6 ms·
As of today, Facebook is one step away from trademarking FACE
- srbloom 16y agoSo why does Facebook want to trademark this word? And what would be the ramifications of this trademark? Would you have to pay a royalty every time you used the word?
- mkross 16y agoI'm interested if this has any effect on Apple's FaceTime video chat stuff. I wouldn't expect too much to come of it, but it could become ammo for either side at some point in the future.
- zach 16y agoVery interesting. But the class of the trademark is limited to "online chat rooms and electronic bulletin boards," so maybe the only impact would be to expanding FaceTime to teleconferencing. Then again, I can't imagine a company better equipped to go to war over trademarks than Apple.
- protomyth 16y agoWell, Apple seems more interested in buying trademarks than litigation.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- jdp23 16y agoFor one thing, they could threaten legal action against people using the word 'Face' in a wide variety of circumstances -- and censor their links on FB, using the same justifications they've given against Lamebook
- philwelch 16y agoWould you have to pay a royalty every time you used the word? My last name is a trademark, and part of another trademark. I don't have any problems as long as I don't try using it to sell juice. Or medical equipment. There was a kid a few years ago called "Mike Rowe", though, who got in trouble by putting up a web page and calling it "MikeRoweSoft".
- there 16y agoTelecommunication services, namely, providing online chat rooms and electronic bulletin boards for transmission of messages among computer users in the field of general interest and concerning social and entertainment subject matter, none primarily featuring or relating to motoring or to cars i'm guessing they met opposition from a "face" trademark holder in a field relating to motoring or cars.
- zach 16y agoAccording to the documents, the EU trademark (#3852779) amended its class after opposition based on likelihood of confusion from the Spanish version of the (American) Automobile Association, RACE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RACE_%28automobile_association%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RACE_%28automobile_association%... They were then required to make the USA trademark have the same class.
- f1gm3nt 16y agoFeel bad for the guys the bought FaceMash.com
- joshklein 16y ago"A trademark is a distinctive indicator used by a business organization to identify that the products with which the trademark appears originate from a unique source, and to distinguish from those of other entities." [1] As Facebook has become a nearly universal popular phenomenon, do you really have any expectation that another business using the word "face" for a product in the realm of online communication and social behavior should be allowed to conduct business? This isn't a patent on faces or anything crazy like that; there's nothing particularly evil going on here. Implications on your tech startup? Don't mooch brand equity from Facebook. I mean, it would certainly be confusing to consumers to have, for example, some sort of video chat with a name like Face ... hrm... time. Oh... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark
- reinhardt 16y agoThe problem is that "face" is a quite common word by itself, they didn't make it up or pick it from some obscure source like "google" or "yahoo". It's outrageous to claim ownership of a word on the whole Web centuries after it entered the language, regardless of their popularity at this moment. What's next, YouTube trademarking the use of "you" ? (On second thoughts that wouldn't be so bad; I'm sick of all the wannabe you*.com trying to piggyback on a silly name)
- patrickaljord 16y agoHow about windows?
- alextgordon 16y agoThe equivalent would be Microsoft trademarking "Win" (come to think of it, they probably have done that).
- JimmyL 16y ago>> claim ownership of a word on the whole Web That's not what they're doing - they're claiming exclusive use of the word FACE in the restricted context of online chat and bulletin board applications. While I can think of a few groups that are innocent and may fall under this (bulletin boards that focus on the study of faces), for the most part it seems like anyone who's using that word in this context would be trying to poach off of Facebook's notoriety to increase the value of their brand.
- schwanksta 16y agoInteresting: The original application for "FACE" was filed in 2005, for a UK social network called FaceParty. Doc: http://tmportal.uspto.gov/external/PA_TOWUserInterface/OpenServletWindow?serialNumber=78980756&scanDate=2008102939051&DocDesc=Application&docType=APP¤tPage=1&rowNum=29&rowCount=30&formattedDate=01-Dec-2005 http://tmportal.uspto.gov/external/PA_TOWUserInterface/OpenS... If you look at the documents, it seems as if Facebook scooped the mark up around 2008: http://tmportal.uspto.gov/external/portal/tow?SRCH=Y&isSubmitted=true&details=&SELECT=US+Serial+No&TEXT=78980756# http://tmportal.uspto.gov/external/portal/tow?SRCH=Y&isS... Can anyone more versed in trademark law parse out what exactly happened?
- zach 16y agoWow, you're exactly right. You gotta figure that once Facebook got some alert trademark lawyers, they noticed that they had a problem, and eventually worked out a deal to acquire ownership of the trademark. Faceparty has a fairly interesting history as well: http://eu.techcrunch.com/2008/06/24/faceparty-tells-critics-to-f-off-suspends-entire-site/ http://eu.techcrunch.com/2008/06/24/faceparty-tells-critics-... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faceparty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faceparty
- paulsmith 16y agoTo what end?
- arihant 16y agoI feel like getting a trademark for letter "F". Then sue Facebook. Jokes apart, is there an ALICE bot making decisions at USPTO? The funny part is, this still won't stop Lamebook. :)
- JimmyL 16y agoThey're applying for a trademark on FACE in the context of "Telecommunication services, namely, providing online chat rooms and electronic bulletin boards for transmission of messages among computer users in the field of general interest and concerning social and entertainment subject matter, none primarily featuring or relating to motoring or to cars". The two things that immediately jump out at me from that are: 1. What about FaceTime? Seems like that would fall under the category they're applying for, unless Apple makes an argument that one-to-one video chat isn't a type of "online chat [room] and electronic bulletin [board]" - although it seems like that'd be splitting hairs and setting up for a whole bunch of suits. 2. What's the deal with the motoring/cars exception - is there already an online chat forum about cars that's named Face-something?
- moultano 16y agoIs this going to be their stock ticker symbol in an IPO?
- cookiecaper 16y agoSkimming the title, I originally read "Facebook one step away from trading FACE".
- Raphael 16y agoThere's already a FACE on the NASDAQ, Physicians Formula Holdings. How about FBOO? Like YHOO for Yahoo!.
- run4yourlives 16y agoToday, I read Matt's little post about the devolution of HackerNews and wondered what he was going on about. The ignorance in the comments on this story answered that question clear as crystal. Sigh.
- ig1 16y agoThey already have trademarks on poke and wall, I don't think they're trying to be malicious, they're just trying to protect their brand. They won't be able to stop people using Face in unrelated contexts, nor will they be able to stop people who already use the word Face in their brand. It will stop people creating product with names primarily being composed of the word "Face" in a competing space with Facebook.
- tlrobinson 16y agoIs "book" next? It seems yes: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-20023684-36.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-20023684-36.html