4 ms·

The fact is they trademarked "Facebook", not "book". Very clearly this is a frivolous lawsuit and scare tactic borrowed from McDonald's who started suing every

by dstein 16y ago

The fact is they trademarked "Facebook", not "book". Very clearly this is a frivolous lawsuit and scare tactic borrowed from McDonald's who started suing every company and brand name that started with "Mc".

tptacek 16y ago
You use these words "very clearly" and "frivolous" like they mean something. In fact, no. PerfumeBay, for instance, was smacked down by the Ninth Circuit for diluting eBay. "Victor's Little Secret" was smacked down for tarnishing Victoria's Secret. "Charbucks" is likely to lose to "Starbucks". In this specific case, it's even less frivolous. The Illinois company set up a social networking site for teachers and called it Teachbook. Even they aren't arguing that there's no overlap; they're simply surprised Facebook would care. But of course they do; they are required to defend their trademark or risk someone else claiming that they've abandoned it.
- dstein 16y ago
  Just because a lawsuit is successful doesn't make it less frivolous. This is not like a company called "AppleSoft" being sued by "Apple". It's more like a company called "AppleSoft" being sued by "Microsoft". It's unfortunate the laws are so ambiguously written to allow abuse of this nature.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    I think you're looking at this situation as if most people had your level of engagement with the software industry; clearly, anyone can tell the difference between Facebook and Teachbook! Once again, no. PerfumeBay was forced to admit under oath that it had fielded support calls from people thinking they were part of eBay. It is not even remotely unlikely that, after spending more than $200 on web design, teachers might become confused about whether Teachbook was a subsidiary effort of Facebook. All this aside, can anyone say with a straight face that "Teachbook", the networking site for teachers, didn't know that they were coattailing off Facebook with that name? Give me a break. If Facebook loses, that'll be interesting, and maybe even a good thing, but don't ask us to feel sorry for these people.
  - js2 16y ago
    Tangent, but it may amuse you to know “Applesoft BASIC was supplied by Microsoft and its name is derived from the names of both Apple and Microsoft.” -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applesoft_BASIC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applesoft_BASIC
  - scott_s 16y ago
    Your use of the world "frivolous" is ambiguous. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation : In law, frivolous litigation is the practice of starting or carrying on law suits that have little to no chance of winning. While colloquially, a lawsuit may be termed frivolous if they personally find a claim to be absurd, regardless of its legal standing, in legal usage (with which this article is concerned), as by the judiciary of the United States, "frivolous litigation" is considered to consist of a legal claim or defense presented even though the party or the party's legal counsel had reason to know that the claim or defense was manifestly insufficient or futile, that is to say, had no legal merit and may also lack legal standing. By the legal definition, if a lawsuit is likely to succeed, then by definition, it cannot be frivolous.
  - bobbyi 16y ago
    Or perhaps it's more like Apple Records suing Apple Computer which was not thrown out as frivolous and ultimately ended in a settlement.

by dstein 16y ago

tptacek 16y ago

You use these words "very clearly" and "frivolous" like they mean something. In fact, no. PerfumeBay, for instance, was smacked down by the Ninth Circuit for diluting eBay. "Victor's Little Secret" was smacked down for tarnishing Victoria's Secret. "Charbucks" is likely to lose to "Starbucks". In this specific case, it's even less frivolous. The Illinois company set up a social networking site for teachers and called it Teachbook. Even they aren't arguing that there's no overlap; they're simply surprised Facebook would care. But of course they do; they are required to defend their trademark or risk someone else claiming that they've abandoned it.

dstein 16y ago
Just because a lawsuit is successful doesn't make it less frivolous. This is not like a company called "AppleSoft" being sued by "Apple". It's more like a company called "AppleSoft" being sued by "Microsoft". It's unfortunate the laws are so ambiguously written to allow abuse of this nature.
- tptacek 16y ago
  I think you're looking at this situation as if most people had your level of engagement with the software industry; clearly, anyone can tell the difference between Facebook and Teachbook! Once again, no. PerfumeBay was forced to admit under oath that it had fielded support calls from people thinking they were part of eBay. It is not even remotely unlikely that, after spending more than $200 on web design, teachers might become confused about whether Teachbook was a subsidiary effort of Facebook. All this aside, can anyone say with a straight face that "Teachbook", the networking site for teachers, didn't know that they were coattailing off Facebook with that name? Give me a break. If Facebook loses, that'll be interesting, and maybe even a good thing, but don't ask us to feel sorry for these people.
- js2 16y ago
  Tangent, but it may amuse you to know “Applesoft BASIC was supplied by Microsoft and its name is derived from the names of both Apple and Microsoft.” -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applesoft_BASIC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applesoft_BASIC
- scott_s 16y ago
  Your use of the world "frivolous" is ambiguous. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation : In law, frivolous litigation is the practice of starting or carrying on law suits that have little to no chance of winning. While colloquially, a lawsuit may be termed frivolous if they personally find a claim to be absurd, regardless of its legal standing, in legal usage (with which this article is concerned), as by the judiciary of the United States, "frivolous litigation" is considered to consist of a legal claim or defense presented even though the party or the party's legal counsel had reason to know that the claim or defense was manifestly insufficient or futile, that is to say, had no legal merit and may also lack legal standing. By the legal definition, if a lawsuit is likely to succeed, then by definition, it cannot be frivolous.
- bobbyi 16y ago
  Or perhaps it's more like Apple Records suing Apple Computer which was not thrown out as frivolous and ultimately ended in a settlement.