4 ms·

> After 3 months of trying everything I could think of, I give up. Frankly, it would have taken just one thing - remove references to Facebook. I know that's

by nkozyra 10y ago

> After 3 months of trying everything I could think of, I give up. Frankly, it would have taken just one thing - remove references to Facebook. I know that's basically amounting to doing some linguistic gymnastics in order to express what your extension does, but you _did_ in fact use a trademark without their consent, and ostensibly in a way that reduces their revenue stream. This really isn't a Graffino v Google issue. Expecting "due process" is also an unrealistic complaint in this scenario. > I just want you to think twice before creating a revenue stream based on the Chrome Web Store. Forget the Chrome Web Store. Think twice before creating a revenue stream based on any service that can pull out the rug at any moment. If you don't control your own destiny things like this can and will happen.

zenopopovici 10y ago
So they told me I was infringing 4 years later... when there are numerous apps in the store doing the same. It's also a cleaner that works only of Facebook. Google reviewed it and approved it 4 years ago. The extension is free. There is no advertising. I don't make any profit. I was never told what to do or how to change it so that my users would still recognize it. Also changing its name in "Cleaner - For Facebook" was suggested (and accepted) for the Safari extension by the Safari Gallery Team. If I don't know what I'm doing wrong, I can't fix it. This is not about TM infringement, but the total lack of communication by Google. Thing is that they basically told me I can't do anything if the original complainant gives his go-ahead ... after 3 months of canned responses. I agree with your second point. (I'm the author of the post).
- nkozyra 10y ago
  > So they told me I was infringing 4 years later... when there are numerous apps in the store doing the same. This is not a great defense. We know from the trail you presented that someone from FB's legal/compliance team found your extension, not the others, likely due to its visibility and popularity. That doesn't mean the other extensions are in the clear. It just means they weren't on FB's radar. > The extension is free. There is no advertising. I don't make any profit. I'm sorry, but that's irrelevant. The complaint wasn't that you were profiting from the ™, just that you were using it. > If I don't know what I'm doing wrong, I can't fix it. This is not about TM infringement, but the total lack of communication by Google I cannot disagree more. They told you what the problem was and the originating email explained that quite explicitly. You did not have permission to use the trademark Facebook (or FB). That's it. If you removed those protected trademarks, it would have been a different story.
  - chris_wot 10y ago
    The standard for trademark infringement is "likelihood of confusion", which is why "Cleaner for Facebook" passed muster at Apple.
  - zenopopovici 10y ago
    It doesn't really matter if you agree with me or not. To say that Google inaction or non-communication is fair or good or OK is simply out of this world. I specifically said in the article that it's not the takedown I had a problem with. But the total lack of support in solving the issues. If I'm not made aware of the rules, I can't fix anything. They specifically said I had to get back to the original complainant to get my app reinstated. That email address is a black hole. So there's nothing I can do.
    - nkozyra 10y ago
      > To say that Google inaction or non-communication is fair or good or OK is simply out of this world. I didn't say any of that. > If I'm not made aware of the rules, I can't fix anything. I don't think Google or Apple could ever (or should ever) - in any meaningful way - advise you on copyright law. That would ultimately boil down to a civil issue between you and Facebook. Facebook, however, made it quite explicit what their issue was. By your article it seems you did not try to rectify the issues that Facebook brought. The notion that you exhausted all avenues to getting your extension re-activated is simply not true.
PeterisP 10y ago
You don't need consent for nominal uses of a trademark. If I say that my service does X for Facebook, then I'm allowed to say that even if Facebook objects. I may need to explicitly prevent the impression that my service is Facebook or part of it, and add a footnote about who is the owner of the Facebook trademark, but saying that an extension is "a cleaner for Facebook™" is explicitly allowed under trademark laws. Even without consent from Facebook, and even if Facebook explicitly forbids it.
- nkozyra 10y ago
  I'm not saying the complaint was legally valid, obviously Google can't return the necessary due diligence on every DMCA takedown request. But the reasoning was explicitly stated in that request.
fenomas 10y ago
> Frankly, it would have taken just one thing - remove references to Facebook. Unless you're part of the team at google with the power to reinstate extensions, I don't know how you can possibly claim to know that.
- nkozyra 10y ago
  This strikes me as pedantic - we can probably safely assume that not doing the thing that caused the extension to be removed might in fact not cause the extension to be removed. Can I say that with authority? Of course not. I can't say the window wouldn't be broken had you not thrown a baseball at it, either. But I can tell you the window is broken because you threw a baseball at it.
  - fenomas 10y ago
    In your metaphor, the article isn't about why the window broke. It's premise is that once broken, Google makes it impossible to find out how or whether it can be fixed. Chastising the author for breaking it in the first place is neither here nor there.
    - nkozyra 10y ago
      I'd start by saying characterizing my responses as "chastising" is a bit disingenuous. I find the notion that the extension was removed without any clear reason equally disingenuous. The reasoning was provided in the included email screenshot. It's not a grand leap to suggest that not repeating the precise reasoning for the extension's removal would likely mitigate future action. The OP fundamentally resubmitted the app without addressing the complaint. How to fix a trademark transgression seems pretty straightforward, doesn't it?
      - zenopopovici 10y ago
        Actually no. The same extension is OK in the Safari store by using "Cleaner - For Facebook". This is OK according to the law. I didn't get the clear reasons my extension was taken down. It is a grand leap to what needs to be changed in order for the app to be compliant and in the same time not confusing existing users.

by nkozyra 10y ago

zenopopovici 10y ago

So they told me I was infringing 4 years later... when there are numerous apps in the store doing the same. It's also a cleaner that works only of Facebook. Google reviewed it and approved it 4 years ago. The extension is free. There is no advertising. I don't make any profit. I was never told what to do or how to change it so that my users would still recognize it. Also changing its name in "Cleaner - For Facebook" was suggested (and accepted) for the Safari extension by the Safari Gallery Team. If I don't know what I'm doing wrong, I can't fix it. This is not about TM infringement, but the total lack of communication by Google. Thing is that they basically told me I can't do anything if the original complainant gives his go-ahead ... after 3 months of canned responses. I agree with your second point. (I'm the author of the post).

nkozyra 10y ago
> So they told me I was infringing 4 years later... when there are numerous apps in the store doing the same. This is not a great defense. We know from the trail you presented that someone from FB's legal/compliance team found your extension, not the others, likely due to its visibility and popularity. That doesn't mean the other extensions are in the clear. It just means they weren't on FB's radar. > The extension is free. There is no advertising. I don't make any profit. I'm sorry, but that's irrelevant. The complaint wasn't that you were profiting from the ™, just that you were using it. > If I don't know what I'm doing wrong, I can't fix it. This is not about TM infringement, but the total lack of communication by Google I cannot disagree more. They told you what the problem was and the originating email explained that quite explicitly. You did not have permission to use the trademark Facebook (or FB). That's it. If you removed those protected trademarks, it would have been a different story.
- chris_wot 10y ago
  The standard for trademark infringement is "likelihood of confusion", which is why "Cleaner for Facebook" passed muster at Apple.
- zenopopovici 10y ago
  It doesn't really matter if you agree with me or not. To say that Google inaction or non-communication is fair or good or OK is simply out of this world. I specifically said in the article that it's not the takedown I had a problem with. But the total lack of support in solving the issues. If I'm not made aware of the rules, I can't fix anything. They specifically said I had to get back to the original complainant to get my app reinstated. That email address is a black hole. So there's nothing I can do.
  - nkozyra 10y ago
    > To say that Google inaction or non-communication is fair or good or OK is simply out of this world. I didn't say any of that. > If I'm not made aware of the rules, I can't fix anything. I don't think Google or Apple could ever (or should ever) - in any meaningful way - advise you on copyright law. That would ultimately boil down to a civil issue between you and Facebook. Facebook, however, made it quite explicit what their issue was. By your article it seems you did not try to rectify the issues that Facebook brought. The notion that you exhausted all avenues to getting your extension re-activated is simply not true.

PeterisP 10y ago

You don't need consent for nominal uses of a trademark. If I say that my service does X for Facebook, then I'm allowed to say that even if Facebook objects. I may need to explicitly prevent the impression that my service is Facebook or part of it, and add a footnote about who is the owner of the Facebook trademark, but saying that an extension is "a cleaner for Facebook™" is explicitly allowed under trademark laws. Even without consent from Facebook, and even if Facebook explicitly forbids it.

nkozyra 10y ago
I'm not saying the complaint was legally valid, obviously Google can't return the necessary due diligence on every DMCA takedown request. But the reasoning was explicitly stated in that request.

fenomas 10y ago

> Frankly, it would have taken just one thing - remove references to Facebook. Unless you're part of the team at google with the power to reinstate extensions, I don't know how you can possibly claim to know that.

nkozyra 10y ago
This strikes me as pedantic - we can probably safely assume that not doing the thing that caused the extension to be removed might in fact not cause the extension to be removed. Can I say that with authority? Of course not. I can't say the window wouldn't be broken had you not thrown a baseball at it, either. But I can tell you the window is broken because you threw a baseball at it.
- fenomas 10y ago
  In your metaphor, the article isn't about why the window broke. It's premise is that once broken, Google makes it impossible to find out how or whether it can be fixed. Chastising the author for breaking it in the first place is neither here nor there.
  - nkozyra 10y ago
    I'd start by saying characterizing my responses as "chastising" is a bit disingenuous. I find the notion that the extension was removed without any clear reason equally disingenuous. The reasoning was provided in the included email screenshot. It's not a grand leap to suggest that not repeating the precise reasoning for the extension's removal would likely mitigate future action. The OP fundamentally resubmitted the app without addressing the complaint. How to fix a trademark transgression seems pretty straightforward, doesn't it?
    - zenopopovici 10y ago
      Actually no. The same extension is OK in the Safari store by using "Cleaner - For Facebook". This is OK according to the law. I didn't get the clear reasons my extension was taken down. It is a grand leap to what needs to be changed in order for the app to be compliant and in the same time not confusing existing users.