When Does a Company Become "Too" Big...?

12 replies
Facebook Own the word "book"... apparently...

Thought a lot of you would like to see this:

Facebook sues social media site with ‘book’ in name | Chicago Breaking Business

Steve
#big #company
  • Profile picture of the author zerofill
    Well if that is true. I imagine they never learned anything from watching Microsoft trying to make the word "Windows" a trademark...

    EDIT: Actually the story might even be fake to create a buzz... hehe
    Signature
    Serp Shaker
    The IM World Will Be Shaken to the Core!
    Join my list at: IMCool.Biz
    New Podcast --> podcast.imcool.biz
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2539191].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Wonderful Warrior
    I'm on Facebooks side on this one.

    They even gave warning a year in advance.

    The social media site knew EXACTLY what they were doing and tried to use the "book" as a gimmik which Facebook spent billions of dollars to brand.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2539196].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Landis
    they dont own it, but they are trying to. i dont think they will ever be granted that trademark, its too broad.
    Signature

    buying bulk warm seo leads (PM me)

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2539199].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Wonderful Warrior
      Originally Posted by carpetmuncher View Post

      they dont own it, but they are trying to. i dont think they will ever be granted that trademark, its too broad.

      There was a Starbucks case where starbucks won

      There was a coffee shop called .XXXXBucks don't remember the first part

      They existed BEFORE Starbucks and still HAD to change their name.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2539213].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Landis
        Originally Posted by Wonderful Warrior View Post

        There was a Starbucks case where starbucks won

        There was a coffee shop called .XXXXBucks don't remember the first part

        They existed BEFORE Starbucks and still HAD to change their name.
        I just did some very brief research into this, and i couldnt find anything about them having their name BEFORE starbucks. In fact, I agree with the ruling in the SAMBUCKS VS STARBUCKS case because I can see how it would cause confusion (sambucks logo was very similiar in design and color to starbucks logo). On the other hand, facebook will never own the trademark for books because then every author, bookstore, etc would be infringing that trademark. It just makes no sense.
        Signature

        buying bulk warm seo leads (PM me)

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2539367].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
          Banned
          Originally Posted by carpetmuncher View Post

          I just did some very brief research into this, and i couldnt find anything about them having their name BEFORE starbucks. In fact, I agree with the ruling in the SAMBUCKS VS STARBUCKS case because I can see how it would cause confusion (sambucks logo was very similiar in design and color to starbucks logo). On the other hand, facebook will never own the trademark for books because then every author, bookstore, etc would be infringing that trademark. It just makes no sense.
          If Starbucks won the case, Facebook will probably also win the case. The scenario is exactly the same. Starbucks does not own bucks, but when part of their trademark is used in the same category as their own, they have a case.

          In the case of the Facebook case, the other site is a social networking community, and being in the same category as Facebook, they used a part of a famous trademark, when it would have been simple to just make up their own name.

          "The BOOK component of the Facebook mark has no descriptive meaning and is arbitary and highly distinctive in the context of online communities and networking Web sites," the filing says. "If others could freely use 'generic plus BOOK' marks for online networking services targeted to that particular generic category of individuals, the suffix BOOK could become a generic term for 'online community/networking services' or 'social networking services.' That would dilute the distinctiveness of the Facebook Marks, impairing their ability to function as unique and distinctive identifiers of Facebook's goods and services."

          This is not the first name-related suit that Facebook has launched. A similar suit was filed against Placebook, which has since renamed itself Trip Trace.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2539558].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by Wonderful Warrior View Post

        There was a Starbucks case where starbucks won

        There was a coffee shop called .XXXXBucks don't remember the first part

        They existed BEFORE Starbucks and still HAD to change their name.
        AMAZON bookstore ALSO had to give up any ability to keep THEIR name on the internet!

        I wonder how AMAZON restaurants feels!

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2540647].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Colin Palfrey
    It is important to remember that it is not the actual word "book" in the URL that is the problem. It is context and the content of the website itself that causes the problem.

    For instance Facebook will probably win this one, but if they took on a mom and pop book shop because they used the word "book" in their URL, they would lose.

    Its not just the word, but the way it is used.

    I know this is all blindingly obvious to most of you, but I just thought I would mention it for newbies.
    Signature

    I write articles and eBooks - PM me for details!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2539608].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jamjar919
    I'm sorry, but I'm with facebook on this.

    It's basically stealing an idea. I's not the word, It's the context it's used in. You wouldn't launch a search site called zoogle would you? If it was an article site called zoogle then thats fine.

    A social network with the same "generic plus book" looks a bit copycat and could encorage others to do the same.
    Signature

    Feel free to ask me any IM related questions or add me on skype :D
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2539649].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Steve Holmes
    I agree the problem is the context in which the name is used and what for.

    On first glance you would think it is over the top to go after a company with 20 users signed up but, perhaps they are concerned it would set a precedent.
    Signature
    "Live like you'll die tomorrow, Learn like you'll live forever" - M. Ghandi
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2539957].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
      Originally Posted by Steve Holmes View Post

      I agree the problem is the context in which the name is used and what for.

      On first glance you would think it is over the top to go after a company with 20 users signed up but, perhaps they are concerned it would set a precedent.
      Although I'm not a lawyer, at one time I did have motivation to do some serious research on trademarks...

      Starbucks won their case, and Facebook will likely win theirs as well. As I recall, one of the criteria for trademark infringement is the probability of creating confusion in the marketplace.

      Steve, you are absolutely correct here. The size of the company they go after has nothing to do with it.

      A company that fails to protect its trademark stands to lose it. If they let the "company with 20 users signed up" violate their trademark, they could end up trying to compete with many more xxxxxxbooks. Any future company, if sued, could simply point back to the little company and tell the judge FB failed to enforce their trademark in that instance. Why should they be able to enforce it now?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2540581].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    GEE, don't start a recovery firm called aboutFACE.,com!

    BTW IBM did *******NOT******* win their trademark ifringment case against IBM!!!!!!!

    It's TRUE! I actually WORKED on IBMs computer system. IT wasn't even made by IBM! It was made by DEC, one of IBMs COMPETITORS! How is THAT for confusing! How is THIS! Don't worry about the fact that IBMs system was made by DEC, one of IBMs BIGGEST competitors at the time! DEC was NOT one of IBMs competitors!

    OK, IBM LOST its case against IBM because the judge said there would be no confusion because IBM and IBM weren't even in the same business!

    IBM, aka International Business MACHINES, was a LARGE INTERnational company that dealt primarily with computer software/hardware, computer services, and computer consulting.

    IBM, aka International Business MANAGEMENT, on the other hand, was a relatively small widely NATIONAL company that dealt primarily with business services, and business management.

    So you see, nobody could confuse IBM with IBM because IBM was so different from IBM, never mind that they both effectively had the SAME name!!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2540682].message }}

Trending Topics