

As of today, Facebook is one step away from trademarking FACE - thinkcomp
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78980756

======
joshklein
"A trademark is a distinctive indicator used by a business organization to
identify that the products with which the trademark appears originate from a
unique source, and to distinguish from those of other entities." [1]

As Facebook has become a nearly universal popular phenomenon, do you really
have any expectation that another business using the word "face" for a product
in the realm of online communication and social behavior should be allowed to
conduct business? This isn't a patent on faces or anything crazy like that;
there's nothing particularly evil going on here. Implications on your tech
startup? Don't mooch brand equity from Facebook.

I mean, it would certainly be confusing to consumers to have, for example,
some sort of video chat with a name like Face ... hrm... time. Oh...

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark>

~~~
reinhardt
The problem is that "face" is a quite common word by itself, they didn't make
it up or pick it from some obscure source like "google" or "yahoo". It's
outrageous to claim ownership of a word on the whole Web centuries after it
entered the language, regardless of their popularity at this moment. What's
next, YouTube trademarking the use of "you" ?

(On second thoughts that wouldn't be so bad; I'm sick of all the wannabe
you*.com trying to piggyback on a silly name)

~~~
jerf
A lot of people here need to spend some serious time learning about
trademarks, for instance:
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm>

Stop panicking. Trademark abuse is not unheard of, but if anything we
technologists grossly overestimate how often it actually happens because we've
seen domain names getting "stolen", for various values of stolen, by claiming
trademark ownership over domain names. (And for that matter, much of the
"trademark abuse" is _really_ ICANN abuse rather than trademark abuse, it's
really ICANN's decision. If they take the domain name because of a bribe or
even "just because", you still wouldn't be able to do much.) But it's actually
an importan aspect of the law, and even if you're of a mind to throw out
patents and copyright entirely, you really need to stop and think some more
about throwing out trademarks. What a trademark boils down to is a mark that
allows you to identify when you are dealing with an entity. Trademark
violation is when you mark yourself in such a way as to cause people to
confuse who you are. There's hardly a model of society I can think of from the
rabid left to the rabid right and all the things that don't fit on that scale
where it's actually _desirable_ to let entities falsely masquerade as other
entities. Most of them are actually so deeply built on being able to identify
the people you are dealing with that you can't hardly even see it any more,
it's just part of the background fabric.

And yes, Lamebook and Facebook are very confusable. Don't ask your tech savvy
friends, just take a picture of the two websites, go somewhere that isn't a
tech hub, stop ten people on the street, and ask them if these sites look like
they are from the same company. You'll get your answer pretty quickly, I
think. Companies spin off subbrands all the time.

(And read the link carefully for _what it says_ , not what you think you can
twist it into if you read certain words in certain ways. Remember, your
arguments don't have to convince me, or convince some pathologically stupid
AI, they have to convince a _human judge_ , who has spent the past twenty
years listening to people trying to twist and bend the text of the law in
their favor.)

~~~
cabalamat
> _Lamebook and Facebook are very confusable._

Oh come off it. Next you'll be saying that people think "Microsoft sucks" is
an official Microsoft site, or that "Chimpy Bushitler" is the official name of
the previous US president. It's called parody, and anyone with two brain cells
to rub together gets it.

> _just take a picture of the two websites_

You don't even need that. Would any company call its own product "lame"?

~~~
biot
_> It's called parody, and anyone with two brain cells to rub together gets
it._

Or if you throw in a few more brain cells, it's called satire.

~~~
lwhi
.. or chuck just a few more into the mix, and realise that parody is a
satirical device :)

------
schwanksta
Interesting: The original application for "FACE" was filed in 2005, for a UK
social network called FaceParty. Doc:
[http://tmportal.uspto.gov/external/PA_TOWUserInterface/OpenS...](http://tmportal.uspto.gov/external/PA_TOWUserInterface/OpenServletWindow?serialNumber=78980756&scanDate=2008102939051&DocDesc=Application&docType=APP&currentPage=1&rowNum=29&rowCount=30&formattedDate=01-Dec-2005)

If you look at the documents, it seems as if Facebook scooped the mark up
around 2008:
[http://tmportal.uspto.gov/external/portal/tow?SRCH=Y&isS...](http://tmportal.uspto.gov/external/portal/tow?SRCH=Y&isSubmitted=true&details=&SELECT=US+Serial+No&TEXT=78980756#)

Can anyone more versed in trademark law parse out what exactly happened?

~~~
zach
Wow, you're exactly right. You gotta figure that once Facebook got some alert
trademark lawyers, they noticed that they had a problem, and eventually worked
out a deal to acquire ownership of the trademark.

Faceparty has a fairly interesting history as well:
[http://eu.techcrunch.com/2008/06/24/faceparty-tells-
critics-...](http://eu.techcrunch.com/2008/06/24/faceparty-tells-critics-to-f-
off-suspends-entire-site/) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faceparty>

------
JimmyL
They're applying for a trademark on FACE in the context of "Telecommunication
services, namely, providing online chat rooms and electronic bulletin boards
for transmission of messages among computer users in the field of general
interest and concerning social and entertainment subject matter, none
primarily featuring or relating to motoring or to cars".

The two things that immediately jump out at me from that are:

1\. What about FaceTime? Seems like that would fall under the category they're
applying for, unless Apple makes an argument that one-to-one video chat isn't
a type of "online chat [room] and electronic bulletin [board]" - although it
seems like that'd be splitting hairs and setting up for a whole bunch of
suits.

2\. What's the deal with the motoring/cars exception - is there already an
online chat forum about cars that's named Face-something?

------
there
_Telecommunication services, namely, providing online chat rooms and
electronic bulletin boards for transmission of messages among computer users
in the field of general interest and concerning social and entertainment
subject matter, none primarily featuring or relating to motoring or to cars_

i'm guessing they met opposition from a "face" trademark holder in a field
relating to motoring or cars.

~~~
zach
According to the documents, the EU trademark (#3852779) amended its class
after opposition based on likelihood of confusion from the Spanish version of
the (American) Automobile Association, RACE:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RACE_%28automobile_association%...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RACE_%28automobile_association%29)

They were then required to make the USA trademark have the same class.

------
moultano
Is this going to be their stock ticker symbol in an IPO?

~~~
Raphael
There's already a FACE on the NASDAQ, Physicians Formula Holdings.

How about FBOO? Like YHOO for Yahoo!.

------
ig1
They already have trademarks on poke and wall, I don't think they're trying to
be malicious, they're just trying to protect their brand.

They won't be able to stop people using Face in unrelated contexts, nor will
they be able to stop people who already use the word Face in their brand.

It will stop people creating product with names primarily being composed of
the word "Face" in a competing space with Facebook.

------
srbloom
So why does Facebook want to trademark this word? And what would be the
ramifications of this trademark? Would you have to pay a royalty every time
you used the word?

~~~
philwelch
_Would you have to pay a royalty every time you used the word?_

My last name is a trademark, and part of another trademark. I don't have any
problems as long as I don't try using it to sell juice. Or medical equipment.

There was a kid a few years ago called "Mike Rowe", though, who got in trouble
by putting up a web page and calling it "MikeRoweSoft".

~~~
aharrison
Note that Mike Rowe did pretty well on that deal:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_vs._MikeRoweSoft>

------
f1gm3nt
Feel bad for the guys the bought FaceMash.com

------
arihant
I feel like getting a trademark for letter "F". Then sue Facebook.

Jokes apart, is there an ALICE bot making decisions at USPTO?

The funny part is, this still won't stop Lamebook. :)

------
tlrobinson
Is "book" next? It seems yes:
<http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-20023684-36.html>

------
run4yourlives
Today, I read Matt's little post about the devolution of HackerNews and
wondered what he was going on about.

The ignorance in the comments on this story answered that question clear as
crystal. Sigh.

------
paulsmith
To what end?

