6 ms·

Whenever these trademark stories come up, everyone seems to get angry without trying to bother to understand how trademarks work. They think that they're like c

Whenever these trademark stories come up, everyone seems to get angry without trying to bother to understand how trademarks work. They think that they're like copyrights, that trademarks require originality or disallow all forms of copying or something like that. I'm generally in favour of trademarks and I don't think trademarking common words is as problematic as most people think. When some word is trademarked, it doesn't mean nobody else is allowed to say that word. I can write all day and all night about windows, apples, and lifts without having to get lawyers in my face about it. And if the lawyers do come, they might just request that I acknowledge the trademarks that I was using in a way that could confuse consumers. You don't need to defend everyone else's trademarks on your own. If you want to generically say to "google" as a verb for any kind of search, go right ahead. It's Google's job to defend that trademark, not yours, and I think they may well lose that fight some day. Trademarks allow common, dictionary words. There's no requirement for a trademark to be original or creative. All it has to be is distinctive. I can call software "Windows" and I can call a music producer "Apple". Generic words are usually only disallowed as trademarks when they are used to generically describe the thing under commerce. Facebook couldn't become a bookseller with the trademark "book", for example. (Little known fact, though, "facebook" itself was a common word, referring to college-provided printed books with fellow classmates' photos on them. I assume since no one is making those anymore, or because Facebook never produced printed facebooks, they now can elude any accusations of genericism.) The test for trademark infringement is, are you using the trademark in a way that a reasonable consumer could be confused that you're selling the same thing as what someone else has under the same trademark? I don't think anyone has been referring to all social networking sites as "books", thereby invalidating the claim that Facebook has a valid trademark on "book". Please, try to understand trademarks. One of my pet peeves with people who lump them under "intellectual property" is that they think that trademarks are somewhat similar to copyright or patents, but these are all very different laws with different purposes, histories, and ways of being defended and infringed. It doesn't all just mean "reproduction is disallowed".

human20190310 7y ago
I think it's appropriate to have a bias toward hostility when a large company makes a large claim, because they've got the legal resources to win basically any dispute once they have a foothold. > I can call a music producer "Apple" Even if you could, it would likely be a legal pain in the ass. Apple fought over using the letter "i" as a prefix to product names. Might as well start fighting as soon as a large company even tries to claim something with a public-domain vibe.
- hans1729 7y ago
  >Apple fought over using the letter "i" as a prefix to product names that's comparing apples to oranges though, isn't it? i as a prefix for product-names seems critical, as such-labeled products were heavily and uniquely associated with apple-products, whereas a music-producer isn't intrinsically representing apples brand, just because they share the name. apple is a giant brand, but you can in fact can still buy apples without thinking about computers or steve jobs
  - human20190310 7y ago
    Apple is in the music business though. If you combine "Apple" and some music business I think you can expect trouble. In fact they (and Facebook, and others) are in so many businesses that any trademark they claim is going to have wide impact.
    - hans1729 7y ago
      Sure, I wouldn't assume they'd just ignore it - the comparison to i-prefixed products just seemed inadequate, and the 'apples and oranges'-ref essentially wrote itself :-)
    - kube-system 7y ago
      Funny, because there was trouble, but it's actually the opposite of what you might expect. Apple was the one who was getting sued for entering into the music industry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
      - greenyoda 7y ago
        Yeah, Apple Corps was founded by the Beatles in 1968 (before Apple Computer existed). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps
    - htfu 7y ago
      _All_ y'all ignorant of Apple Corps? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer Not that big a deal, just a hilarious(ly apt?) example, considering the history.
raphman 7y ago
I agree with you in general. However, as others have already pointed out, Facebook wants to claim protection for a really (REALLY) wide range of goods/services. If granted, pretty much anyone selling software or hardware using "book" in its name might be vulnerable to bullying by Facebook's lawyers. Typically, one just registers a word trademark for a very small number of service/goods classes (e.g., here's a registered trademark for "car" which only applies to certain medical devices and services [1]). A large company trying to claim "book" for pretty much the whole Nice Class 9 is not normal behavior. [1] https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/009398843 https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/00939884...
GlobalFrog 7y ago
Even as a trademark and not a copyright, I see at least one area requested which seems highly ambiguous: "Software to enable accessing, displaying, editing, linking, sharing and otherwise providing electronic media and information via the internet and communications network" Now, let's imagine a book publisher who wants to devise his proprietary software to display and share his books, I could imagine he would fear that this trademark would impair him to use the simple word "Book" to do so. Same for Virtual Reality devices: if there is on day a VR adaptation of books, in which you could walk and interact with characters and follow the plot from within, the use of the word 'Book' would make sense for the collection (regardless of whether this is a good commercial idea or not), but what would be facebook reaction about that if they are granted the trademark, especially as they are quite involved in VR ?
theobeers 7y ago
This is a type of HN comment that I see often and don't appreciate. Format: "Your disapproval of [thing] can only be rooted in misunderstanding of [technicalities]. [Flex re: said technicalities.]" People who are familiar with how trademarks work can still be dubious of Facebook's attempt to register BOOK. Is there a context in which I would accept it as distinctive? Yes, of course: the name of a social networking service. Is Facebook applying under such narrow terms? Not as far as I can tell. And do I trust Facebook to be tasteful and show restraint in defending this trademark, if it's granted? Not in a million years. P.S. This is almost beside the point, but remember when Monster Cable sued a bunch of small businesses—most famously a mom-and-pop mini-golf course—over trademark infringement?[0] At the time, there was no shortage of pedants chiming in to say that Monster didn't _need_ to be such a bully, that it wasn't an issue of the trademark system per se. As if that were some consolation! [0] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080515/1940111131/ https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080515/1940111131/
- ajna91 7y ago
  There's a kind of shallow pedantic contrarianism that is unfortunately part of the culture.
- mirimir 7y ago
  That may be technically correct. But Facebook trademarking "BOOK" is just stupid, on its face. Also, I note that "facebook" itself was a term that had been used by universities for years to describe books of students' faces. As by Harvard, which Facebook was riffing on. Maybe it's OK to allow such trademarks. But there ought to be restrictions on holders suing over currently typical usage.
  - mirimir 7y ago
    I mean, Amazon has far stronger standing to trademark "BOOK". And they'd be foolish to not contest this.
- sbfeibish 7y ago
  You have to defend a trademark or you can lose it. I had to assert my rights to baccarat.biz when the Baccarat crystal company tried to take it away from me. I don't blame them. But I wanted to retain the name and I prevailed in arbitration. Now I wound up not using the name (hope to someday) because (for the most part) online gaming was reserved for the brick & mortar casinos and horse racing tracks.
alistairSH 7y ago
I'd agree with you, except there are enough counter-examples to give me pause. See the Peloton and Roubaix examples in the sibling comment. Companies can and do trademark common words within their industry and use that as a legal sledgehammer. In your examples (Windows, Apple) the word isn't a core part of the industry (or, wasn't when initially trademarked).
im3w1l 7y ago
phoneBOOKs and addressBOOK's are both relevant to social networking. And many early webpages had guestBOOK's where people could leave comments.
seattlebarley 7y ago
> AKSCHUALLY
retSava 7y ago
Did you see the list of goods and services they seek BOOK trademark for? It's pretty long, would be easier to list what is _not_ included. Some examples: > Software in the nature of a mobile application > Messaging software > Communication software and communication computer hardware for providing access to the Internet and the mighty fine, generic, > application software Now this may or may not be FUD: don't go holding your breath until they would come with a lawsuit against anything that matches book.
HenryBemis 7y ago
I respect your lengthy comment but I will respond with a much much shorter one. If the "law" (regulation, constitution, etc.) defies logic and sense, then it is the law that should change. Not rape the planet and its inhabitants because that CANCER called Facebook with those greedy bastard C-suites and shareholders want to "move fast and break things" want to add one-more-zero to their bottom line. They deserve oblivion. Nothing less.
michaelmrose 7y ago
I'm fairly sure on this site that virtually everyone understands at least the basics of how trademarks work and many or most still disagree. Your write up is informative, useful, and I think on on the wrong track. The interesting point is not whether bob's bookstore to exist and advertise or that you can continue to blog about books. Nobody believed either of those things were in danger. Everyone here at least likely knows that trademarks are bounded by categories except theirs is so voluminous were I to paste it here it would take up an entire page. The best I can figure it basically means anything at all to do with any sort of computer. I for one don't think there is any reason to believe they ought to own the word book in conjunction with any hardware or software. There are in fact I'm sure plenty of people already "infringing" who would like to continue doing business without scum bags demanding protection money. This is just another example of the fact that Zuckerberg doesn't even know what the "right thing" looks like.

human20190310 7y ago

I think it's appropriate to have a bias toward hostility when a large company makes a large claim, because they've got the legal resources to win basically any dispute once they have a foothold. > I can call a music producer "Apple" Even if you could, it would likely be a legal pain in the ass. Apple fought over using the letter "i" as a prefix to product names. Might as well start fighting as soon as a large company even tries to claim something with a public-domain vibe.

hans1729 7y ago
>Apple fought over using the letter "i" as a prefix to product names that's comparing apples to oranges though, isn't it? i as a prefix for product-names seems critical, as such-labeled products were heavily and uniquely associated with apple-products, whereas a music-producer isn't intrinsically representing apples brand, just because they share the name. apple is a giant brand, but you can in fact can still buy apples without thinking about computers or steve jobs
- human20190310 7y ago
  Apple is in the music business though. If you combine "Apple" and some music business I think you can expect trouble. In fact they (and Facebook, and others) are in so many businesses that any trademark they claim is going to have wide impact.
  - hans1729 7y ago
    Sure, I wouldn't assume they'd just ignore it - the comparison to i-prefixed products just seemed inadequate, and the 'apples and oranges'-ref essentially wrote itself :-)
  - kube-system 7y ago
    Funny, because there was trouble, but it's actually the opposite of what you might expect. Apple was the one who was getting sued for entering into the music industry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
    - greenyoda 7y ago
      Yeah, Apple Corps was founded by the Beatles in 1968 (before Apple Computer existed). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps
  - htfu 7y ago
    _All_ y'all ignorant of Apple Corps? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer Not that big a deal, just a hilarious(ly apt?) example, considering the history.

raphman 7y ago

I agree with you in general. However, as others have already pointed out, Facebook wants to claim protection for a really (REALLY) wide range of goods/services. If granted, pretty much anyone selling software or hardware using "book" in its name might be vulnerable to bullying by Facebook's lawyers. Typically, one just registers a word trademark for a very small number of service/goods classes (e.g., here's a registered trademark for "car" which only applies to certain medical devices and services [1]). A large company trying to claim "book" for pretty much the whole Nice Class 9 is not normal behavior. [1] https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/009398843 https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/00939884...

GlobalFrog 7y ago

Even as a trademark and not a copyright, I see at least one area requested which seems highly ambiguous: "Software to enable accessing, displaying, editing, linking, sharing and otherwise providing electronic media and information via the internet and communications network" Now, let's imagine a book publisher who wants to devise his proprietary software to display and share his books, I could imagine he would fear that this trademark would impair him to use the simple word "Book" to do so. Same for Virtual Reality devices: if there is on day a VR adaptation of books, in which you could walk and interact with characters and follow the plot from within, the use of the word 'Book' would make sense for the collection (regardless of whether this is a good commercial idea or not), but what would be facebook reaction about that if they are granted the trademark, especially as they are quite involved in VR ?

theobeers 7y ago

This is a type of HN comment that I see often and don't appreciate. Format: "Your disapproval of [thing] can only be rooted in misunderstanding of [technicalities]. [Flex re: said technicalities.]" People who are familiar with how trademarks work can still be dubious of Facebook's attempt to register BOOK. Is there a context in which I would accept it as distinctive? Yes, of course: the name of a social networking service. Is Facebook applying under such narrow terms? Not as far as I can tell. And do I trust Facebook to be tasteful and show restraint in defending this trademark, if it's granted? Not in a million years. P.S. This is almost beside the point, but remember when Monster Cable sued a bunch of small businesses—most famously a mom-and-pop mini-golf course—over trademark infringement?[0] At the time, there was no shortage of pedants chiming in to say that Monster didn't _need_ to be such a bully, that it wasn't an issue of the trademark system per se. As if that were some consolation! [0] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080515/1940111131/ https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080515/1940111131/

ajna91 7y ago
There's a kind of shallow pedantic contrarianism that is unfortunately part of the culture.
mirimir 7y ago
That may be technically correct. But Facebook trademarking "BOOK" is just stupid, on its face. Also, I note that "facebook" itself was a term that had been used by universities for years to describe books of students' faces. As by Harvard, which Facebook was riffing on. Maybe it's OK to allow such trademarks. But there ought to be restrictions on holders suing over currently typical usage.
- mirimir 7y ago
  I mean, Amazon has far stronger standing to trademark "BOOK". And they'd be foolish to not contest this.
sbfeibish 7y ago
You have to defend a trademark or you can lose it. I had to assert my rights to baccarat.biz when the Baccarat crystal company tried to take it away from me. I don't blame them. But I wanted to retain the name and I prevailed in arbitration. Now I wound up not using the name (hope to someday) because (for the most part) online gaming was reserved for the brick & mortar casinos and horse racing tracks.

alistairSH 7y ago

I'd agree with you, except there are enough counter-examples to give me pause. See the Peloton and Roubaix examples in the sibling comment. Companies can and do trademark common words within their industry and use that as a legal sledgehammer. In your examples (Windows, Apple) the word isn't a core part of the industry (or, wasn't when initially trademarked).

im3w1l 7y ago

phoneBOOKs and addressBOOK's are both relevant to social networking. And many early webpages had guestBOOK's where people could leave comments.

seattlebarley 7y ago

> AKSCHUALLY

retSava 7y ago

Did you see the list of goods and services they seek BOOK trademark for? It's pretty long, would be easier to list what is _not_ included. Some examples: > Software in the nature of a mobile application > Messaging software > Communication software and communication computer hardware for providing access to the Internet and the mighty fine, generic, > application software Now this may or may not be FUD: don't go holding your breath until they would come with a lawsuit against anything that matches book.

HenryBemis 7y ago

I respect your lengthy comment but I will respond with a much much shorter one. If the "law" (regulation, constitution, etc.) defies logic and sense, then it is the law that should change. Not rape the planet and its inhabitants because that CANCER called Facebook with those greedy bastard C-suites and shareholders want to "move fast and break things" want to add one-more-zero to their bottom line. They deserve oblivion. Nothing less.

michaelmrose 7y ago

I'm fairly sure on this site that virtually everyone understands at least the basics of how trademarks work and many or most still disagree. Your write up is informative, useful, and I think on on the wrong track. The interesting point is not whether bob's bookstore to exist and advertise or that you can continue to blog about books. Nobody believed either of those things were in danger. Everyone here at least likely knows that trademarks are bounded by categories except theirs is so voluminous were I to paste it here it would take up an entire page. The best I can figure it basically means anything at all to do with any sort of computer. I for one don't think there is any reason to believe they ought to own the word book in conjunction with any hardware or software. There are in fact I'm sure plenty of people already "infringing" who would like to continue doing business without scum bags demanding protection money. This is just another example of the fact that Zuckerberg doesn't even know what the "right thing" looks like.