4 ms·
Screw that bs. What, no one can use any NASDAQ stock name as a prefix, suffix or in the name at all? I can't publish a book or record a scene with 'google that'
by batgaijin 14y ago
Screw that bs. What, no one can use any NASDAQ stock name as a prefix, suffix or in the name at all? I can't publish a book or record a scene with 'google that' because Google wants to protect their brand?
Are nations going to publish a list of 'good' words that we can't get sued for using, and name it 'neotalk'?
- Confusion 14y agoDownvoted, because you're completely ignoring the point, which is that 'anyone' is allowed use the letters FB just fine, except for people that make an app that modifies Facebook or is similarly involved with Facebook. Just repeating your point of view doesn't engage the arguments levelled against you.
- catch23 14y agoShouldn't those other 20 developers using FB in their chrome extension on the chrome web store also get the same lawsuit? I feel like this developer might be singled out, since it directly reduces facebook's profits by removing sponsored stories, ads, etc.
- Confusion 14y agoAFAIK, Facebook is legally entitled to being as inconsistent as they want to be, allowing companies they like to use 'FB', while suing companies they don't like. They are entitled to single out developers that encroach on their territory. Now the morality of this behavior is an entirely different discussion...
- bwaskiew 14y agoAren't you at risk of losing some of the scope of your trademark if you do not consistently enforce it?
- shadowmint 14y agoYes.
- beagle3 14y agoThat's true for copyrights and patents, but NOT trademarks. The latter are in a "defend it or lose it" regime.
- saurik 14y agoFWIW, I believe that it is more "you can lose it if you lose control of it"; just because you haven't enforced it is not a big deal if the people you haven't enforced it against are sufficiently small that they wouldn't have been noticed in a wide enough audience to undermine your trademark. (In essence, the argument is not a technical one: it is only interesting in that it changes the dynamics of "could someone have been confused"; if people see the word "Facebook" as a moniker on products all the time that are not made by Facebook, then clearly they are not going to be confused by any individual one.)
- beagle3 14y agoI sort of agree: You don't automatically lose anything. But once you sue to enforce your trademark, the court looks at the body of evidence - and may determine that the trademark has been diluted and has been lost. There is no AFAIK predefined threshold (or way to measure, for that matter) the dilution of trademark - a different judge/jury may reach different conclusions. And basically, that's why most trademark lawyers will act on even the smallest unauthorized trademark use - they do not want to leave it to chance.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- danielweber 14y agoFacebook has been contacting other developers. I know one of them. They aren't singling this guy out. Of course, new chrome extensions can pop up faster than FB's legal department can respond, so the mere existence of other people that haven't been caught yet is not evidence of selective enforcement.
- rmc 14y agoTrademark law is designed to protect customers, and is designed so if you see "Facebook" or "FB" in the context of a social network, that you know you're dealing with the same company.