3 ms·
Since "facebook" is already a generic term for "a reference book or electronic directory made up of individuals' photographs and names," I don't see how they ca
by pixelbath 16y ago
Since "facebook" is already a generic term for "a reference book or electronic directory made up of individuals' photographs and names," I don't see how they can make much of a strong branding claim (though I will certainly agree that "Facebook" is a more popular usage than "facebook").
I'd be hard-pressed to think of this as anything except poor planning when choosing the name. This is not really a case of brand dilution like Xerox, Scotch Tape, or Band-Aids. Guess you should have thought of that earlier, Zuck?
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/facebook http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/facebook
- ck2 16y agoIn fact, part of their success ironically is because of the generic nature of their name.
- chopsueyar 16y agoHow so?
- jesselamb 16y agoWhen is comes to trademarks, there's really no such thing as an intrinsically generic term. A term can only be generic as it relates to a good or service. So the term "facebook" is generic as it relates to "a reference book or electronic directory made up of individuals' photographs and names," but not necessarily as it relates to other things, like the modern social network. Under the framework we use in the U.S., "facebook" is probably a suggestive mark as it relates to social networks, which means that it deserves instant and relatively strong protection. I've described the framework here: http://notmylawyer.com/post/248307917/choosing-a-valid-trademark-takeaways-from-the-barcamp http://notmylawyer.com/post/248307917/choosing-a-valid-trade...
- toodlestech 16y ago"facebook" being a generic term was created as so after Facebook existed. Which is a reason you aren't going to find it in Websters. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/facebook http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/facebook