Facebook is still subject to national jurisdictions, and trademark law still restricts what Facebook is allowed to do with its own domain. Perhaps the most legally justifiable answer might be to geolocate the IP address, find the correct trademark owner for a given country, and then redirect to MSD's or EMD's Facebook page as appropriate.
Not if the mark is famous [wikipedia.org] like the Nike swoosh, the McDonald's arches, the Disney mouse-ear-silhouette, the Olympic rings, or the Red Cross emblem.
I didn't say it was always possible to have non-competing trademarks. You cite logos, which are much easier to argue for complete exclusivity than names. Even if I had the registered trademark for Apple Toothbrushes, I would not expect to be able to use the Apple's bitten-apple logo for it. As you pointed out, logos are generally more protectable than names -- one would not expect to use Apple's bitten-apple logo for any purpose, regardless of the name or industry. Hence the power and attractiveness of logos.
It may cost Facebook a little bit of money in geolocated pages, but their actions may have saved them a much larger headache and cost by not being drawn into the middle of a trademark dispute.
Your concept for geolocated pages is possible to become the final solution. Expect it to be done quietly and without the fanfare of the current situation.
Facebook's action of denying both parties access to the name has made the geolocated pages concept more attractive to both. Certainly more so than if it would have been Facebook's first offer to remedy the situation.
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
The company names are distinguishable - Merck KGaA and Merck and Co. Given that neither is called just "Merck", it makes sense to make them use distinguishable pages, probably with their full company name.
"KGaA" is a German acronym for "Kommanditgesellschaft auf Aktien" which is sort of a "limited company/partnership" or something like that. So, the NAME of the company is just "Merck", with the KGaA designation defining the type of the company. Since you would always say the name of the shoe company is "Nike", when officially they are "Nike, Inc.", I would suggest it is the same with the "German" Merck. Moreover, the "US" Merck's full designation seems to be "Merck and Co., Inc.", you can't be pushing for dropping "Inc"s but keeping "KGaA"s just because in your narrow worldview you recognize the former and not the latter.
So, the German company is the only one that is just "Merck".
Now, what facebook should do or not do about it, I don't know and I really don't care.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS