Could Facebook Lose Its 'Facebook' Trademark After Being Too Aggressive In Trademark Bullying?
from the lamebook dept
We've talked in the past about Facebook's rather aggressive trademark theories, under which it appears to believe that any website that starts with "face" or ends with "book" somehow violates its trademarks. This is pretty excessive and I have trouble seeing how it meets the likelihood of confusion test in most cases. While it has filed some lawsuits, it's also directly opposing trademark filings at the USPTO. For example, it is currently arguing that the website Shagbook cannot trademark its name.Shagbook has filed its response to the opposition, which you can read below, but it hits back pretty hard, noting a few key points:
- Facebook should never have been allowed to trademark "Facebook."
The term was in common use in the English language well before Opposer began using the term in connection with its services. The term is used generically by many members of the public and by a wide variety of organizations. Because the term �facebook� was used by many parties descriptively and generically well before Opposer�s date of first use of the term, the term is generic and incapable of trademark protection under the laws of the United States.
- Facebook is engaging in trademark misuse and trademark bullying for anticompetitive reasons:
Opposer�s opposition should be denied under the equitable doctrine of unclean hands. Opposer has engaged in trademark misuse and trademark bullying by abusively using oppositions, litigation, and threats of the same to maintain a competitive market advantage. For these reasons as well as those outlined in Applicant�s counterclaims below, the opposition should be denied.
- There's no likelihood of confusion, especially since Shagbook is a dating site, and Facebook has explicitly said it is not:
There is no likelihood of confusion between Applicant�s proposed mark and the mark cited by Opposer even reading the description of Applicant�s services broadly. Alternatively, Applicant is only using the mark in connection with its online dating related services, and as such, there is no likelihood of confusion with respect to the actual services provided by Applicant as Opposer does not provide online dating services.
- Not only is 'Facebook' generic, the company itself has used it in a generic manner:
In addition to numerous uses by third parties, Opposer has actually used the term �facebook� in a generic sense, and is estopped from now claiming that it is not generic.
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
Speculative crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know you know this.
It's sort of like reporting "Obama Could Be a Secret Muslim." Sure, he *could* be, and some wackos argue that he is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your issue is not with the reporting - your issue is that you apparently 100% sure this filing will have no effect. But why are you so sure? This is a real filing in a real case over a real trademark dispute, and it raises some interesting and potentially convincing points - all of which you have failed to respond to.
So for people who believe this filing actually stands a chance, albeit a small one, what is so misleading or harmful about asking the question "could it happen"?
Sorry, I just don't see it. Yes, there's such a thing as bad reporting, but this doesn't strike me as a particularly egregious example or even an example at all. For that matter, it's not even reporting - it's an opinion piece analyzing the news. It's impossible to analyze an ongoing lawsuit without including a little bit of speculation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can see your point, the person you are responding to is probably drooling holding his wooden mace with his long superior members trying to figure out how to respond to the non-existent "Pirates should have everything for free." he somehow read in this article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Arrr!
Sorry, my Arrr! key seems to be stuck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Locate and press the any key once to fix that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First, I think the filing may very well be successful on the likelihood of confusion point.
However, I am reasonably certain that it will not be successful on any of the grounds that attack the validity of Facebook's trademark.
Now, I'm about to explain why I think those arguments are bad. But before I do, I'll note that nobody has given any reason as to why those arguments might be *good* or really given any analysis of the arguments.
This is typical. Argument put forth by the side asserting any IP rights, always criticized and any criticism given credence. Argument put forth by the side rejecting IP rights, no critical analysis whatsoever, but reported as "key points."
So, on to the merits:
First point: Whether a term was in common use or "used generically" prior to use as a trademark does not make a difference in whether the trademark is valid. For example, APPLE was used descriptively and generically prior to use as a trademark for use with computers or music. What matters is whether its use in connection with a particular product/service is descriptive or generic. The product Facebook provides is not "a facebook" as that term is used generically. It is a social networking website.
Even if it were descriptive, you can have trademark rights in a descriptive term if people come to associate that term with a particular source. Everyone on the fucking planet knows who FACEBOOK refers to when used in connection with Facebook.
Second point, the trademark misuse claim flies directly in the face of the respondent's best argument: that the websites are not competetive.
Third point, as I stated, this is a decent argument and might win, but it doesn't affect the validity of the FACEBOOK mark.
Fourth point, same as first. "Facebook" may be a generic term for something, but it is not a generic term for the services provided by Facebook.
The term was in common use in the English language well before Opposer began using the term in connection with its services. The term is used generically by many members of the public and by a wide variety of organizations. Because the term �facebook� was used by many parties descriptively and generically well before Opposer�s date of first use of the term, the term is generic and incapable of trademark protection under the laws of the United States.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next time, consider going straight to your actual argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Second, I don't think there's anything wrong with someone simply posting a summary of their opinion.
I do, however, think there is something wrong with requiring *only* those people you disagree with to provide a lengthy explanation of their position, while not requiring any similar support for the contrary position, even though nobody has provided any explanation of why that position could possibly have merit.
Next time, consider applying the same standards equally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's not snide? What qualifies as snide if not this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But I suppose that is beyond your abilities. Better to just stick to making irrelevant comments that contribute nothing to the discussion, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The story in the end isn't about Facebook. It's just Mike working for page views and pandering to the "sky is falling" crowd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd see it as more pandering to the "If only laws made sense and had relevance to the real world and how humans interact" crowd..... but that's just me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You think it refers to any old book of faces, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is NOT the point being discussed here. Nobody here has contradicted the likelihood of confusion bit.
It's the "Facebook could lose its trademark" bit that is being discussed in these comments. Is that off limits or something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then can you provide a single example of a point getting roundly destroyed? With so many examples you should have one handy for us to learn from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Numerous people here have acknowledged that FACEBOOK is a strong brand associated with Facebook. Yet, a term that is "generic" is "incapable of serving as a means 'by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others.'" See, e.g., In re Bongrain International Corp., 894 F.2d 1316, 1317 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Obviously, the term FACEBOOK is capable of distinguishing the social networking services provided by Facebook from, say, the social networking services provided by Myspace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Brand name is separate from a trademark.
Besides all that, being a trademark bully, hurts the overall image of Facebook.com
And another thing, this isn't a case where someone else is using the name "facebook", but rather just used "book" in their name.
Sure, you could say that they are lifting on the coattails of Facebook.com when going that route, but book is a very generic and broad term, even more so than facebook. And by objecting to a site using "book" or "face" in their name, just because Facebook.com has a trademark on the name Facebook, is just petty and silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nope, like you presumably I think of the well known site Facebook. On the other hand anything else I hear named including the standard English words "face" or "book" at most I will think "yeah so thats where they got the idea for the name from" if it happens to be a concatenation of 2 single syllable words rather than thinking of any association between the 2 that might induce any kind of "confusion".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Once again you're missing the point. Clearly the ones filing for the trademark that Facebook is objecting to think their arguments are not vague and have strong merit. Same goes for many people who are not you. Just because you disagree does not make you right.
They are asking the USPTO to decide, that sounds newsworthy to me. Again, because you think otherwise does not make you right. Perhaps you can give us a reason how the claims are vague or without merit, besides just your opinion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. Attorneys do not believe that every argument they file "has strong merit." They make the best argument they can under the circumstances, and hope for the best.
I mean, when someone makes a ridiculous claim against Google, Mike calls out the ridiculous nature of it. But when someone makes a ridiculous claim against Facebook (and against IP rights), it's not criticized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I hope you realize there is nothing contradictory between Mike thinking Facebook is evail and Mike criticizing the Winklevii. Right?
More to the point, I'm saying that Mike applies different levels of critical analysis depending on his preexisting prejudices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Absolutely. This. Sometimes I give Mike the benefit of the doubt and think he's just blind. But usually I think it's a conscious effort to misrepresent and spread FUD. Not to mention, spread an obvious pro-piracy point of view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So Mike not only has a point but his point is pretty strong. Learn to think my friendly Troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Learn to think indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The only potentially legit argument in the bunch is no likelihood of confusion.
That said, I've seen strange rulings out of the PTO/TTAB (and even the Fed. Circuit).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let me tell you a story from just a few years ago.
There was a Linux distribution called Lindows.
Microsoft sued for trademark infringement.
Lindows pointed out that Windows should never have been allowed to be trademarked.
Faster than you could say Anonymous Internet Troll the parties settled out of court. Lindows agreed to rename its company and product, and get this . . . Microsoft paid Lindows $20 Million.
Hmmm, Microsoft didn't seem to think it was speculative crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Microsoft_vs._Lindows
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In any case, anything Linux vs Windows related tends to Linux. Except maybe when you talk about compatibility as every single freakin company seems to think only Windows exist so Linux loses hard on these grounds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also, I wonder who "estimated" that $20 mil figure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Got it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You seemed to think it was pretty obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And it's relevant as how ClarkeyBalboa explained it. Whether it's right or wrong is not up to us to decide but up to a judge, if he or she gets a chance to do so.
Windows as a brand name is strong, about as strong or even more so than Facebook's brand name. Both are an established trademark. In the Windows-vs-Lindows case Microsoft decided to settle out of court in case the judge would rule against Microsoft and invalidate the trademark on Windows. Even though it's an already very much established trademark.
Facebook is a word very much like Windows. Very generic. The chances that a judge invalidates said trademark isn't 0. It's a real possibility, and one I'm sure Facebook will have to keep an eye on.
And who are you to decide whether a claim is meritless or not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It is pointing out to the other anonymous that I replied to that there is better than zero chance that Facebook could lose their trademark.
The point of my reply was to not be quite so confident that it couldn't happen. It could.
I hope that answers your question how it is relevant.
> I wonder who "estimated" that $20 mil figure?
Sorry, I don't understand what you are asking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Moreover, Microsoft buying a mark doesn't really show that at all. Whether or not Windows is or is not generic or descriptive in connection with an operating system (which is not shown one way or another by your example) does not show one way or another whether Facebook is generic or descriptive in connection with a social networking website.
The link you provided says it "is estimated" that Microsoft paid $20 mil for the Lindows mark, without any citation. Since I would be shocked if the settlement were not confidential, I'm wondering if that number just appeared out of the ether or what.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 4th, 2011 @ 9:10am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's help it along: everyone use "facebook" generically.
"Wow, that's some amazing facebook crap ya got there."
"Let me facebook and get back to you."
"I've got some more info that I want to facebook."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's help it along: everyone use "facebook" generically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"A facebook is a printed or online collection of photographs of people."
Similar to a yearbook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That doesn't mean that Facebook doesn't have a valid trademark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Or my trademark on Tire.
Or Chair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On PoV, I disagree with you about the validity of Facebook's trademark.
But I do actually agree with you that:
> That doesn't mean that Facebook doesn't
> have a valid trademark.
I would also point out that it doesn't mean Facebook DOES have a valid trademark either.
I was pointing out the weakness of trademarks like Mouse, Tire or Chair. Facebook is much closer to this end of the spectrum than to a strongly defensible trademark.
New, original words that are not part of the language (Xerox, Kleenex) are the strongest. Words like Facebook, Windows, Word, Tire, Chair are the weakest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also absolutely true.
A trademark like mouse, tire, or chair could be extremely strong if used in connection with, for example, perfume or motor oil.
"New, original words that are not part of the language (Xerox, Kleenex) are the strongest. Words like Facebook, Windows, Word, Tire, Chair are the weakest."
This is oversimplified and misleading.
arbitrary and fanciful words are generally classed together in terms of conceptual strength, such that a preexising work such as mouse might be just as conceptually strong as EXXON if used in connection with something completely unrelated to its dictionary definition.
Moreover, that spectrum ignores market strength. Even a highly descriptive mark (let's take the bait and say that Facebook is highly descriptive) can be a very strong mark through development of strong secondary meaning in the minds of consumers. IN fact, that is exactly what has happened with the Facebook mark.
Why, pray tell, would a mark with such a strong connection to a single source of social networking services in the minds of the public be invalid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But here, the website is an online facebook. The mark was at least descriptive, if not generic, as applied to the website. In order to register it, they needed to demonstrate secondary meaning - and at least arguably they did not have it, yet, at the time of the registration (certainly do now!). The registrar could conclude that the trademark was improvidently granted at the time.
Net effect - zilch. Even if the registrar agreed that the mark was descriptive and without secondary meaning at the time of original registration, it probably has since acquired secondary meaning.
The bottom line, in my view, is that the equitable arguments will not work. The best argument here is no likelihood of confusion, which should prevail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh well, hope Mr Zuckeberg or whatever you write gets it in the face and stops bullying ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"it probably has since acquired secondary meaning."
probably?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not going to happen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: not going to happen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your name is your description.
Although there are terms unlike face book that are ambiguous if you never heard it before. Such as face painting, is it a painting of a face or a painting on a face? But then... I guess face book is ambiguous, it could be a book MADE of a face or a face that looks like a book. What an odd condition that would be. I'd avoid a library in that case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your name is your description.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Your name is your description.
How about french fries? Are they made of french people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Sure. A "facebook" is a book colleges give out to students showing other students.
That doesn't mean that Facebook doesn't have a valid trademark."
hm... for some reason this doesn't seem to apply fairly to all words.
ex:
Sure. A "motorcycle" is a specific type of two wheeled vehicle.
That doesn't mean that Motorcycle doesn't have a valid trademark.
Actually, it does work and I'm going to start trademarking and collecting my trademarked websites names. All I can see is MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I sell handbags under the MOTORCYCLE trademark, then it makes no difference that the word "motorcycle" was previously used as a generic term for motorcycles.
Facebook is not providing facebooks. It is providing a social networking website.
You follow?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You follow?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this kind of crap is out of control, just more patent trolls, trying to stifle innovation never mind this is why "facebook" came about. he was frustrated his colleges "facebook" was taking to long to come online on 2004, if anything his college has a case against him. he just took it out of the realm of universities and gave it to the public, that being said they want to be able to help other companies and platforms use there "social networks" API to to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected. in there own mission statement. So what are we to assume freely use the API, just no part or whole of the name, or is this a ploy to sucker a whole bunch of people into an infringement case where they litigate against all parties for stealing there IP? Facebook has got to stand up and drop the frivolous suits or suffer the aftermath falling by the wayside of grater innovators, less they suffer the fate of myspace...becoming largly unimportaint in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why aren't they suing anything with 'yearbook', 'textbook', or similar in it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Inclusion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dating site?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
masnick is not a lawyer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: masnick is not a lawyer... good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: masnick is not a lawyer... good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: masnick is not a lawyer... good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
prior use of term "facebook"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Just Love The Smell Of Facepalm In The Morning ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't have an issue with Facebook defending the term 'Facebook' from being used as part of a legal name. I can understand them getting edgy about someone using a 'very' similar term for a very similar product (like calling the new social network 'Facebank' or something), but I have a problem with them attacking anyone who touches even part of that word even when those others are neither infringing nor competing.
If this case stands and Facebook can attack anything that has the word 'Face' in its name, then that means a LOT of existing companies/products will be coming under the gun. Will their next target be Face, the movie? Or perhaps they'll go after the FACE foundation or Kiss My Face or About Face Theatre or Face to Face?
And what happens after all those are cut down? do they start attacking companies/products that use the letters "ook" in their works? Or maybe any company whose name starts with an 'F'? Legal precedent never backs off, it only gets pushed harder.
I realize no one is going to read this but at least I had the opportunity to publicly say my piece, however belatedly. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]