reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
I cannot disagree that Teachbook has more relevance than Facebook but trademark infringement has nothing to do relevancy. That's exactly why I
shared the story in my previous post about the guy and his trademarked name. Just because "Facebook does nothing to raise the intelligence level of
society" doesn't allow someone else with a valid purpose to infringe upon their trademark. From the information in the suit, It's implied that
they chose their name knowing that people would recognize it and associate it with Facebook. Since some teachers are discouraged from using Facebook
for school related functions they probably thought they could draw some teachers to Teachbook, which also has chat, blogs and a forum, along with
other useful, teacher specific items.
are labeling Teachbook as a "social-networking upstart" which isn't helping
Teachbook in my opinion. It has some social networking features but is more than a social site. The article also mentions the following, which I
think Facebook is wrong on since there's no social networking involved and it's an entirely different business. It was settled out of court from
what I can ascertain. It would have been interesting how the courts would have ruled.
Facebook doesn’t seem to be focused solely on social-networking sites, either. It leveraged its financial weight earlier this month to demand an
upstart travel site to rename itself from Placebook.
They changed their name to triptrace but I thought this was funny.
"We still think of ourselves as PlaceBook or, if you chose to pronounce it differently so it doesn't rhyme:
his take on the subject if you're interested.
was dated August 26, 2010: 5:54 PM ET
Facebook recently hit the 500 million member mark. By contrast, Teachbook's site said 47 members were online Thursday morning.
Currently, Teachbook shows 2379 guests and 71 members online (the number of guests jumped by 100 in about an hour). They mention the number of
Facebook members but then the number of members online for Teachbook. It's a poor comparison and I can't help but wonder if Teachbook only had 47
guests this morning and the breaking story led the masses there. The website hasn't officially been launched but is doing so in the fall of this
year. They are getting a bunch of publicity from this story and I wonder how or if that changes anything.
A rep for Facebook said the company doesn't claim to own rights to the word "book," as it has no complaint with titles like Kelley Blue
"However, there is already a well-known online service with 'book' in the brand name that helps people connect and share," the Facebook rep said
in an email.
I agree with what's said there although I don't see how placebook falls into that alleged philosophy. In my mind, and somewhat according to theirs,
the following list which is continued from a few already posted should not have issues with their name having "book" in it because it's not
infringing on a trademark, similar market or otherwise; with the exception of the last two. Otherwise they will have an awful lot of court dates
which I hope would rule against them.
Facebook - social networking site
Quickbooks - accounting software
Kelly Blue book - value of vehicles
Yellow Book - phone directory
Google books - online bookstore
BookFLIX - online literacy resource
eBook - digital bookstore
MacBook - laptop made by Apple
Black Book - Public records
biggestbook - business product website
iBooks - electronic bookstore for Apple iproducts
Blue Book - building & construction network
World Book - intergrated reference tool
RedBook - womans magazine and website
JokeBook - joke website
Vetbook - veterinary resource
kbook - online dating
Teachbook - online teacher resource and teacher social networking site
reply to post by muzzleflash
Of course the law supports trademarking a word and has for a long time but it doesn't stop you from using it in everyday life. Don't quote me on
the language as I'm not a trademark lawyer but you can't use it in a commercial setting for marketing or otherwise generating income. Why
shouldn't McDonald's be allowed to trademark "I'm lovin' it" to protect other businesses from using the phrase and campaign that they paid an
advertising agency to come up with? You and I can still say it and type it but we can't prosper from it and I think that's fair. It's
intellectual property within a specific setting.
I'd be surprised if you hadn't heard of these popular infringement cases.
Super Bowl infringement
Let's get ready to rumble infringement