

Facebook Threatened Me With $100,000 Suit - hawkharris
http://codyromano.com/facebook-threatened-me-with-100000-suit/

======
bonemachine
Not defending (or critiquing) FB's action here. But the original posting
presents a very muddled telling of what FB actually did:

 _Today Facebook ordered me to dismantle a not-for-proft webapp that I created
several weeks ago. The firm’s legal counsel sent me a cease and desist email
this afternoon, insinuating that Facebook could fine me $100,000._

If you take a minute to actually read the letter that was sent by FB's
counsel, it's pretty clear that:

(1) they aren't telling him to "dismantle" his webapp. They're just saying he
can't use "Facebook" in the domain name he chose for that app. This is
something very different.

(2) they also aren't threatening that they (FB) will directly "fine" him for
anything. What they're doing is pointing out that under certain applicable
laws, he can (in their view) be subject to certain penalties (payable to the
state, presumably -- not too Facebook). Again, something very, very different.

~~~
ddebernardy
Was about to post the same remark.

OP is whining that he received a C&D for using `facebook` in his domain name.
Well... Duh. Cry. Me. A. River.

Had he called it breakyourfbfeed.com, he'd have never gotten that letter.
Perhaps FB would have gotten in touch for violating their AUP or something --
and gotten a shitstorm for doing so. But not for trademark.

------
anigbrowl
_I don’t know enough about intellectual property law to determine if a judge
would agree that my small side project is a fair-use parody._

Well, at least he's honest. Fair use is not a defense to _trademark_
infringement. You can't use other firms' trademarks as part of yours, and
firms are obliged to respond to such infringement because if they don't, they
won't be able to sustain claims against more malicious infringers.

The solution is simply to pick a non-infringing name for the app and spend a
little effort on marketing it. Letting the domain die isn't exactly a big
financial sacrifice, since registering it probably cost no more than $20; I'm
not sure how the author thinks he's entitled to sell it. I also don't have
much sympathy for his tone argument, since the letter is pretty gentle and
provides a clear explanation of the legal basis of his claim, while
acknowledging that his infringement was probably unintentional.

~~~
panarky
This is not accurate. It's not how fair use works.

Facebook can't automatically stop me from using the term "Facebook" to
criticize or ridicule them, even if I say it on the internet or use it in a
domain name.

Naturally, it's complicated. If a site is easily confused for the real thing,
or if it's commercial in nature, your fair-use claim gets much more difficult.

There's a lot more detail here:
[http://www.chillingeffects.org/protest/faq.cgi](http://www.chillingeffects.org/protest/faq.cgi)

~~~
anigbrowl
It's entirely accurate. I never claimed Facebook had an automatic right to
stop you using its name. Also, your source doesn't even mention 'fair use.'
That's because it's a defense to _copyright_ infringement, not to trademark
infringement.

~~~
panarky
Your original statement is not accurate.

You said "The solution is simply to pick a non-infringing name for the app
..."

You imply that using "Facebook" in the name infringes their trademark.

According to Chilling Effects, the plaintiff in a trademark infringement case
generally must prove:

    
    
      1) it possesses a valid mark
      2) that the defendant used the mark
      3) that the defendant used the mark in commerce
      4) that the defendant used the mark in a manner likely to confuse consumers
    

Use of a trademark is not sufficient to prove infringement.

It's possible to use a company's name for non-commercial parody or criticism
without getting shut down by intellectual property claims.

~~~
anigbrowl
Those 4 tests are _easily_ met in this case. I don't feel like digging up a
whole bunch of specific citations, but courts take a reasonably broad view of
what might confuse consumers, and in this case the argument would be trivially
easy to make because the 'facebook' in question is Facebook, if you see what I
mean. If you don't think Facebook has a colorable case here then you're
deluding yourself, and a close reading of the material at Chilling Effects
will back that up.

Picking a non-infringing name most certainly is the solution, because that
will cost the guy little to no money and his economic losses from abandoning
breakmyfacebook.com are trivial, most likely less than the cost of even filing
a small claims court case to recover his economic loss. Facebook does not
appear to have anything against his app _per se_ , so there's no need to
abandon his investment in that - he could just set up another domain called
something like 'breakmysocialnetwork.com' and carry on where he left off.

------
x0054
He should not have to drop his domain. Trademark law states that you can not
use someone else's trademark if it would cause consumers to confuse your
business for the trademark holder's business. I doubt FB would be able to
prove in court that any consumer would go to breakmyfaceboom.com and think
that it's the real FB page operated by FB.

It's probably not worth fighting over, but if I were google, I would offer to
indemnify this guy and pay for an attorney, just to fuck with FB.

~~~
notalawyertm
yep....people don't understand TM law......if I was him i'd start by searching

"Federal court (9th circuit) - Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. v. Tabari, 610
F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2010)"

...and send a reply letter saying "I don't think people are going to confuse
us but just in case in rder to settle this suit i'm now placing a message at
the base of each page saying "This page/app is not endorsed by or owned by
Facebook inc"

Will buy you time....as well us run up their legal bills as they will float
your response up a level before deciding the next move.

------
sejje
>The cease and desist order has affirmed my decision and crystallized my
dislike of Facebook as a company.

The cease and desist order should have nothing to do with affirmation of your
decision to quit wasting time, nor your view of Facebook. They're required to
pursue trademark violations if they wish to retain it.

Change the name, sir.

------
scott_karana
He could easily take over a user's Facebook account if he so choose,
considering that "breaking" the account is using a random string that you're
supposed to forget, which he then returns to you in plain text...

That alone would probably warrant a close look at the site, notwithstanding
the name issues.

------
intslack
Make it a Gripe site and tell them to fuck off

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gripe_site](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gripe_site)

------
debt
If you want to avoid lawsuits then don't use the very trademarked "Facebook"
in the name of your app.

------
Jugurtha
It's not companies that "fine". Second, you can change your website to
something like "unplug.me" or something.

Furthermore, the word "Facebook" has been added to the Oxford Dictionary which
may play in your favor. It's been added as a verb. I'm not a lawyer, but I
think you can use it that way too. Something like "unfacebook.me" .. But I'm
just keyboard jockeying.

