4 ms·

I would expect a product named Facemail to be something created by Facebook.

willchilcutt 13y ago
So did a third of other random people surveyed. You would not be in the majority apparently, and after seeing a logo or web page you would hopefully be able to figure out it is not created by Facebook.
- shrughes 13y ago
  It doesn't matter whether it's a majority. A third of people is a large proportion.
  - amirmc 13y ago
    So what's your point? Does this mean Facebook has some right to the 'face-' prefix? I strongly disagree. Might be worth looking over the history between Apple Corps and Apple Computer [1]. Who should have had the trademark there? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    There is only so much stupid you can engineer around, technically and legally.
- DanBC 13y ago
  If 20% said Apple, and 20% said Google, and 10% said YouTube, and the rest said "don't know" then a majority did think it was Facebook.
  - aaronbrethorst 13y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_(voting) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_(voting)
    - DanBC 13y ago
      ...and yet, it doesn't matter. 36% were confused by FACEMAIL, and 0% were confused by THINKMAIL. 29% is considered enough to be confusing.
amirmc 13y ago
> "...what company they thought made a product called FACEMAIL. Only 36.2% chose Facebook, Inc" So you're in the 36.2%. Was there another point you were trying to make? (fwiw, I'd be in the 63.8% of that poll).
matthuggins 13y ago
And I would not.
thinkcomp 13y ago
I think the question is whether you find yourself confused by the fact that Apple makes FaceTime while Facebook makes Facebook (and Think makes FaceCash). At some point, and this is why the Star Trek / Star Wars example matters, consumers realize that the prefix is generic within the scope of a given market. Telecommunications and faces overlap a lot these days.
- Ellipsis753 13y ago
  Personally I would think that FaceTime and FaceCash were made by Facebook Inc. (As I had actually never heard of either of those). I also thought that Star Trek and Star Wars were related or the same thing for most of my childhood. I didn't want Star Wars because I'd seen Star Trek on TV and not liked it (I was young). It's just something people do (or at least I do). I think it's maddness to prevent the use of names starting with "Face" because of this confusion. I thought that iPlayer was apple related like iTunes for a long time. It's confusing yes but I don't feel you should be able to prevent someone using a similar sounding name.
rickhanlonii 13y ago
I would expect a product named Facemail to be something created by Facebook either less than or as much as I would expect a product named Facetime to be something created by Facebook. When we start making these decisions more heavily on the subjectivity of users more than objectivity (e.g. the colors would be completely different, and if they aren't then a trademark infringement could be filed at that time), then we're just giving the free market to large corporations. The more popular a brand is, the more likely more people are to associate related names/colors/symbols to that brand. Trademark law simply does not exist for cases like this. It exists to prevent genuine outright infringement.
- DanBC 13y ago
  > Trademark law simply does not exist for cases like this. It exists to prevent genuine outright infringement. The link steps through the decisions, and gives case law for the reason. Which step do you disagree with? EDIT: The link says clearly that a well known mark gets more protection just because it is well known.
  - rickhanlonii 13y ago
    I don't disagree that a well known mark should get more protection because it is well known--otherwise people could just trademark every word in the dictionary and enforce it with equal weight as Google. But OP wasn't using Facebook, he wasn't using Facebok, he wasn't using Facbook, he wasn't pretending to be Facebook, we wasn't competing with facebook, he wasn't using the colors, the image, or anything related to the brand. No, he was punished (i.e. the government used force against him to hider his free market ability) for using a name that started with Face. That's simply not a threshold that we, as a society, should accept as protected--no matter the popularity of the brand, no matter the laws a group of 435 people influenced heavily by corporations have managed to actually pass. Besides that, the ruling is by it's very nature a subjective decision. I disagree with their subjective decision.
gee_totes 13y ago
Wait, but there is a product created by Facebook... @facebook.com e-mail addresses[0]... which is what imagine what a Facemail product would do https://www.facebook.com/help/224049364288051 https://www.facebook.com/help/224049364288051
RexRollman 13y ago
Maybe it's for the best, since Facebook sucks and I would expect something called Facemail to suck as well.
darkarmani 13y ago
Well they did create facetime, right?

So did a third of other random people surveyed. You would not be in the majority apparently, and after seeing a logo or web page you would hopefully be able to figure out it is not created by Facebook.

shrughes 13y ago
It doesn't matter whether it's a majority. A third of people is a large proportion.
- amirmc 13y ago
  So what's your point? Does this mean Facebook has some right to the 'face-' prefix? I strongly disagree. Might be worth looking over the history between Apple Corps and Apple Computer [1]. Who should have had the trademark there? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  There is only so much stupid you can engineer around, technically and legally.
DanBC 13y ago
If 20% said Apple, and 20% said Google, and 10% said YouTube, and the rest said "don't know" then a majority did think it was Facebook.
- aaronbrethorst 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_(voting) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_(voting)
  - DanBC 13y ago
    ...and yet, it doesn't matter. 36% were confused by FACEMAIL, and 0% were confused by THINKMAIL. 29% is considered enough to be confusing.

amirmc 13y ago

> "...what company they thought made a product called FACEMAIL. Only 36.2% chose Facebook, Inc" So you're in the 36.2%. Was there another point you were trying to make? (fwiw, I'd be in the 63.8% of that poll).

matthuggins 13y ago

And I would not.

thinkcomp 13y ago

I think the question is whether you find yourself confused by the fact that Apple makes FaceTime while Facebook makes Facebook (and Think makes FaceCash). At some point, and this is why the Star Trek / Star Wars example matters, consumers realize that the prefix is generic within the scope of a given market. Telecommunications and faces overlap a lot these days.

Ellipsis753 13y ago
Personally I would think that FaceTime and FaceCash were made by Facebook Inc. (As I had actually never heard of either of those). I also thought that Star Trek and Star Wars were related or the same thing for most of my childhood. I didn't want Star Wars because I'd seen Star Trek on TV and not liked it (I was young). It's just something people do (or at least I do). I think it's maddness to prevent the use of names starting with "Face" because of this confusion. I thought that iPlayer was apple related like iTunes for a long time. It's confusing yes but I don't feel you should be able to prevent someone using a similar sounding name.

rickhanlonii 13y ago

I would expect a product named Facemail to be something created by Facebook either less than or as much as I would expect a product named Facetime to be something created by Facebook. When we start making these decisions more heavily on the subjectivity of users more than objectivity (e.g. the colors would be completely different, and if they aren't then a trademark infringement could be filed at that time), then we're just giving the free market to large corporations. The more popular a brand is, the more likely more people are to associate related names/colors/symbols to that brand. Trademark law simply does not exist for cases like this. It exists to prevent genuine outright infringement.

DanBC 13y ago
> Trademark law simply does not exist for cases like this. It exists to prevent genuine outright infringement. The link steps through the decisions, and gives case law for the reason. Which step do you disagree with? EDIT: The link says clearly that a well known mark gets more protection just because it is well known.
- rickhanlonii 13y ago
  I don't disagree that a well known mark should get more protection because it is well known--otherwise people could just trademark every word in the dictionary and enforce it with equal weight as Google. But OP wasn't using Facebook, he wasn't using Facebok, he wasn't using Facbook, he wasn't pretending to be Facebook, we wasn't competing with facebook, he wasn't using the colors, the image, or anything related to the brand. No, he was punished (i.e. the government used force against him to hider his free market ability) for using a name that started with Face. That's simply not a threshold that we, as a society, should accept as protected--no matter the popularity of the brand, no matter the laws a group of 435 people influenced heavily by corporations have managed to actually pass. Besides that, the ruling is by it's very nature a subjective decision. I disagree with their subjective decision.

gee_totes 13y ago

Wait, but there is a product created by Facebook... @facebook.com e-mail addresses[0]... which is what imagine what a Facemail product would do https://www.facebook.com/help/224049364288051 https://www.facebook.com/help/224049364288051

RexRollman 13y ago

Maybe it's for the best, since Facebook sucks and I would expect something called Facemail to suck as well.

darkarmani 13y ago

Well they did create facetime, right?