Facebook Asserts Trademark On "Book" In New User Agreement 197
jbrodkin writes "Facebook is trying to expand its trademark rights over the word 'book' by adding the claim to a newly revised version of its 'Statement of Rights and Responsibilities,' the agreement all users implicitly consent to by using or accessing Facebook. The company has registered trademarks over its name and many variations of it, but not on the word 'book.' By inserting the trademark claim into the Facebook user agreement, the company hopes to bolster its standing in lawsuits against sites that incorporate the word 'book.'"
woah (Score:5, Interesting)
Now this is brash. Read what they actually say:
"You will not use our copyrights or trademarks (including Facebook, the Facebook and F Logos, FB, Face, Poke, Book and Wall), or any confusingly similar marks, except as expressly permitted by our Brand Usage Guidelines or with our prior written permission."
Notice something? Yes, this goes far beyond what the trademark laws actually cover. According to trademark law, a trademark is specific. Meaning I could very well name something entirely unrelated that they don't produce and that has no potential of confusion "facebook". Say, a sausage.
Their statement contains no limitations whatsoever. Legally speaking, if you're a builder and you have a FB account, you now need to get FB's permission for your work, because you agreed to not use the word "Wall" without their permission. Or, according to #6 of their Brand Usage Guidelines, if you have a business with the word "Book" in it, say "Freddie's Used Books", you have to rename.
I understand their intentions, they want to have an easier time fighting copycats like, say, Mugbook or Assbook or Pornbook - but like lawyers do, they cast the net as wide as possible. But this is ridiculous.
IANAL, but I do have business experience reading and interpreting legal texts.
Re:woah (Score:4, Interesting)
Now this is brash. Read what they actually say:
"You will not use our copyrights or trademarks (including Facebook, the Facebook and F Logos, FB, Face, Poke, Book and Wall)
IANAL either, but I note that they're not claiming that "by accepting this agreement you agree that Book (etc.) is our trademark and yadda yadda....", i.e. they're not actively requiring the user to accept or directly agree with the assertion that they own those trademarks.
It may be argued that by implication the user is accepting this anyway, but I'm not convinced. If that isn't the case, then does including the assertion in the user agreement give it any more strength than claiming elsewhere that they own those trademarks?
What the implication is of this would be though, I don't know.
Re:Crazybook (Score:5, Interesting)
More books: ,Daybook, Fakebook, Guidebook,
Audiobook, Bankbook, Bluebook, Casebook, Cashbook, Chapbook, Checkbook, Codebook, Cookbook, Datebook,
Handbook, Hornbook, Hymnbook, iBook, Lawbook, Logbook, Matchbook, Netbook, Notebook, Overbook, Passbook, Playbook, Pocketbook,
Powerbook, Prebook, Promptbook, Psalmbook, Rebook, Schoolbook, Scrapbook, Sketchbook, Songbook, Sourcebook, Storybook, Studybook,
Stylebook, Textbook, Wordbook, Workbook, Yearbook
What were they thinking? As this kind of legal assertion is not allowed in many countries where actual people are in charge, It seems it may invalidate other
parts of the agreement as well.
Not just copycats (Score:4, Interesting)
Teachbook and placebook were not copycats, and that's just two I can think of off the top of my head.
Having been invited to FB and passed, all the way back when enrollment was only open with an ivy league .edu or an invite, and resisted all pressure to sign up and join the herd since, I cant help but gloat a little every time I am proven correct, yet again. /me gloats.
I believe it's a useful service, and I will be happy to give it a try when it's provided in a manner consist with my basic values, but as long as it amounts to voluntarily handing over all information to a company like facebook it cannot be worth the price.
Re:Crazybook (Score:5, Interesting)
And, you forgot Facebook.
Huh?
The word "facebook" was in use for decades before Zuckerman came along and ... copied it from then-common usage among colleges for a book that contains the photos of the freshman class. I have a handful of copies of my undergraduate school's facebooks still, which state "facebook" on the cover from when Zuckerberg was a come-hither look in his mother's eyes. I never understood how the company got their initial trademark given the widespread existing usage when it was issued.
Re:Book this! (Score:4, Interesting)
Someone needs to register both fuckbook.com and fuckfacebook.com. I suggest we stop calling it "facebook" and simply refer to both it and Mark Zuckerberg as "fuckface."
I'm glad I never signed up. Fuck facebook, and fuck Mark Fuckerberg.
Re:Book this! (Score:4, Interesting)
Kinda makes me wonder what will happen when most of these unsavory websites wisen up and stop using .coms.
I'm starting to see more domain hacks (made-up example, "funga.me") and outright foreign domains for stuff that might be considered illegal or unsavory content. It's a smart move, really, all things considered. There's not really anything all that special about .com anymore.
I also wonder... well, let's say a site has a .com and they buy, Idunno, a .it domain. The .com now only contains a redirect to the .it. Does the US have any standing over the contents of the stuff hosted on the .it domain simply because the .com links to it?
.com may very well end up being abandoned altogether by any websites doing stuff the States doesn't like.