Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Asserts Trademark On "Book" In New User Agreement

Posted by timothy on from the throw-the-face-at-them dept.

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.'"

36 of 197 comments (clear)

  1. First book by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    First book

    1. Re:First book by Quartus486 · · Score: 2

      Are you sure you were the first to book that one?

  2. Book this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Another fine attempt by corporate America to stretch the law using stupidity.

    1. Re:Book this! by MrLint · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you may be onto something deeper than you may expect. I am becoming to believe that this behavior is really a side effect of our runaway copyright/trademark/patent system, but also the nature of statutes.

      No reasonable person would accept 'book' as a copyright/mark. The word as it stands alone is indicative of anything specific. But since the bounds on in this ears seem to be keep getting stretched and morphed, as well as less than stellar protections for individual/fair use, this is what to expect.

      However, the pitfall of statute is that if you leave the language too broad you catch things you didn't intend, if you iterate every possibility you can think of there are always loopholes. There is a reason why many statutes are 'vague', and why we have a judicial system, but its a mess either way.

      That being said, I really would like to see tome tightening up of both law and legal action on unethical/illegal clauses in user agreements. Perhaps with some penalties. If a clause is generally known prohibit legal action, and that action is a right that cannot be waived, then putting it in an agreement should carry a penalty for attempt to defraud.

    2. Re:Book this! by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2

      I kind of understand it though, but Facebook is probably carrying it too far. As I understand, they aren't taking complete ownership of the word book, but stopping other social media sites that would use parts of their name in their own sites, which is unimaginitive anyway. Imagine if Pinterest was Pinbook, it would have been a cheap cop-out that tries to ride on another business' name, and dilute the value of Facebook's trademark.

      If Facebook is hunting down non-social media sites, then that would be bad, but I haven't seen that happen.

    3. Re:Book this! by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Someone needs to register both fuckbook.com and fuckfacebook.com. I suggest we stop calling it "facebook" and simply refer to both it and Mark Zuckerberg as "fuckface."

      I'm glad I never signed up. Fuck facebook, and fuck Mark Fuckerberg.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    4. Re:Book this! by cpu6502 · · Score: 2

      If this ever came to court, most of Facebook's EUA would be thrown-out just as most of Paypal's EUA was thrown-out by the judge. (Who then ordered paypal to refund the money it had stolen from its customers.) You cannot sign-away your legally-protected rights.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    5. Re:Book this! by omglolbah · · Score: 2

      It is a .com so it is still under american law regardless of where it is hosted.

      As seen by recent domain grabs by the american government.

      Hell, a brit is is being put on a fucking plane to the US to stand trial even though his only connection to the case in the US seems to be that the domain he used was a .com... sigh.

    6. Re:Book this! by Ihmhi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Kinda makes me wonder what will happen when most of these unsavory websites wisen up and stop using .coms.

      I'm starting to see more domain hacks (made-up example, "funga.me") and outright foreign domains for stuff that might be considered illegal or unsavory content. It's a smart move, really, all things considered. There's not really anything all that special about .com anymore.

      I also wonder... well, let's say a site has a .com and they buy, Idunno, a .it domain. The .com now only contains a redirect to the .it. Does the US have any standing over the contents of the stuff hosted on the .it domain simply because the .com links to it?

      .com may very well end up being abandoned altogether by any websites doing stuff the States doesn't like.

      --
      Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
  3. Sounds like... by neo8750 · · Score: 2, Informative

    When Microsoft tried to paten "windows"

    1. Re:Sounds like... by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 5, Informative

      They had to settle for Microsoft Windows. Bethesda claims that Scrolls is effectively trademarked when Notch attempted to make a game called scrolls. Bethesda was afraid a digital card game might get confused for Elder Scrolls. Notch settled, however, and had to agree to not use Scroll for sequels and to respect the "Trademark". Look at the transformers. There are many named Autobot ____ and Decipticon _____ to get around being unable to trademark "Ratchet". While thinking about the Japanese, Godzilla vs Destroyah pronounced Destroyer. That is because they either couldn't or didn't want to bother trying to trademark Destroyer. Spelling change, same pronounciation. Boom, protected. Same with that 80s cartoon, Jem. They wanted to use just M, but wanted to protect the name.

      Nothing new to this field. Nothing limited to computers. It has been going on for decades. Looking precedent, I expect this to get overturned.

      --
      by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
    2. Re:Sounds like... by icebraining · · Score: 4, Informative

      s/paten/trademark/

      --
      Dilbert RSS feed
    3. Re:Sounds like... by Bill+Dimm · · Score: 2

      They had to settle for Microsoft Windows.

      That made me think of the Lindows case and them renaming it to Linspire, but you're right -- the renaming occurred because Microsoft paid them off, not because Microsoft won the suit (Microsoft lost).

  4. Trademark trademark by wvczombie · · Score: 2

    I would like to trademark the word trademark, please.

  5. woah by Tom · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:woah by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

    2. Re:woah by Dogtanian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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)

      IANAL either, but I note that they're not claiming that "by accepting this agreement you agree that Book (etc.) is our trademark and yadda yadda....", i.e. they're not actively requiring the user to accept or directly agree with the assertion that they own those trademarks.

      It may be argued that by implication the user is accepting this anyway, but I'm not convinced. If that isn't the case, then does including the assertion in the user agreement give it any more strength than claiming elsewhere that they own those trademarks?

      What the implication is of this would be though, I don't know.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    3. Re:woah by geekmux · · Score: 2

      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.

      Lawyers may try and cast that net far and wide, but there's something else to really look for. If they are allowed to proceed into the courtroom with this type of legal verbiage over ridiculously common terms in use all over society today. 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.

      Then again, if their verbiage used above goes "far beyond" current trademark law, then what real threat is it? Anything written up in a contract or EULA that is basically either illegal or unenforceable I would think becomes rather null and void (IANAL either, grain of salt issued). Again, if they are allowed to proceed with such written arrogance that extends beyond current law, it says volumes about our legal system and just how corrupt it really is.

    4. Re:woah by boarder8925 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      [T]hey're not actively requiring the user to accept or directly agree with the assertion that they own those trademarks.

      Let's have another look at the quote in question:

      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.

      They use the phrase "our copyrights or trademarks," and immediately after that phrase, they have a list of terms. They are saying that they own the "copyrights or trademarks" for or to those terms. They say that "You will not use" said terms unless your use of said terms agrees with them, either by way of their guidelines or their written permission. When you sign an agreement, you are agreeing to what that agreement says. By signing Facebook's new agreement, you are agreeing that "book" and "wall" are two of their "copyrights or trademarks."

      Now for my disclaimer: I am also not a lawyer. But (to me) the way Facebook has worded the paragraph or section in question makes it clear that they're doing what the headline says they're doing.

      --
      Keep your eyes to the sky.
    5. Re:woah by Fieryphoenix · · Score: 5, Informative

      That carries no legal weight. The fact of a copyright is something determined by law, not by "agreement". You are not bound to obey copyright on the force of having "agreed" something is under copyright, you are bound by whether a work actually fulfills the requirements set forth by whatever applicable copyright law is in effect.

    6. Re:woah by Dogtanian · · Score: 2

      They use the phrase "our copyrights or trademarks," and immediately after that phrase, they have a list of terms. They are saying that they own the "copyrights or trademarks" for or to those terms. They say that "You will not use" said terms unless your use of said terms agrees with them, either by way of their guidelines or their written permission. When you sign an agreement, you are agreeing to what that agreement says. By signing Facebook's new agreement, you are agreeing that "book" and "wall" are two of their "copyrights or trademarks."

      I'm not convinced by this. They say that "you will not use our copyrights or trademarks", which is quite clear- for things that *are* clearly their copyrights and trademarks.

      Let's assume for a second that the list included the word "Atari". It's clear-cut that they don't own that trademark. Therefore, the clause when applied to "Atari" would clearly be predicated on false information and (I doubt) applicable. (*)

      It may be argued that "book" is or isn't their trademark, but if it clearly is, then the clause probably applies and if it clearly isn't, then it almost certainly won't(?) If it's not clear either way, and the case is to be established by use, then because the user is not being required to actively agree that Facebook owns the trademark, I'm not convinced that it bolsters their use claim (to "book") in itself.

      They probably want to strengthen their claim by making it in as many places as possible, but I'm not sure that the user is actually agreeing to this.

      Of course, neither of us are lawyers, and the law doesn't necessarily work in the way that we might think it would (or should), so this discussion is really just intellectual masturbation(!)

      (*) Might be different if it was used in an agreement relating to use of competitor's trademarks on their site or elsewhere- I don't know. But that would have nothing to do with bolstering their ownership of it. .

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  6. Crazybook by pubwvj · · Score: 2

    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

    1. Re:Crazybook by sosume · · Score: 4, Interesting

      More books:
      Audiobook, Bankbook, Bluebook, Casebook, Cashbook, Chapbook, Checkbook, Codebook, Cookbook, Datebook, ,Daybook, Fakebook, Guidebook,
      Handbook, Hornbook, Hymnbook, iBook, Lawbook, Logbook, Matchbook, Netbook, Notebook, Overbook, Passbook, Playbook, Pocketbook,
      Powerbook, Prebook, Promptbook, Psalmbook, Rebook, Schoolbook, Scrapbook, Sketchbook, Songbook, Sourcebook, Storybook, Studybook,
      Stylebook, Textbook, Wordbook, Workbook, Yearbook
      What were they thinking? As this kind of legal assertion is not allowed in many countries where actual people are in charge, It seems it may invalidate other
      parts of the agreement as well.

    2. Re:Crazybook by pz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And, you forgot Facebook.

      Huh?

      The word "facebook" was in use for decades before Zuckerman came along and ... copied it from then-common usage among colleges for a book that contains the photos of the freshman class. I have a handful of copies of my undergraduate school's facebooks still, which state "facebook" on the cover from when Zuckerberg was a come-hither look in his mother's eyes. I never understood how the company got their initial trademark given the widespread existing usage when it was issued.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
  7. *facepalm* by ausrob · · Score: 2

    Do you need any more ammunition for patent and trademark reform??

  8. How is this supposed to work by mvar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  9. Re:Does that mean.. by VMaN · · Score: 4, Funny

    Q: How do you tell if someone isn't on facebook?

    A: Don't worry, they'll tell you.

  10. Re:Prior art. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Funny

    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
  11. Just to be safe ... by MacTO · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!

  12. Why care? by cdrnet · · Score: 2

    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.

  13. Me first! by cvtan · · Score: 2

    I would like to trademark iBook. No wait...

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
  14. Not just copycats by Arker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  15. Ridiculous hyperbole by tgibbs · · Score: 2

    Do you need any more ammunition for patent and trademark reform??

    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.

  16. Re:sign-away your legally-protected rights by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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
  17. Re:sign-away your legally-protected rights by Renraku · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?
  18. Facebook abandons claim. by AJWM · · Score: 2

    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