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