3 ms·

This is not accurate. It's not how fair use works. Facebook can't automatically stop me from using the term "Facebook" to criticize or ridicule them, even if

by panarky 13y ago

This is not accurate. It's not how fair use works. Facebook can't automatically stop me from using the term "Facebook" to criticize or ridicule them, even if I say it on the internet or use it in a domain name. Naturally, it's complicated. If a site is easily confused for the real thing, or if it's commercial in nature, your fair-use claim gets much more difficult. There's a lot more detail here: http://www.chillingeffects.org/protest/faq.cgi http://www.chillingeffects.org/protest/faq.cgi

anigbrowl 13y ago
It's entirely accurate. I never claimed Facebook had an automatic right to stop you using its name. Also, your source doesn't even mention 'fair use.' That's because it's a defense to copyright infringement, not to trademark infringement.
- panarky 13y ago
  Your original statement is not accurate. You said "The solution is simply to pick a non-infringing name for the app ..." You imply that using "Facebook" in the name infringes their trademark. According to Chilling Effects, the plaintiff in a trademark infringement case generally must prove: 1) it possesses a valid mark 2) that the defendant used the mark 3) that the defendant used the mark in commerce 4) that the defendant used the mark in a manner likely to confuse consumers Use of a trademark is not sufficient to prove infringement. It's possible to use a company's name for non-commercial parody or criticism without getting shut down by intellectual property claims.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    Those 4 tests are easily met in this case. I don't feel like digging up a whole bunch of specific citations, but courts take a reasonably broad view of what might confuse consumers, and in this case the argument would be trivially easy to make because the 'facebook' in question is Facebook, if you see what I mean. If you don't think Facebook has a colorable case here then you're deluding yourself, and a close reading of the material at Chilling Effects will back that up. Picking a non-infringing name most certainly is the solution, because that will cost the guy little to no money and his economic losses from abandoning breakmyfacebook.com are trivial, most likely less than the cost of even filing a small claims court case to recover his economic loss. Facebook does not appear to have anything against his app per se, so there's no need to abandon his investment in that - he could just set up another domain called something like 'breakmysocialnetwork.com' and carry on where he left off.

by panarky 13y ago

anigbrowl 13y ago

It's entirely accurate. I never claimed Facebook had an automatic right to stop you using its name. Also, your source doesn't even mention 'fair use.' That's because it's a defense to copyright infringement, not to trademark infringement.

panarky 13y ago
Your original statement is not accurate. You said "The solution is simply to pick a non-infringing name for the app ..." You imply that using "Facebook" in the name infringes their trademark. According to Chilling Effects, the plaintiff in a trademark infringement case generally must prove: 1) it possesses a valid mark 2) that the defendant used the mark 3) that the defendant used the mark in commerce 4) that the defendant used the mark in a manner likely to confuse consumers Use of a trademark is not sufficient to prove infringement. It's possible to use a company's name for non-commercial parody or criticism without getting shut down by intellectual property claims.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Those 4 tests are easily met in this case. I don't feel like digging up a whole bunch of specific citations, but courts take a reasonably broad view of what might confuse consumers, and in this case the argument would be trivially easy to make because the 'facebook' in question is Facebook, if you see what I mean. If you don't think Facebook has a colorable case here then you're deluding yourself, and a close reading of the material at Chilling Effects will back that up. Picking a non-infringing name most certainly is the solution, because that will cost the guy little to no money and his economic losses from abandoning breakmyfacebook.com are trivial, most likely less than the cost of even filing a small claims court case to recover his economic loss. Facebook does not appear to have anything against his app per se, so there's no need to abandon his investment in that - he could just set up another domain called something like 'breakmysocialnetwork.com' and carry on where he left off.