4 ms·

Facebook says it owns rights to the name 'book'

21 points by blahedo 16y ago

ryandvm 16y ago
This doesn't bode well for my incubating startup - Bookface.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
tptacek 16y ago
Teachbook is a social ("networking") site for teachers. Their defense is not that there's no overlap, but that they're so small Facebook shouldn't care --- which is exactly not how trademark works. This headline is sensationalistic. Facebook isn't claiming it owns "book". It's saying, don't make social networking sites named xxxBook. That may be overly aggressive, but it isn't crazy, and if you start DoctorBook (the social networking site for doctors), you can't tell me you're not doing it with eyes open to the chance Facebook will make you change the name. What'd they expect Facebook to think about this? Is Facebook expected to be OK with Plumberbook and Contractorbook and Lawbook (the social networking site for lawyers) too?
- JoeAltmaier 16y ago
  They don't have to be "ok" with it; the question is does their trademark extend to names that are "sort of like" their name FaceBook. I don't think so.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    You should read up on trademark law. They aren't going out on a limb. Look up Trademark Dilution. I'm not saying they're right, though; I'm just saying they're not crazy.
  - jerf 16y ago
    It's really easy to get caught up in anti-copyright and anti-(software-)patent fervor and get so caught up that you want to toss it all out, even trademarks! And it is true that trademarks have been abused. But they exist for a very good reason, and I could see copyright and patents being tossed out in toto before trademarks went away. (And yes, I consider that to have negligible probability too.) You have a right to know with what entity you are dealing, and that's the problem trademarks solve. To that end, a trademark does not just cover the literal thing trademarked, it is explicitly defined in terms of things that may confuse a normal person, because that is the entire purpose. "Sort of like" is the entire point. I think the idea that these people named their product with no intention of trying to ride Facebook's coattails completely implausible. They knew what they were doing. They may not have realized it's illegal, but this is simply the purpose of the law being fulfilled. (And the odds that they did know what they were doing and acted in bad faith anyhow are definitely nontrivial.) This is little different than trying to sell a Sorny TV.
  - st0p 16y ago
    The answer is already in the linked article IMHO. What if I started a phone directory service named phonebook (which is a perfectly valid english of the dutch "Telefoonboek"). Shouldn't be a problem IMHO.
scott_s 16y ago
Their claim, from the article: “If others could freely use ‘generic plus BOOK’ marks for online networking services targeted to that particular generic category of individuals, the suffix BOOK could become a generic term for ‘online community/networking services’ or ’social networking services,’” Facebook argued in the lawsuit. “That would dilute the distinctiveness of the Facebook Marks.” Honestly, that sounds reasonable to me. They're not claiming they own trademarks to all uses of "book," but to uses in the context of online social networks. They use the word because it was a play on the name and idea of a "yearbook." While TeachBook could claim the "book" part of their name has to do with learning from books, I wouldn't believe such a claim. It looks to me like they put "book" in their name to tell other people "we're similar to FaceBook." That's exactly the sort of thing trademarks protect against.
- nkassis 16y ago
  I dunno, book is a very common word, if microsoft tried it with Windows if I remember correctly and lost. Windows or Window was too common to trademark. What about a social network for book fans called bookclub or socialbook.com would that be considered infringement?
- JoeAltmaier 16y ago
  It comes down to trademark law. Can you trademark a class of names? Or just one at a time.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    It's not as simple as that. Trademark isn't as clear-cut as copyright. In some cases, you have to have a famous mark (like Facebook, Starbucks, eBay, and Victoria's Secret). Sometimes, you have to be able to present evidence of confusion; in other cases, you have to be able to demonstrate that the infringing use is directly tarnishing your own brand. It is simply not the case that any Internet squatter can decide "I'm going to own the word Bedsheet, because nobody's thought to trademark it yet!" and then go troll anyone who uses a bedding image in their name. You have to actually build a valuable brand first.
  - 16y ago
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

21 points by blahedo 16y ago

ryandvm 16y ago

This doesn't bode well for my incubating startup - Bookface.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

tptacek 16y ago

Teachbook is a social ("networking") site for teachers. Their defense is not that there's no overlap, but that they're so small Facebook shouldn't care --- which is exactly not how trademark works. This headline is sensationalistic. Facebook isn't claiming it owns "book". It's saying, don't make social networking sites named xxxBook. That may be overly aggressive, but it isn't crazy, and if you start DoctorBook (the social networking site for doctors), you can't tell me you're not doing it with eyes open to the chance Facebook will make you change the name. What'd they expect Facebook to think about this? Is Facebook expected to be OK with Plumberbook and Contractorbook and Lawbook (the social networking site for lawyers) too?

JoeAltmaier 16y ago
They don't have to be "ok" with it; the question is does their trademark extend to names that are "sort of like" their name FaceBook. I don't think so.
- tptacek 16y ago
  You should read up on trademark law. They aren't going out on a limb. Look up Trademark Dilution. I'm not saying they're right, though; I'm just saying they're not crazy.
- jerf 16y ago
  It's really easy to get caught up in anti-copyright and anti-(software-)patent fervor and get so caught up that you want to toss it all out, even trademarks! And it is true that trademarks have been abused. But they exist for a very good reason, and I could see copyright and patents being tossed out in toto before trademarks went away. (And yes, I consider that to have negligible probability too.) You have a right to know with what entity you are dealing, and that's the problem trademarks solve. To that end, a trademark does not just cover the literal thing trademarked, it is explicitly defined in terms of things that may confuse a normal person, because that is the entire purpose. "Sort of like" is the entire point. I think the idea that these people named their product with no intention of trying to ride Facebook's coattails completely implausible. They knew what they were doing. They may not have realized it's illegal, but this is simply the purpose of the law being fulfilled. (And the odds that they did know what they were doing and acted in bad faith anyhow are definitely nontrivial.) This is little different than trying to sell a Sorny TV.
- st0p 16y ago
  The answer is already in the linked article IMHO. What if I started a phone directory service named phonebook (which is a perfectly valid english of the dutch "Telefoonboek"). Shouldn't be a problem IMHO.

scott_s 16y ago

Their claim, from the article: “If others could freely use ‘generic plus BOOK’ marks for online networking services targeted to that particular generic category of individuals, the suffix BOOK could become a generic term for ‘online community/networking services’ or ’social networking services,’” Facebook argued in the lawsuit. “That would dilute the distinctiveness of the Facebook Marks.” Honestly, that sounds reasonable to me. They're not claiming they own trademarks to all uses of "book," but to uses in the context of online social networks. They use the word because it was a play on the name and idea of a "yearbook." While TeachBook could claim the "book" part of their name has to do with learning from books, I wouldn't believe such a claim. It looks to me like they put "book" in their name to tell other people "we're similar to FaceBook." That's exactly the sort of thing trademarks protect against.

nkassis 16y ago
I dunno, book is a very common word, if microsoft tried it with Windows if I remember correctly and lost. Windows or Window was too common to trademark. What about a social network for book fans called bookclub or socialbook.com would that be considered infringement?
JoeAltmaier 16y ago
It comes down to trademark law. Can you trademark a class of names? Or just one at a time.
- tptacek 16y ago
  It's not as simple as that. Trademark isn't as clear-cut as copyright. In some cases, you have to have a famous mark (like Facebook, Starbucks, eBay, and Victoria's Secret). Sometimes, you have to be able to present evidence of confusion; in other cases, you have to be able to demonstrate that the infringing use is directly tarnishing your own brand. It is simply not the case that any Internet squatter can decide "I'm going to own the word Bedsheet, because nobody's thought to trademark it yet!" and then go troll anyone who uses a bedding image in their name. You have to actually build a valuable brand first.
- 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]