Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Asserts Trademark On "Book" In New User Agreement
jbrodkin writes "Facebook is trying to expand its trademark rights over the word 'book' by adding the claim to a newly revised version of its 'Statement of Rights and Responsibilities,' the agreement all users implicitly consent to by using or accessing Facebook. The company has registered trademarks over its name and many variations of it, but not on the word 'book.' By inserting the trademark claim into the Facebook user agreement, the company hopes to bolster its standing in lawsuits against sites that incorporate the word 'book.'"
First book
I trademarked "first" first.
This is not a signature.
Another fine attempt by corporate America to stretch the law using stupidity.
... you can just suck on my Headbook, if you catch my drift.
They should have ALL their trademarks invalidated by shenanigans like this. BOO!
When Microsoft tried to paten "windows"
I would like to trademark the word trademark, please.
Is Facebook attempting to gain a monopoly on Faceplant?
Now this is brash. Read what they actually say:
"You will not use our copyrights or trademarks (including Facebook, the Facebook and F Logos, FB, Face, Poke, Book and Wall), or any confusingly similar marks, except as expressly permitted by our Brand Usage Guidelines or with our prior written permission."
Notice something? Yes, this goes far beyond what the trademark laws actually cover. According to trademark law, a trademark is specific. Meaning I could very well name something entirely unrelated that they don't produce and that has no potential of confusion "facebook". Say, a sausage.
Their statement contains no limitations whatsoever. Legally speaking, if you're a builder and you have a FB account, you now need to get FB's permission for your work, because you agreed to not use the word "Wall" without their permission. Or, according to #6 of their Brand Usage Guidelines, if you have a business with the word "Book" in it, say "Freddie's Used Books", you have to rename.
I understand their intentions, they want to have an easier time fighting copycats like, say, Mugbook or Assbook or Pornbook - but like lawyers do, they cast the net as wide as possible. But this is ridiculous.
IANAL, but I do have business experience reading and interpreting legal texts.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I'll take all your royalties on the use of the word 'a' please.
Well, that is just plumb Crzybook.
Apparently Facebook is not aware of the prior art of several centuries...
Book
Book
Book
Book
Book
Book
Book
Book
Book
Book
As I've just written in another thread, we should really start thinking about whether there is a need for company with shady business models such as FB. In any case they get far too media attention---not the least because of their viral marketing campaigns.
Perhaps /. should open a Facebook page for these stories? Most of them seem to be slashvertisements anyway.
Perhaps some teenagers use FB as their primary communication means and think the Internet is the same as Google, but that's really not news for nerds.
Wait 'til Amazon hear about this...
As I've never had a FB account and don't ever intend to, I can use the 'book' name all I want, unlike the rest of you herd following suckers?
Do you need any more ammunition for patent and trademark reform??
"Book" .. I think perhaps there are a great many people and organizations ahead of Fad-Book in the queue of those with a claim to the word.
I think when companies intentionally over reach, put BS into EULAs and so forth, they should be fined and smacked down.
If facebook trademark the work Book, we start calling books PageGroups to piss off Mark Zuckerberg.
By inserting the trademark claim into the Facebook user agreement, the company hopes to bolster its standing in lawsuits against sites that incorporate the word 'book.'
What next? Are they going to force these sites owners to make a Facebook account and sign the new user agreement?
I'm pretty sure G'Kar demonstrated putting ones face in a book long before Facebook came along. The results were quite similar...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Now this is brash. Read what they actually say:
"You will not use our copyrights or trademarks (including Facebook, the Facebook and F Logos, FB, Face, Poke, Book and Wall), or any confusingly similar marks, except as expressly permitted by our Brand Usage Guidelines or with our prior written permission."
I guess Lady Gaga has to close her Facebook page, or re-record Poker Face.
Screw her (but don't "Poke" her, for legal reasons).
I have more than one "Wall" lined with "Books" at home, have my own "Face" which I even show in public places, and "Poke" my wife regularly. Do I need a lawyer for these things now?
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
When ComputerLand sued SoftwareLand over use of "land". As I recall. It was the early 80s.
So who will the first to register pokebookwallface.com ?
Just to be safe: I've cancelled my library card and accounts on any website where there is a high probability of discussing, erm, literary devices. I have also destroyed all of the ereading devices and software in my home, and will be burning paper literary devices in the wood stove when things cool down tonight.
I also notice that they have the number 32665 trademarked. I have stopped doing any form of mathematics to avoid being sued. Does the trademark cover binary representations as well? If so, does anyone know of any computers that cannot use this number. (Cripes, even 8 bit computers have 16 bit addresses.)
In a panic!
As far as I know, almost every single section of any legal text by Facebook violates one or more laws in the EU and other European countries and are thus completely irrelevant (ignorig the fact that at least in my country, sections like this would most certainly also be considered as unexpected and therefore abusive, making them legally irrelevant).
Hence, why care?
Unless you're American, that is.
RIM first loses the BBX trademark, now Playbook will have to be changed...
I would like to trademark iBook. No wait...
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
Teachbook and placebook were not copycats, and that's just two I can think of off the top of my head.
Having been invited to FB and passed, all the way back when enrollment was only open with an ivy league .edu or an invite, and resisted all pressure to sign up and join the herd since, I cant help but gloat a little every time I am proven correct, yet again. /me gloats.
I believe it's a useful service, and I will be happy to give it a try when it's provided in a manner consist with my basic values, but as long as it amounts to voluntarily handing over all information to a company like facebook it cannot be worth the price.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
I challenge you to a duel. Twelve paces, and may I suggest we should use cookbooks as weapons? (Of course, the choice is yours by etiquette)
Actually, yes. Companies are allowed to say whatever they want in a license agreement, whether or not it has any actual legal force. What kind of reform are you looking for? A "license agreement police" that reads every license agreement in the world and levies fines for overly broad license agreements? Do you really think the benefits would justify the cost of all of that extra bureaucracy?
After all, the only thing that actually matters is what the courts will enforce. I'll start worrying if any court, anywhere, enforces such an agreement or trademark against somebody using "book" in a generic manner or similar terms like "phonebook". But they won't. And Facebook wouldn't bring such a suit anyway, because they know they'd lose, and that would undermine their ability to bring the trademark suits that they really care about--the ones against social networking websites that are trying to ride on their coattails by calling themselves "visagebook" or something.
Wow, somethingBook, even Apple has valid prior art on that
Does this mean the end for F*ckbook.com? It might. To preserve their name they may need to switch to a less profitable model of parody instead of adult dating. Or perhaps, an adult dating site can be considered a parody? Honestly, I'd never heard of it before but for some reason this topic wanted me to see if the domain was available.
Dont worry, we can just go back to writing in scrolls... Crap.
This is basically where FB's "poke" comes from.
I think it's rich when companies first copy well known concepts from common culture and then try to monopolize them.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
They just cancel your account?
Somebody needs to take Zuckerberg behind the barn and beat some sense into him. Or beat the crap out of him, whichever comes first.
Oh, and keep it private. You know how the little shit loves *his* privacy.
Just don't log in.
The women's magazine "Redbook" was published long before Zuckerberg was born. It is now available online. Many businesses and government agencies -- including my local schools -- public handbooks. The trademark on "book" as incorporated into a word with some other leading phrase is invalid because of prior use by others.
Does this mean that Apple will get sued for their iBook?
This means you.
You'll note they also TM'd "face"!
It's quaint, I know. But if it means I can now start a website called fecesbook, I'm all for it.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
I hope their delete option works properly (which I doubt), but these continued violations of privacy and their callous way to treat their users is unbearable.
I can connect with my real friends in other ways and don't need BIG BROTHER watching me.
I sorta thought maybe God held the trademark on 'book' seeing that that is what The Bible translates as.....
I'd like to trademark the term Faceboot. It means "The action of putting a boot in someone's face, more or less forcefully". Next, Faceboot Facebook.
1. They know their mark is weak and they want to take it out of trademark law and into contract law. Basically, while they may be unsuccessful under trademark theory because the mark is generic or weak because it's merely descriptive, there's nothing that prevents a party from contracting away their right to use a word without another party's permission. So what it boils down to is if you want to use a 'book' name or 'wall' name and you have a facebook account that you want to keep, just form a corporation (which has a separate legal existence) that has not agreed to the facebook terms and have it hold the name.
2. Under trademark law if you fail to enforce your mark you can lose it constructively. Putting these terms in their contract helps prove in court that they have been taking action to enforce their mark.
"You cannot sign-away your legally-protected rights."
Of course you can.
1. Sign those rights away.
2. Courts quit legally protecting them.
That's the way our Court System is going. It's not a justice system anymore.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
The makers of Miracle Whip once sued some guy who produced a product he called Yogurt Whip, asserting a claim to all uses of 'whip' in food products. After a court battle, they lost, with the court agreeing that you can't trademark a generic food term like 'whip'. The downside: it cost the guy $250k (this was a long time ago and that was even more significant a sum at the time) and years to "win".
If you violate this provision, isn't the limit of their response that they can suspend/terminate your account? It's a terms-of-service, not a rewriting of the legal statutes for copyright and trademark. I'd think they already have clauses in there to justify termination for all sorts of inane, "you don't look like one of our kinds of folk" conditions - they're trying to curate a herd, er, community, and drive them to market, er, provide them with relevant services.
So what? It's a choice of business association for both sides. Not so different from what Slashdot does.
Neither is GoogleBook or BingBook.
4chanBook does not care.
By inserting the trademark claim into the Facebook user agreement, the company hopes to bolster its standing in lawsuits against sites that incorporate the word 'book.
Really? IANAL, but I don't see how this makes any sense. If Facebook users agree to such contract terms, I don't see how this has any bearing on those of us who haven't accepted them. In fact, if this is a right (to use the suffix 'book') which someone has to negotiate away, then isn't it a right I still possess by NOT signing up?
Have gnu, will travel.
This trademark/patent thing must to stop asap.
It's going beyond stupidity. What about all sportsBOOK sites that existed years before facebook? Do facebook lawyers assume they'll have to change their domain names?
Oh please, someone has to stop this.
Ok, if you actually believe that, would you like to buy a bridge? Also, by reading this post, you agree you owe me your monthly paycheck, your wife, your firstborn and your life.
There goes my business plan to launch a bold new competitor to Facebook that, in my opinion, better captures the spirit of social media today. I was going to call it "Assbook".
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
I wanna see the smackdown 'twixt facebook and Mac. I'm not big on Apple, but they'd own FB. Like hell they'd change their product from MacBook to MacElectronicDevice.
You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
skull frack the rotting corpse of facebook
i am the dickysofa
"GoFuckYourselfBook.com"
Under certain specific circumstances you can sign away legal rights. Like I'm free to talk about my employer all I want, but I am not free to divulge trade secrets and things like that. Here, I have signed away my freedom of speech in order to remain in good standing with the company and be a trusted employee. If I were not an employee, however, I'm completely free to divulge trade secrets if I haven't signed anything preventing me from doing so.
Also, you may be forced to give up certain rights in certain areas. Most bars don't allow weapons on premises, unless you're an active duty police officer, even though you might have a carry permit.
However, more and more EULAs are asking people to give up rights for no goddamn reason at all. Like the right to sue. I don't think this one would stand up in court if it came to blows. There's absolutely no reason someone would agree to give up their right to sue if they had any other choice. It's basically saying, "If we do something that causes you trouble, there's not a goddamn thing you can do about it except ask someone we're paying to ask us to reimburse you."
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Dear FaceBook
You do not own the word "face" or the word "book". People have been using these concepts for quite some time. Leonardo Da Vinci did some nice faces a while back. He did not claim to have invented them although he seems to have invented some other ideas better than many patents now require.
There are quite a few mentions of the word face in that well known book, the Bible. Do you intend to take God to court? Have fun there.
Any repeated attempts to steal words out of my vocabulary will result in my referring you to the Oxford English Dictionary. Coming from Oxford University it predates your free use of the word by quite a long time. It predates your patent office, your legal system and your country by quite a bit.
Please go away and do something useful - like figuring out how to unscrew up your product.
Yours etc
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
It's called robbing from the public domain and is probably one of the most common unpunished crimes in western society. Corporations literally do it all the time - just think of pretty much every Disney movie of the past 20 years.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Yo La Tengo released Fakebook in 1990. Lots of prior art there.
I look forward to the Zuckmeister going after pretty much anyone using the term "sportsbook", especially in the general vicinity of Las Vegas.
don't bring a lawyer to a "baseball bat to the kneecaps" fight
Nothing worthwhile ever happens before noon
yearbook.
sports book.
making book.
bookstore.
"Book 'em, Danno."
phone book.
paperback book.
hardcopy book.
bank book.
comic book.
science (geography, math, etc...) book.
yo'Momma's book.
about the only thing they can expand -book to is "naked pictures of our founder with animals in near-impossible positions book."
and I'd love to see them defend that in court.
currently own book.com
good luck facebook
Why is this so underrated? It's quite clear what the point was; "ICQ had poke first".
noob, we don't have a system of Justice in America. We have a system of law. Always been that way...
If it's Justice you want, you should study philosophy, not law.
It'll be interesting to see the first "Wall" lawsuit from the people who brought you The Wall (Pink Floyd), or perhaps going back even farther, the Great Wall. China vs. Facebook. There's an interesting court battle. "Poke"? C'mon. I was using the "POKE" Applesoft BASIC command over 25 years ago.
Irrelevant, irrelevant, and more irrelevant.
They are not asserting a patent. They are asserting a trademark. Prior art has nothing whatsoever to do with trademarks.
You can claim that a mark is not sufficiently distinctive, or that it infringes an actual trademark that existed before, but you can't invalidate it just because people were using a word that it contains before.
I'm not even close to a lawyer, and I can at least keep that much straight...
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
I just posted this on my Facebook page:
By displaying this post, or storing it on its servers, Facebook hereby agrees to abandon any and all trademark claims to the word "book", notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the user agreement.
It's still up 21 minutes later (as I write this).
I suppose worst case is that they yank my FB account.
-- Alastair
...to close your FB account ?
.... and fuck Mark Fuckerberg.
EEwwww!, that's disgusting!
Anyone else find it funny that one of the easiest ways to spread this information is through FB*k itself?
Mc iBook