5 ms·

He's referring to Facebook's previous attempt to take him down, which centred around a trademark claim against his use of the word "facebook". According to him,

He's referring to Facebook's previous attempt to take him down, which centred around a trademark claim against his use of the word "facebook". According to him, that dispute was resolved when he agreed to use only "FB". Obviously, their new attempt to undermine him uses a different angle, but you can't blame him for re-hashing his earlier woes.

saurik 14y ago
It is clear what he is referring to: it doesn't make the argument any better; his entire document, including the section regarding the prior and current dispute over trademarks, would be drastically improved by the removal of the paragraph where he complains about Facebook not having "a worldwide claim on the 2 consecutive letters FB" and how his usage is actually "short for Fluff Busting"; it demonstrates a severe misunderstanding of how trademarks work. :(
- omd 14y ago
  I think it's too bad that the top discussion on the entire issue is the silly argument about a trademark. But since that's the case, I don't see it as a misunderstanding of how trademarks work, but a perfect way of demonstrating how fatuous Facebook's trademark claims have become. After trademarks on the words face[1] and book[2] now they also claim to own the letters fb. How is that any different then someone trademarking socialmediawebsiteforumblogimagegallerynews.com™ and suing the Internet out of existence. Even WordPress suggests using wp in a domain[3] instead of the word wordpress. Facebook never had a problem with domains that used fb before, they're only complaining now as an excuse to shut down a service they don't Like™. [1] http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/23/patent-office-agrees-to-facebooks-face-trademark/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/23/patent-office-agrees-to-fac... [2] http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/159628/teachbook-loses-skirmish-with-facebook-over-name.html http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/159628/teachbo... [3] http://wordpress.org/about/domains/ http://wordpress.org/about/domains/
  - theorique 14y ago
    now they also claim to own the letters fb Hmm, I wonder how people are going to refer to a casual, recurring sex partner now!
    - jetti 14y ago
      Probably the same they have been for along time, "fwb"....
      - saalweachter 14y ago
        Those are two very different acronyms.
        jetti 14y ago
        Wow...not sure how I completely missed that. But I did just hear the sound of a "whoosh" as the original thread went right over my head :(
  - mikeash 14y ago
    Trademark is fundamentally about consumer confusion. The whole point of even having trademarks is so that when I e.g. buy a fizzy drink labeled Coca-Cola, I can be reasonably assured that it was made by that company, and is not some knockoff. Similar or identical names can be used in different markets without trademark difficulty as long as there's no potential for confusion. Or such is my limited understanding. Facebook doesn't get to own the letters "FB", but they do get to own those letters in contexts where use of those letters would confuse people into thinking that the product in question comes from Facebook. Calling your new line of leaf blowers "FB" would probably be fine, but calling your browser extension specifically targeted at facebook.com "FB" is begging for trouble.
    - at-fates-hands 14y ago
      There are actually eight different factors which the courts use as a "test" for infringement. Of those eight, I would say a majority fail the infringement test for Facebbook. Mainly because "FB" is not part of its primary trademark. Thus, the "FB" presents a weak case for the "Strength of the plaintiff's mark." element. Here are those 8 factors for argument sake: http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/infringe.html#elements http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/infringe.html#elements
- fbpdev 14y ago
  hi saurik, i am the fbp dev, thanks for the critique and advice, to be honest, i don't know much about trademark law, but then again i expect 99% of the population dont either.
- davorak 14y ago
  Considering that it would almost certainly count as a parody I would imagine it would be project under the 1st Amendment at least in the US. Do you know of cases where tarde marks that were considered parody were still ruled as illegal in the end?
  - saurik 14y ago
    It is not clear if you just see "fbpurity.com" that this is parody, so it would be difficult to make that claim for the domain name, which kind of needs to stand alone as it is rendered alone. I do agree, however, that this person is unlikely to fall into trademark straights on this name (I maintain it was just thrown into the list of complaints to make them longer and more imposing, which would then lead to longer trials and larger legal fees arguing if it ever came to that). The argument, however, was out of place.

saurik 14y ago

It is clear what he is referring to: it doesn't make the argument any better; his entire document, including the section regarding the prior and current dispute over trademarks, would be drastically improved by the removal of the paragraph where he complains about Facebook not having "a worldwide claim on the 2 consecutive letters FB" and how his usage is actually "short for Fluff Busting"; it demonstrates a severe misunderstanding of how trademarks work. :(

omd 14y ago
I think it's too bad that the top discussion on the entire issue is the silly argument about a trademark. But since that's the case, I don't see it as a misunderstanding of how trademarks work, but a perfect way of demonstrating how fatuous Facebook's trademark claims have become. After trademarks on the words face[1] and book[2] now they also claim to own the letters fb. How is that any different then someone trademarking socialmediawebsiteforumblogimagegallerynews.com™ and suing the Internet out of existence. Even WordPress suggests using wp in a domain[3] instead of the word wordpress. Facebook never had a problem with domains that used fb before, they're only complaining now as an excuse to shut down a service they don't Like™. [1] http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/23/patent-office-agrees-to-facebooks-face-trademark/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/23/patent-office-agrees-to-fac... [2] http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/159628/teachbook-loses-skirmish-with-facebook-over-name.html http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/159628/teachbo... [3] http://wordpress.org/about/domains/ http://wordpress.org/about/domains/
- theorique 14y ago
  now they also claim to own the letters fb Hmm, I wonder how people are going to refer to a casual, recurring sex partner now!
  - jetti 14y ago
    Probably the same they have been for along time, "fwb"....
    - saalweachter 14y ago
      Those are two very different acronyms.
      - jetti 14y ago
        Wow...not sure how I completely missed that. But I did just hear the sound of a "whoosh" as the original thread went right over my head :(
- mikeash 14y ago
  Trademark is fundamentally about consumer confusion. The whole point of even having trademarks is so that when I e.g. buy a fizzy drink labeled Coca-Cola, I can be reasonably assured that it was made by that company, and is not some knockoff. Similar or identical names can be used in different markets without trademark difficulty as long as there's no potential for confusion. Or such is my limited understanding. Facebook doesn't get to own the letters "FB", but they do get to own those letters in contexts where use of those letters would confuse people into thinking that the product in question comes from Facebook. Calling your new line of leaf blowers "FB" would probably be fine, but calling your browser extension specifically targeted at facebook.com "FB" is begging for trouble.
  - at-fates-hands 14y ago
    There are actually eight different factors which the courts use as a "test" for infringement. Of those eight, I would say a majority fail the infringement test for Facebbook. Mainly because "FB" is not part of its primary trademark. Thus, the "FB" presents a weak case for the "Strength of the plaintiff's mark." element. Here are those 8 factors for argument sake: http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/infringe.html#elements http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/infringe.html#elements
fbpdev 14y ago
hi saurik, i am the fbp dev, thanks for the critique and advice, to be honest, i don't know much about trademark law, but then again i expect 99% of the population dont either.
davorak 14y ago
Considering that it would almost certainly count as a parody I would imagine it would be project under the 1st Amendment at least in the US. Do you know of cases where tarde marks that were considered parody were still ruled as illegal in the end?
- saurik 14y ago
  It is not clear if you just see "fbpurity.com" that this is parody, so it would be difficult to make that claim for the domain name, which kind of needs to stand alone as it is rendered alone. I do agree, however, that this person is unlikely to fall into trademark straights on this name (I maintain it was just thrown into the list of complaints to make them longer and more imposing, which would then lead to longer trials and larger legal fees arguing if it ever came to that). The argument, however, was out of place.