Someone needs to shoot the USPTO in the face™
-
-
@Linked site said:
Of course, the trademark for Face is nothing new. Facebook has already trademarked "Like" and "Wall."
What? WHY?
-
Those trademarks are only applicable in the context of social networking, so it's hardly an absurd application of trademarks. (In fact one could argue this is precisely the intent of trademarks.) Nothing to see here, move along.
-
@derula said:
What? WHY?
a) because they can, and b) because that's The American Way. Which is why you can't call any organisation <whatever> R <anything> without getting your butt sued off and being forced to cease and desist: even if you're a small butcher in a small town in the UK who decides it would be funny to call your shop 'Sausages R Us.' (yes, really) I may have the details slightly wrong on that example, but there definitely WAS an infringement case along those lines a few years ago in the UK. Damned if I know how US jurisdiction applies here, but then again, if the other side can afford $000-per-minute lawyers, are you really going to try to fight the case?
-
@Zecc said:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/11/24/facebook-plans-trademark-word-face/
This is exactly the purpose of trademarks. What is supposed to be face-punch-worthy here?
Or are you just upset that your startup social network "facelike" has to be renamed now?
-
My question is: Why is there a page dedicated to dinosaurs on foxnews.com? Is there that much news related to ancient reptiles/birds/debated animals? Who's browsing foxnews.com, 7-year-olds?
-
@Heron said:
Those trademarks are only applicable in the context of social networking, so it's hardly an absurd application of trademarks. (In fact one could argue this is precisely the intent of trademarks.) Nothing to see here, move along.
Sure, but:
The company must first pay an issue fee, and submit a statement explaining how it uses the word face.
"In this category, there are already 34 other trademark applications that have a face component,"
So Facebook won't be able to block all other faces -- because Mark Zuckerberg doesn't have the very first face.
So Facebook isn't the first and won't be the last. In fact they may not even be there, since (I admit I'm guessing here) they haven't used the word yet other than as part of their name. So what's the use?
Besides, trademarking the word "face" in the context of social networking (assuming the trademark is limitedto this context) sounds a lot like trademarking the word "money" in the context of accounting software or the word "cold" in the context of icecream products.
-
Trademark is one of the fews areas of intellectual property rights that doesn't seem to be going off the rails. Of patent, copyright, and trademark, trademark is the only one that protects almost everyone. The only reason you can buy an item of a quality brand at a store and be reasonably assured that you got what you paid for is trademark rights.
-
It's OK, I'm going to trademark the word "bitch" and take Mark Zuckerberg to the cleaners...
-
@derula said:
@Linked site said:
Of course, the trademark for Face is nothing new. Facebook has already trademarked "Like" and "Wall."
What? WHY?
So if I ever liked™ to hit Mark Z.'s face™ against a wall™, I cannot do that without paying him royalties first?
-
@shimon said:
@derula said:
@Linked site said:
Of course, the trademark for Face is nothing new. Facebook has already trademarked "Like" and "Wall."
What? WHY?
So if I ever liked™ to hit Mark Z.'s face™ against a wall™, I cannot do that without paying him royalties first?According to the article:
In Facebook's case, the trademark would cover "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."
So you should be fine if you don't talk about it on the internet, or if you somehow involve a motor or car.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Zecc said:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/11/24/facebook-plans-trademark-word-face/
This is exactly the purpose of trademarks. What is supposed to be face-punch-worthy here?
Or are you just upset that your startup social network "facelike" has to be renamed now?
Well, trademarks aren't supposed to be granted for "descriptive" terms. It's hard to see how "like" is not a descriptive term here.
-
I guess Friendface will have to change its name.
-
@Cad Delworth said:
@derula said:
What? WHY?
a) because they can, and b) because that's The American Way. Which is why you can't call any organisation R without getting your butt sued off and being forced to cease and desist: even if you're a small butcher in a small town in the UK who decides it would be funny to call your shop 'Sausages R Us.' (yes, really) I may have the details slightly wrong on that example, but there definitely WAS an infringement case along those lines a few years ago in the UK. Damned if I know how US jurisdiction applies here, but then again, if the other side can afford $000-per-minute lawyers, are you really going to try to fight the case?I think everyone could afford lawyers who cost $0 per minute.
-
Agree, that's totally ridiculous. At the end it also says they've trademarked "like" and "wall." So I guess that means they'll sue google now, since youtube uses "like" for its video ratiings? ....
Look up James Randi on youtube, he's got some choice words for the USPTO
It used to be about intellecutual property...now it's about bogus HHO engines, homeopathic quacks and lawsuit happy companies like Lamebook looking to squash competition. Facebook = Lamebook...so sue me assholes! i may just delete my account now.
-
This has virtually nothing to do with intellectual property. This is about trademarks, which are (as previously mentioned) the only reason you can buy a product at the store and be reasonably certain of its quality. You know how there are knockoff watches labelled "Bolex" imitating Rolex watches? Imagine if there were no restrictions on other companies using the "Rolex" name; you would have no idea whether the watch you're buying is actually made by Rolex or a knockoff company.
It's possible they could try to get Google to license their trademark on "like", if they could convince Google that Youtube is a social network. I doubt Facebook really wants to take it to court; having a judge define what comprises "social networking" could be disastrous for them.
Does anyone know whether YouTube had a "Like" button before Facebook?
-
@Heron said:
It's possible they could try to get Google to license their trademark on "like", if they could convince Google that Youtube is a social network.
I doubt that's their intent. I think they probably want more fuel for going after phishing sites. Trademark law is an effective weapon against phishing, at least the dumb ones who host their sites in the US.
-
@Jaime said:
trademark is the only one that protects almost everyone. The only reason you can buy an item of a quality brand at a store and be reasonably assured that you got what you paid for
Agrred. And it makes perfect sense for "Facebook" to be trademarked. Howver, trademarking the individual words "face" or "book" is just wrong.
-
@Heron said:
Does anyone know whether YouTube had a "Like" button before Facebook?
All I know is that I *saw* Youtube's Like button several months prior to my *noticing* Facebook-blue Like buttons popping up everywhere.
It is not conclusive, but it's a data point.
-
I can't say I'm totally OK with the idea of trademarks "protecting" buyers (oh thank you rolex to *protect* me !)... but still : OK for trademarking a complete product name (like "facebook") and wanting to be the only company who uses it.
Besides, like other said, trademarking basic concepts who happen to exist for eons... it is totally absurd. When will they try to trademark the four elements, gods, or life itself ?
In France, our national phone company "France Telecom" (formerly public but sold to capitalist sharks years ago) has changed its name to "Orange". And they managed to trademark the orange color... WTF ?!
Somewhat related : I heard some (extremely extremely silly) people have bought land properties on the moon... WHAT THE FUCK ?!
-
@toshir0 said:
In France, our national phone company "France Telecom" (formerly public but sold to capitalist sharks years ago) has changed its name to "Orange". And they managed to trademark the orange color... WTF ?!
It just means that they are the only telecom company in France that can use that shade of orange in their advertizing and marketing campaigns. Nothing more.
-
@toshir0 said:
Besides, like other said, trademarking basic concepts who happen to exist for eons... it is totally absurd.
Trademarks aren't patents. You have two entirely different types of intellectual property confused. You're getting upset over nothing.
And, please, please know what you're talking about before replying.
@toshir0 said:
When will they try to trademark the four elements, gods, or life itself ?
I wager all of those things are probably already trademarked, probably a dozen times each. Off the top of my head, Adobe has a trademark on "Air."
@toshir0 said:
In France, our national phone company "France Telecom"
Ah, this explains a lot.
How's the rioting going?
@toshir0 said:
And they managed to trademark the orange color... WTF ?!
Yes, colors can be trademarked.
@toshir0 said:
Somewhat related : I heard some (extremely extremely silly) people have bought land properties on the moon... WHAT THE FUCK ?!
Those people are just stupid. The odds their claims will be honored should a moon colony ever arise are (and I'm being generous here) 1/100000000. And even if they were honored, they'd still have to raise up enough cash to get there.
There's a well-known company here in the US that lets people name stars. They tell people it's genuine because they register the book of star names with the US Copyright Office. They're relying on customers like you who have no idea how IP laws work.
-
@toshir0 said:
I can't say I'm totally OK with the idea of trademarks "protecting" buyers (oh thank you rolex to protect me !)...
Trademarks are the only reason you can buy Kellogg's Frosted Flakes at the store and be reasonably sure it's not a super-cheap chinese ripoff made out of flour and the blood of orphans.
So, yeah, trademarks really do protect you, in a very real and obvious way. Even in France.
-
@Heron said:
@toshir0 said:
I guess it depends on whether you think that trademarks are a decent substitute for proper food quality regulations.I can't say I'm totally OK with the idea of trademarks "protecting" buyers (oh thank you rolex to *protect* me !)...
Trademarks are the only reason you can buy Kellogg's Frosted Flakes at the store and be reasonably sure it's not a super-cheap chinese ripoff made out of flour and the blood of orphans.
So, yeah, trademarks really do protect you, in a very real and obvious way. Even in France.
-
@DescentJS said:
I guess it depends on whether you think that trademarks are a decent substitute for proper food quality regulations.
Substitute? No. Complement? Definitely. Remember, just because "counterfeit" food passes quality regulations does not mean it is what it claims to be, nor does it mean it matches the nutritional claims of the actual product.
It would not be good for a nutrition-less paste to masquerade as Jiffy-brand peanut butter, even if the nutrition-less paste passes food quality regulations.
-
Likewise, without proper trademark protection, any old internet user with an anger management problem could write up his fumes and label it a "Blakierant" to confuse us. Then we'd waste our time on the fraudulant post instead of finding joy in fighting with the genuine Blakeyrant™. Who would want that? Trademark protection prevents such deceptions.
-
@DescentJS said:
Trademarks allow companies to create reputations. They are not quality standards themselves. Some people think of Rolex as a quality watch, some think of it as over-priced shiny metal that proves the wearer is a snob. Either way, when you see a Rolex watch at a reputable store, you know what it is.@Heron said:
@toshir0 said:
I guess it depends on whether you think that trademarks are a decent substitute for proper food quality regulations.I can't say I'm totally OK with the idea of trademarks "protecting" buyers (oh thank you rolex to *protect* me !)...
Trademarks are the only reason you can buy Kellogg's Frosted Flakes at the store and be reasonably sure it's not a super-cheap chinese ripoff made out of flour and the blood of orphans. So, yeah, trademarks really *do* protect you, in a very real and obvious way. Even in France.
-
@Heron said:
@DescentJS said:
Are you saying that isn't what that stuff is already?I guess it depends on whether you think that trademarks are a decent substitute for proper food quality regulations.
It would not be good for a nutrition-less paste to masquerade as Jiffy-brand peanut butter,
-
@DescentJS said:
Are you saying that isn't what that stuff is already?
Actually peanut butter is quite healthy. It's full of monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats (both of which we need in moderate amounts in order to survive), and of course it's high in protein. But we're getting off topic.
-
@Heron said:
Actually peanut butter is quite healthy. It's full of monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats (both of which we need in moderate amounts in order to survive), and of course it's high in protein. But we're getting off topic.
I wonder why they didn't include peanut butter in Fallout 3!
-
@toshir0 said:
Besides, like other said, trademarking basic concepts who happen to exist for eons... it is totally absurd. When will they try to trademark the four elements, gods, or life itself ?
Neither new, nor restricted to the US or France. Here's an example from my bank's website: @ANZ said:
In France, our national phone company "France Telecom" (formerly public but sold to capitalist sharks years ago) has changed its name to "Orange". And they managed to trademark the orange color... WTF ?!
ANZ's colour blue is a trade mark of ANZ.
But note that it's not a trademark on any instance of something blue, but on the particular shade of blue that ANZ uses. I've seen similar things before, usually on specific Pantone shades. Indeed, I think my own company did the same thing at one point - of course the latest corporate rebranding exercise saw us drop the use of those colours anyway.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Trademarks aren't patents. You have two entirely different types of intellectual property confused. You're getting upset over nothing.
I guess you're right. I made the confusion.@blakeyrat said:
And, please, please know what you're talking about before replying.
I guess you're wrong. I'm not carving in marble the Tables of the Law, I'm just chatting with you psychopaths, armadillos, and geeks. If noone ever wrote errors or stupidities here, what would you eat ?@blakeyrat said:
@toshir0 said:
Cheap french bashing. When reading your usual posts, I had imagined you had a brain. I must have assumed too much.In France, our national phone company "France Telecom"
Ah, this explains a lot.
-
@toshir0 said:
psychopaths, armadillos, and geeks
Fool! You fool!! It's not an armadillo, it's a pangolin, a nocturnal mammal of the genus Manis!! Why don't you know what you're talking about before replying!?! RAGE! RAGE AND SCORN FOR YOU!!! I'LL KILL YOU IN YOUR SLEEP!!The real question is, do French pangolins eat healthy peanut butter?
-
@Xyro said:
The real question is, do French pangolins eat healthy peanut butter?
Every morning. Between two slices of radioactive cheese. It helps digesting the snail jam.
-
@toshir0 said:
I guess you're wrong. I'm not carving in marble the Tables of the Law, I'm just chatting with you psychopaths, armadillos, and geeks. If noone ever wrote errors or stupidities here, what would you eat ?
Armadillo? Animal identification fail.
@toshir0 said:
@blakeyrat said:
@toshir0 said:
Cheap french bashing. When reading your usual posts, I had imagined you had a brain. I must have assumed too much.In France, our national phone company "France Telecom"
Ah, this explains a lot.
Don't confuse bashing with trolling. I've been to France and it was very nice... for me to poop on!
-
@blakeyrat said:
Armadillo? Animal identification fail.
Yeah, armadillo, pangolin, cockroach, whatever.@blakeyrat said:
I've been to France and it was very nice... for me to poop on!
As I see we have another interest in common, I accept being your dear friend.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@toshir0 said:
I guess you're wrong. I'm not carving in marble the Tables of the Law, I'm just chatting with you psychopaths, armadillos, and geeks. If noone ever wrote errors or stupidities here, what would you eat ?
Armadillo? Animal identification fail. @toshir0 said:@blakeyrat said:
Don't confuse bashing with trolling. I've been to France and it was very nice... for me to poop on!@toshir0 said:
Cheap french bashing. When reading your usual posts, I had imagined you had a brain. I must have assumed too much.In France, our national phone company "France Telecom"
Ah, this explains a lot.Seattle is totally depressing, people not even bother to ask about the wheather 99% raining. Also if get sick ask to be transfered to another state, apparently every doctor there is too self centered to care and is busy getting shot at, laid, or recovering from a disease or PTSD. On the other hand pooping is nice
-
@serguey123 said:
Seattle is totally depressing,
Yep.
@serguey123 said:
people not even bother to ask about the wheather 99% raining.
But at least we're literate!
@serguey123 said:
On the other hand pooping is nice
I think we should create a book to promote international pooping tourism.
