Facebook says it owns "book", suing startups using [generic]book.tld

Re:Facebook says it owns "book", suing startups using [gener... by pixelbath on Thursday August 26, 2010 @10:22AM (#1635972)

Since "facebook" is already a generic term for "a reference book or electronic directory made up of individuals' photographs and names," I don't see how they can make much of a strong branding claim (though I will certainly agree that "Facebook" is a more popular usage than "facebook").

I'd be hard-pressed to think of this as anything except poor planning when choosing the name. This is not really a case of brand dilution like Xerox, Scotch Tape, or Band-Aids. Guess you should have thought of that earlier, Zuck?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/facebook

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook says it owns "book", suing startups using [gener... by ck2 on Thursday August 26, 2010 @10:52AM (#1636079)

In fact, part of their success ironically is because of the generic nature of their name.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook says it owns "book", suing startups using [gener... by chopsueyar on Thursday August 26, 2010 @11:53AM (#1636278)

How so?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook says it owns "book", suing startups using [gener... by jesselamb on Thursday August 26, 2010 @12:33PM (#1636413)

When is comes to trademarks, there's really no such thing as an intrinsically generic term. A term can only be generic as it relates to a good or service. So the term "facebook" is generic as it relates to "a reference book or electronic directory made up of individuals' photographs and names," but not necessarily as it relates to other things, like the modern social network. Under the framework we use in the U.S., "facebook" is probably a suggestive mark as it relates to social networks, which means that it deserves instant and relatively strong protection.

I've described the framework here: http://notmylawyer.com/post/248307917/choosing-a-valid-trade...

[ Parent | on HN ]