3 ms·
It's product confusion that matters. Facebook doesn't have video, so it shouldn't matter. Facebook doesn't really have email, so i'm not sure how they claim i
by darkarmani 13y ago
It's product confusion that matters. Facebook doesn't have video, so it shouldn't matter. Facebook doesn't really have email, so i'm not sure how they claim it is confusing. No one says, "go sign up for email on facemail, oh i mean facebook."
- DanBC 13y agoIn this case there is Facebook (huge, very well known) and someone else (not so huge, not so well known) so it seems obvious to me that there's a chance for confusion. People are quoting the 36%, but do we know what the other two 3rds said?
- jasonlotito 13y agoExcept there are news articles about Facebook's email, as referenced in the report.
- thinkcomp 13y agoIncorrect on two counts. It's the international classification code overlap that matters, and likelihood of confusion, not product confusion. There could be no actual confusion here because the FACEMAIL trademark was filed on an intent-to-use basis. And Facebook does have video features. https://www.facebook.com/videocalling/ https://www.facebook.com/videocalling/