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."

Comments

Difficult problem

[GameboyRMH]

This is a Mercky issue to wade through...

Re:Difficult problem

[CmdrPony]

I get the joke, but it's actually really easy one. It obviously belongs to the German company that originally registered it on Facebook. Why does US companies think they can thump on everyone else?

Re:Difficult problem

[NotSanguine]

It just goes to show what an agreement with Facebook is worth.

Re:Difficult problem

[Attila Dimedici]

At this point, it does not obviously belong to the German company because we do not know how control ended up in the hands of the U.S. company. It is possible that someone with the German company who had been designated to Facebook as the "administrator" did so. Obviously, it is more likely that someone at Facebook turned administrative control over to the U.S. company (probably because they did not realize there were two pharmaceutical companies with the same name and assumed that the representative of the U.S. company was the representative of the company that originally registered the name--it is even possible that the representative of the U.S. company did not realize that they were taking control from the German company when they did this).

Re:Difficult problem

[Cajun Hell]

It obviously belongs to the German company that originally registered it on Facebook

No, it obviously belongs to Facebook (or at least as much as facebook.com belongs to Facebook, except that isn't quite as clear). Whatever Facebook decides to do with it, is defined as the right answer.

Re:Difficult problem

[BasilBrush]

Neither of the Merck companies bought it, so it belongs to FaceBook. And the terms&conditions when registering the name includes provisions for not infringing others trademarks, and for Facebook to take back the URL for breaching the T&Cs.

Facebook is doing the sensible thing here. 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.

Better yet is if Facebook could put a page at FaceBook/Merck with links to both companies new vanity URLs.

Re:Difficult problem

[NotSanguine]

Oh, I'm sure that Facebook stuck to the letter of the EULA, which, without doubt, says that Facebook can do whatever they want now, and if you argue about it, they can change the EULA retroactively at will such that there's no question at all about the matter.

Apparently, the German Merck entered into an agreement with FB in March 2010 (cf. Original Story/a)

Re:Difficult problem

[Canazza]

So you're suggesting a Disambiguation page?

Re:Difficult problem

[Tanktalus]

Revenue stream, yes. Pepsi pay for a "Coke" vanity URL on FB? Unlikely. Courts have already determined some rights to trademark names in URLs - though Pepsi still has to pay the regular registration fee to use "pepsi.com", a competitor attempting to misuse their trademark would likely lose the domain in a court battle, as has happened in the past.

Their lawyers wouldn't let them even try it.

you go FB!

[Thud457]

wise like king Solomon.

No, I can't believe it either.

Re:you go FB!

[DriedClexler]

Solomon's solution would be give one of them the "Mer", and the other one "ck", and then instantly void the deal and give it to whoever doesn't want to see the name split.

That's a rather stupid "solution"

[tomhudson]

So, Facebook screws up, and now it's up to the original URL holder to "play nice" and let someone else squat with them? Keep it up Facebook - you're just giving us yet another reason to show that you don't "get it" on so many levels.

What next - people with their names as facebook urls having to "play nice" with others with the same name who come later?

Re:That's a rather stupid "solution"

[Lord Crc]

And what would you do, then? It's not like it can magically decide which of the two companies you want to see when you input the URL.

I'd do what Wikipedia does, turn it into a disambiguation page, listing all relevant pages.

This is awesome

[onyxruby]

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?

Re:Trademarks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, if they didn't want their trademarks appropriated they shouldn't have gone to war with us 93 years ago.

Re:Trademarks?

[Cajun Hell]

Fantastic, so now Facebook has the right of determining valid trademarks, on top of all the personal data it collects

It's is Facebook's namespace (and you can have on too, right now, if you want). They get to decide whether or not trademarks are even relevant within this namespace, let alone top priority at the expense of all other concerns. Why would it be anyone else's decision?

Just because some random arbitrary private namespace out there happens to get popular, doesn't mean the rest of society needs to "officially" recognize it, legitimize it, adopt it, regulate it, or take it seriously. It's just a pathname component in someone's website, and it's their site, just like a hypothetical "Apple" directory on my computer which contains a file called "Disney" is my file in my directory on my computer, and no one else deserves .0000001% say in the matter.

When today's fools finally learn this, then they won't be afraid of new TLDs, BTW.

Re:Trademarks?

[Alwin Henseler]

Makes one wonder what a Facebook account is really worth to a company (or pop group, or artist, whatever). On the one hand, the option of gaining & holding customers, and do lots of PR through the social network, on the other hand the possibility that at any time, if someone with same name (competitor?) creates a dispute about it, Facebook might close the account for no good reason.

Who needs hackers for a DoS attack when Facebook could do the job for you?

Re:Trademarks?

[Stormy Dragon]

Yes, but you can put up a billboard and refuse to let Disney by space on it. Facebook isn't using the trademark improperly, merely refusing to let either side use it. This makes perfect sense for Facebook. Whichever one it would have sided with, the other would have sued them. If it lets neither use the name, there's nothing they can do.

Re:Trademarks?

[Sez Zero]

There's no winning answer here.

Sure there is: the winning answer is to not use Facebook.

Re:Trademarks still exist

[mr1911]

Except that Facebook is still private property. They don't have to let you promote your trademark on their site any more than a company could force you to paint their logo on the side of your house.

Denying both companies access to the name on Facebook is a completely viable and legal means to not infringe on any trademark.

You may also want to brush up on trademarks a bit. It is possible to have the same trademark for different industries, and one does not trump the other. Say for example, I have a registered trademark for Apple toothbrushes. I am free to promote my trademark, even if Apple computers doesn't like it. Granted it does get even murkier when industries are similar across international boundaries, but one trumping the other is still a tough argument to make.

In the end it is very funny that Facebook basically give a timeout to two companies acting like two year old children.

Re:To which a Merck U.S. representative replied...

[Jeng]

I was thinking the old formula for 7-up that included lithium.