Zekksta said:
NO, for fuck sakes read the other replies in the thread that are pointing this out.
Unless you're starting a business called facebrochure.com then it won't affect you at all.
ANYONE BELOW THIS LINE WHO IS STILL MISINFORMED ABOUT WHAT THIS MEANS IS AN IDIOT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you read my edit at all? Or my replies to the others?
I was
exaggerating to point out
the ridiculousness of this situation.
Got it?
To quote my edit: "However, that doesn't take away from the fact that trademarking the word "face" would limit quite a lot of other companies from using it. Face is a common word, it would significantly impact business markets to have that no longer accessible to them."
And you're simply looking at the here-and-now aspect. Sure, it won't affect
you personally, but the fact is, they're trying to lay claim to the rights to using a common word for their company and only their company. As this behaviour raises in popularity, more and more companies will follow suit. It will get to a point where many major words are simply owned by the big corporations and the smaller businesses will suffer.
Vrach said:
Erm, I could be wrong here... but these trademarks are just for company/product names afaik? So, say, Apple couldn't go off and develop an application for iPhone called iFace and shit like that. I'm pretty sure Guild Wars has "Guild Wars" trademarked, but that doesn't mean you can't talk about guild wars in other games. EA probably has "Battlefield" and "Bad Company" trademarked, that doesn't mean war generals are thinking of a new way to call a battlefield or you can't post "this party sucks, I'm in such bad company right now" on your Twitter or sth.
That's exactly what it is. As I seem to need to keep restating, the original post was exaggeration of the problem. Why? Because it might not affect you now, but if this goes through, a company will now own a major word in the English language. "Guild Wars", "Bad Company" - those are phrases. Facebook is looking to trademark a word. Sure, "Battlefield" is a word as well, but I somehow doubt it is used nearly as often as "face".
Spot1990 said:
Ok the "the" example doesn't work because "the" isn't a prominent word in the title. Face is associated with Facebook, that's why they're not trying to trademark "book". Facebook aren't the first company to do this. They can trademark any word they have a solid case for (trademark!= copyright). A better example would be with the trademark no one can make a site called escapist-e-zine.com.
New life example doesn't work either because they're entirely different business. However a New life yoga place could probably have a case against Your Life yoga, assuming they could present a strong enough case that they're a major player and the use of the other companies name is trying to capitalise on their success.
Look, I don't mean to be rude, but this is clearly something you don't fully understand. Don't get so worked up about it, read up on trademark laws.
First off: Would it kill you to snip a post that massive? Now that I've got that out of the way, I shall move on:
I shall admit, "The" is the weaker part in the "The Escapist" example. However, I was working with a previous example already brought up by another user. My point was, in using that, was that "escapist" is not nearly as popular a term as "face". It wouldn't show the magnitude of how other companies would be affected. "The," however, is a lot more popular than "escapist" and is more likely to be used and affect companies were it trademarked.
Face is not necessarily associated with Facebook. Haven't you heard other people refer to that site as "Creepbook," "Stalkbook," etc? They don't need to mention "face" for you to understand what site they're referring to.
'that's why they're not trying to trademark "book".' Again, did you read the edit in my OP? It appears you didn't. Facebook is
also going after "book". This has been made apparent especially with Teachbook.com. Teachbook was created to help share "lesson plans, instructional videos, and online courses" with teacher all around the world. They are not trying to be a knock-off of Facebook. Yet they're still in legal trouble [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/7967323/Facebook-sues-Teachbook-over-name-similarity.html].
And I will admit I had been questioning the New Life example, myself. You're right, it doesn't work.
WrongSprite said:
Empireth said:
However, that doesn't take away from the fact that trademarking the word "face" would limit quite a lot of other companies from using it. Face is a common word, it would significantly impact business markets to have that no longer accessible to them. What about FaceCash [http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/03/facebook-facecash-aaron-greenspan-mobile-payments/]? Facebook seems relentless to keeping people off any sort of similar name.
Well no, something like FaceCash wouldn't be affected, this trademark is based on social networking.
Yet, FaceCash was listed in my source... Though, the quote that was given '"transmission of messages among computer users in the field of general interest and concerning social and entertainment subject matter," [in online chat rooms and electronic bulletin boards].'
doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be for social networking.
What about PlaceBook [http://blog.triptrace.com/press/placebook/]? They were not trying to be a knock-off of Facebook. Heck, they didn't even have a social component to their site. They were merely "a website full of books about location ? there were EcoBooks and TravelBooks and Fitness Books, Address Books, Scrapbooks" [courtesy of their blog, linked above]. And yet, Facebook demanded they change their name.
Ldude893 said:
Just like Tim Langdell and his "Edge" problem. It's been done.
That's a point! It has been done. However, it seems to be getting more and more common. Think about how, fifty years from now, so many companies will lay claim to common words. I do not envy entrepreneurs in that time.
Generic Gamer said:
Why is everyone so against trademarking a name? Look, would anyone honestly think that they could mimic another company's name and get away with it? I know it's fashionable for the young to be anti-establishment but this one makes sense. Apple is a trademarked word, you still use it. Why are you thinking 'face' is any different?
Look, what they're gunning for with this is sites that use face_____ or ____book to associate themselves with facebook. There's a string of 'adult dating' sites out there called "fuckbook" and similar things, that's what they're aiming for. Bear in mind that cases will still be judged individually.
EDIT: 3000th post...yay. Honestly I meant to start a thread with this but damn, lost count.
I'm not trying to be anti-establishment. I completely agree that Facebook should be trademarked. It's when it starts getting down to simply
words. Common words, at that. It's the limitations that will be set in place for new companies many years down the line that concerns me. I am, you could say, concerned for the welfare of establishments yet to be established.
But no, they're not just trying to save imitations. See above about PlaceBook.
[sup][sup]Also: Congrats on your 3000th post.[/sup][/sup]
Sud0_x said:
Gross misinterpretation by the OP and everyone* follows suit.
Man with every outraged comment I laugh a little and at the same time I die a little inside...
*Excludes the few here who moved up to big boy pants a long time ago and have the ability to grasp simple concepts
No, not misinterpretation, exaggeration. Difference.
Though, it does bring out the amount of people that seem unable to read. (I'm omitting those who posted before my edit in this statement.)
JamesBr said:
So why would it this matter to anyone on a day to day basis? Sure it'll prevent anyone from creating a forum or other social networking concept with the the word Face, but it won't mean anything to people simply chatting. For example, I could talk about any brand name I want in a chat room or forum (Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Wal-Mart etc...) and none of them are going to sue me for using their names. This is not quite how copyrights and trademarks work.
You're not banned from using the word in conversation (which is what language is used for 99% of the time), it simply becomes illegal to market a product with the name attached to it. And to be fair, the word Face as a prefix has become synonymous with Facebook in the context of a company name. I simply don't see why I should care that a company is copyrighting a word so that other people can't create a business by piggybacking on Facebook's success.
This has more in common with how you don't see other fast-food chains with Mc as a prefix, even though it's perfectly common in proper names.
Oh, it doesn't matter to people who are simply self-involved and are only concerned about what affects them on a day-to-day basis. You could quite simply ignore this fact and continue on your merry life, until you decide to make a company twenty-three years from now and you realize that the common words you wish to include in your company name have all been trademarked by other companies, following Facebook's example.
I'm merely concerned with what would happen if so many companies do decide to follow their lead and trademark the vast majority of common terms.
You're completely free to ignore this issue, though.