Facebook Sues Faceporn, Apparently Believing It Owns The Words Face & Book
from the so-my-bookface-site-is-a-nonstarter dept
Earlier this year we covered how Facebook was suing a site called Teachbook.com, claiming that any social network that ended in "book" was infringing on its trademarks. It's continued to do so, with at least a threat against the site Placebook. Of course, it seems that it's not only the "book" that Facebook claims ownership of, but the "face" part as well. Reader marak was the first of a few of you to point to the news that Facebook is suing the site Faceporn for trademark infringement (the article says copyright, but I'm pretty sure it means trademark -- isn't a publication like PC Mag suposed to understand the difference?).
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
how many 'face' names can you name
is that infringement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: how many 'face' names can you name
Seriously, if judges could even act like morons in a hurry, this kind of crap wouldn't plague us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: how many 'face' names can you name
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: how many 'face' names can you name
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: how many 'face' names can you name
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look and Feel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Look and Feel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Uh, oh, Sesame Street is in trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wonders.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wonders.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wonders.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
there ARE other body parts
By seriously, why should any company be given any kind of monopoly on a word? Words are part of our common language and a common culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm actually surprised such a simple concept is being missed by so many people. But hey, that's why I usually read the articles on TechSoil, another site that has absolutely no infringement on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
* I don't know the exact legal language, but basically a reasonable likelihood of confusion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
even worse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The scary thing is...
So I have to ask, should we really call this an innovative strategy by having them sue every porn service that has "Face" or "book" in their name?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The scary thing is...
And what's up with Facebook trying to lay claim to the word "book?"
After all, Facebook is many things, but "book" is not one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if we're going to allow trademarks...
Granting a monopoly on words in common usage is not good.
Especially when you consider that some words have more than one meaning.
Fantasy writers make up names all the time. If you want to own a word, make up your own, don't steal mine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously though, who the hell do they think they are? Does anyone have a link to those pictures? The one's showing the sites are similar?
And harking back to sesame street reference, does that mean the colour blue is out from their line up now as well?
Or perhaps facebook now has the copyright monster? *nom nom nom*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RTFA
Facebook said that Faceporn " blatantly copied the Facebook logo, site, and Wall trademark," said court documents. In screen shots included with the court filings, Faceporn does have elements that are similar to Facebook such as a Wall and a blue and white design. Although users can't poke one another, they can "send a flirt."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's a style of design, not facebook's art!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a daft standard
I remember a billboard ad ages ago in London. Arty black and white pic of Gabriella Sabatini (women's vollyball player... probably why I remember), sweaty with ball under arm on left of poster, block text on right "The shirt only gets wet from the inside" with Nike swoosh logo on the middle of the text. On double sites this was often paired with a Mum (roll-on deodorant) ad in identical style next to it - Black and white pic of Mum roll-n, Mum logo and text "Not if WE have anything to do with it".
Now probably it was an agreed deal and likely the same ad agency did both, but did it in any way make me think Nike and Mum were affiliated? Not in the slightest, it just struck me as a very clever piece of advertising - almost enough to make me think about using Mum deodorant.
F*ckwits though many think Facebook might be, seriously? Oh look, Facebook have started doing porn? Or if you made the connection would you simply assume it was a parody at worst and move on?
And yes I think this could be seen as a cunning innovative strategy for marketing. Perhaps Ms. Streisand should patent it... probably enough meat there for a patent these days don't you think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a daft standard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What a daft standard
*grin* couldn't possibly comment. Although I assume if they did it'd go 1 of 3 ways:
1. They'd do it within the facebook brand
2. They'd create a different brand but it's advertising would be all over facebook 3. They'd create a different brand and go out of their way to ensure that it had no links or styles or anything whatsoever in common with facebook
For that reason a glance suggests to me immediately it's nothing to do with them. Unless it's a double-bluff!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This lawsuit over trademarking a generic words needs to be turned down.
If the letters of the alphabet were to be trademarked, we will be forced to have a full frontal lobotomy and become like zombies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FayceBoooK? Catchy! (They can have that one for free ;-) )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Funny. Come on, anonymous Coward, you're not being serious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
traffic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]