FaceBook now own the word Face

Facebook have been trying for ages to shut down websites with the word Face or Book in their address and now it seems that have been given some help by the Patent Office who has granted them the use of the word "Face" as an official Trademark

Businesses thinking of including "face" in their name might want to reconsider. Facebook this week was granted a notice of allowance to trademark the word "face."

Link

What do people think of this? Is it fair to stop other sites piggybacking off of the success of FaceBook? or is this one more step into Copyrighting madness?

I'm assuming their going to be going after Apples "FaceTime" first

So what about companies that have used the word before Facebook?

Pretty stupid if you ask me.

CX.

Seems like they have already successfully sued people before the Trademark was granted

Sites like
Teachbook
PlaceBook
and even Faceporn

I think the world had gone mad, seriously, when we were gearing up to host the FIFA worldcup 2010 here in SA this year, we had major drama as we weren't allowed to use those words, do you realize what the implications are of not being able to use the year 2010 during the year 2010 ... anywhere? Obviously that thing of theirs got canceled for obvious reasons and after a lot of fighting. ie how is a country, hosting it, supposed to advertise it, if they can't use those words? Now FB is up to the same? ... I am positive, the world has gone mad, and FB will never be able to hold on to this.

How ridiculous! I have heard it all now.

From The PC site:

...Businesses thinking of including "face" in their name might want to reconsider. Facebook this week was granted a notice of allowance to trademark the word "face."

Facebook now has six months to file a statement of use (SOU), which is a sworn statement signed by Facebook attesting to use of the mark in commerce, according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Without the SOU, the application will be abandoned...


It is unlikely that the Executive at facebook would be stupid enough to pursue this Statement Of Use.

Only in America department.

reply to post by Belcultassi


Why wouldn't they pursue it? Surely it gives them an open invitation to sue multiple people and win easily?
I doubt their worried about their public image it's about as low as it can get already and people still flock to it!

hope i dont get sued for my fan site dedicated to the action film face/off. the patent office sided with the billion dollar business? how did facebook pull that off?

I wonder if they will try to sue cook-book.com or thegoodbook.com ?

reply to post by Cyberspy

Retrospectively suing the ATeam might get them some money too!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8a3f67a480fe.jpg[/atsimg]

I recently setup a trademark for one of my clients, One of the rules is Generally used words CAN NOT be solely trademarked, and must be in conjunction as a whole phrase or name.

Face and book separately are commonly used names so should not be allowed to be trademarked, hense why neither has been trademarked in the past.

However Facebook, can be trademarked.

This is accordance with the trademark rules of the united states.

However this does not mean facebook didn't somehow trademark "face", meaning they can sue any company now with "face" in there legal name.

Remember the ones with the money make the rules.

reply to post by thewholepicture


Here is the legal document from the TradeMark office.

I would have thought that trademarking commonly used words wouldn't be allowed either just on the grounds of common sense, as you said it seems that facebook has got around that rule

Here is an e-mail I got from the trademark association regarding a disclaimer.

Though this doesn't have anything to do with the subject at hand, something to note might be that they have a right to reject any application.

So my thinking is that Face may have been attempted to be trademarked in the past but rejected since "face" is a common word.

But with money from facebook being thrown there way they decided to accept this one.

DISCLAIMER

Applicant must disclaim the descriptive wording “INC” apart from the mark as shown because it merely describes the entity type of the applicant. Trademark Act Section 6, 15 U.S.C. §1056; TMEP §§1213 and 1213.03(a).

Business entity designations such as “Corporation,” “Inc.,” “Company,” and “Ltd.” must be disclaimed because they merely indicate applicant’s entity type and generally do not function to indicate the source of goods or services. TMEP §1213.03(d); see, e.g., Goodyear’s India Rubber Glove Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co., 128 U.S. 598, 602-03 (1888); In re Patent & Trademark Servs., Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1537, 1539-40 (TTAB 1998); In re The Paint Prods. Co., 8 USPQ2d 1863, 1866 (TTAB 1988).

A mark is merely descriptive under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose or use of the relevant goods and/or services. In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Bed & Breakfast Registry, 791 F.2d 157, 229 USPQ 818 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re MetPath Inc., 223 USPQ 88 (TTAB 1984); In re Bright‑Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591 (TTAB 1979); TMEP §1209.01(b).

A mark that describes an intended user of a product or service is also merely descriptive within the meaning of Section 2(e)(1). Hunter Publishing Co. v. Caulfield Publishing Ltd., 1 USPQ2d 1996 (TTAB 1986); In re Camel Mfg. Co., Inc., 222 USPQ 1031 (TTAB 1984); In re Gentex Corp., 151 USPQ 435 (TTAB 1966).

The Office can require an applicant to disclaim exclusive rights to an unregistrable part of a mark, rather than refuse registration of the entire mark. Trademark Act Section 6(a), 15 U.S.C. §1056(a). Under Trademark Act Section 2(e), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e), the Office can refuse registration of the entire mark where it is determined that the entire mark is merely descriptive, deceptively misdescriptive, or primarily geographically descriptive of the goods. Thus, the Office may require the disclaimer of a portion of a mark which, when used in connection with the goods or services, is merely descriptive, deceptively misdescriptive, primarily geographically descriptive, or otherwise unregistrable (e.g., generic). TMEP §1213.03(a).

If an applicant does not comply with a disclaimer requirement, the Office may refuse registration of the entire mark. TMEP §1213.01(b).

A “disclaimer” is thus a written statement that an applicant adds to the application record that states that applicant does not have exclusive rights, separate and apart from the entire mark, to particular wording and/or to a design aspect.

The appearance of the applied-for mark does not change.

A disclaimer does not physically remove the disclaimed matter from the mark, but rather is a written statement that applicant does not claim exclusive rights to the disclaimed wording and/or design separate and apart from the mark as shown in the drawing.

The computerized printing format for the Office’s Trademark Official Gazette requires a standardized format for a disclaimer. TMEP §1213.08(a)(i). The following is the standard format used by the Office: No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “INC” apart from the mark as shown. See In re Owatonna Tool Co., 231 USPQ 493 (Comm’r Pats. 1983).

If the American government does run facebook, and there's some plot to destroy the language with something like newspeak from the story of 1984, the meanings of those words will change in time.

Maybe so they can own your face, via facebook, and eliminate books from existence?

reply to post by Dissent


I do wonder if they are going to trademark the "book" part next. Surely there must have been tons of community websites with the word book in the address before facebook? or maybe not

Shoot, I'm going to trademark the word "site" and "online".

I could sue a crapload of website owners then.

reply to post by davespanners


Makes me happy I never used facebook or myspace or any of these worthless networking sites.

reply to post by davespanners


It's madness that a company can own the rights to a normal word in our language.

Equally as insane is a company owning the rights to an original Pig gene.

Madness. It's coming to your town soon!

I hate copyrights and trademarks... and this story is proof of why.

At least they didn't give them the right to own the word 'book'. That would be even more retarded than this already is.

And I thought it was bad when Donald Trump trademarked the phrase 'you're fired'...

That's moronic. That's just as bad as the lady who now "owns the sun". Like I said in that thread, WTF is wrong with people? I'm so sick of BS like this, mostly because it leads to even more ridculousness. I don't even understand the point of "owning" words, planets etc... what the hell are you going to do with them once you own them. Brag about it? Sue people? Stuff like this almost makes me wish for an apocolypse. It's too much.