Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.167.90.249

Forum Moderators: httpwebwitch & not2easy

Message Too Old, No Replies

Patent Office Agrees To Facebook's "Face" Trademark

     

bill

7:58 am on Nov 24, 2010 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Administrator bill is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month Best Post Of The Month



I have lost all remaining respect I might have had for the USPTO...
Patent Office Agrees To Facebook's "Face" Trademark [techcrunch.com]

Facebook is just a payment away from trademarking the word "Face." As of today the U.S. Patent And Trademark Office has sent the social networking site a Notice of Allowance, which means they have agreed to grant the "Face" trademark to Facebook.

[edited by: bill at 2:27 am (utc) on Dec 2, 2010]

Demaestro

10:45 pm on Nov 26, 2010 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member demaestro is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



Now it'll be illegal if I register facewhateverproduct.com and start offering 'whateverproduct' on that website, just because, as you pointed out, they might decide to offer the 'whateverproduct' in the future as well?!


Clearly you hold your position because you don't understand what you are talking about and you think this is something it isn't.

The passage I quoted is entirely incorrect. First it won't be illegal, it would be trademark infringement. Second it wouldn't even be trademark infringement. Selling products and offering Social Media services are not the same thing.

Apple tried the same crap when they started selling music and were in violation of Apple Record's trademark, despite promising in a settlement that they wouldn't ever sell music.... they tried saying that it wasn't a music service that they was just selling digital files. They got laughed out of court.

Like I said go make a website called AppleFace . com and sell dried out apples that look like old people faces and no matter what you think Apple nor Facebook will ever have a trademark infringement case against you... EVER, if even they go into the online dried apple business you would have already established your brand and they would have no claim, in fact you may even have a claim against them if they used face to brand their apples.

However, this is not what trademarks are about! You can not (or should not be allowed to) trademark a generic word in relation with a completely undefined future product or service of unknown online usage!


This is the only thing you got right.... and the trademark granted to facebook isn't about that either. They don't have an exclusive right to any future product offered online containing the word "face".... Where did you see that they do?

Maybe you and the rest of the reactionaries interpret this trademark like that but I promise you the law doesn't see it that way.

wildbest

9:35 am on Nov 27, 2010 (gmt 0)

5+ Year Member



They don't have an exclusive right to any future product offered online containing the word "face".... Where did you see that they do?

Well, go a few posts above and read your own words:

Wagering a guess I would say that they have made a corporate decision to brand their future products with the word "face" rather than "book"


but don't forget trademarks are issued within a context and are there to protect a brand or identity that hard work and money has gone into building.

Yeah. Exactly. But your brand or identity is 'facebook', not 'face'!

Obviously, if you have big money nowadays you can trademark whatever generic word you like without even bothering to offer a product under such a name! Obviously, the USPTO is for sale now...

davezan

11:30 pm on Nov 27, 2010 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



But your brand or identity is 'facebook', not 'face'!

Other than what any applicable law and legal decision, there's nothing really to bind them from wanting to expand, is there? If lots of users eventually (?) like what they're offering, why not?

If Facebook were to, say, announce they only intend to use the word Face for anything related to social networking only, will that be enough? Or will folks find that unbelievably outrageous anyway and why?

David

wildbest

6:56 am on Nov 29, 2010 (gmt 0)

5+ Year Member



If Facebook were to, say, announce they only intend to use the word Face for anything related to social networking only, will that be enough?

As already said, the Web itself is a social network! This is why what you say sounds to me like "they only intend to use the word Face for anything related to the Web"... A generic word is now excluded from all existing and future Web-related products and services. This is simply not acceptable!

davezan

12:27 am on Nov 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



As already said, the Web itself is a social network! This is why what you say sounds to me like "they only intend to use the word Face for anything related to the Web".

I suppose one can interpret it that way. What matters is what Facebook exactly stated in their TM application.

Whatever people's opinions about that, USPTO will be the final arbiter. If Facebook doesn't meet their requirements, then they don't get what they want.

BTW, you might want to object to Sir Branson's expansive use of Virgin over their existing and upcoming products/services. But he won't ever prevent anyone from using the word to refer to the mother of Jesus, or anyone who's still...well...uninitiated?

A generic word is now excluded from all existing and future Web-related products and services. This is simply not acceptable!

Which isn't exactly what Facebook stated in their app, though again one supposedly can interpret it that way. But...what they exactly stated is surely what they meant.

Amazing how words can mean to people, inspite of trying to categorically state what they want to say and/or do.

David
This 35 message thread spans 2 pages: 35