By accessing facebook, you agree not to use the word "book" without their permission.

In the updated facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities Update it states in the preamble.

. By using or accessing Facebook, you agree to this Statement, as updated from time to time

In section 5.8 it states

5.6 You will not use our copyrights or trademarks (including Facebook, the Facebook and F Logos, FB, Face, Poke, Book and Wall), or any confusingly similar marks, except as expressly permitted by our Brand Usage Guidelines or with our prior written permission.

Interestingly enough the Facebook brand usage guidelines also contains this nice little catch all clause

Don’t use Facebook’s Brand Assets in a way that is deceptive, harmful, obscene, or otherwise objectionable to Facebook.

I could write a book (tm) about how ridiculous this seems, but I wouldn't want to have to face (tm) the possibility that telling the world how slimy I think this is might be objectionable to f*c*b**k and I would be up with my back to the wall(tm).

Of course here is the really interesting part.. In order to see what there terms of service etc. are I have to access facebook, and by doing so I have agreed to be bound by it. So it seems to be a agreement of the form "By reading this agreement you have consented to be bound by its terms.

darn, there goes my idea of launching fbook. a place where people connect by having the same book in common.

i was also going to spam the crap out of it, and have kindle and amazon as partners so we could cram overpriced ebooks on it's members.

i was also going to sell everybody's private info to every marketing company known to man, such as what books people like, what books were flops, what age groups like what books, etc.

all sort of unethical stuff that you need to do to achieve the american dream.

Not sure how this is a current event.


Facebook Trying To Trademark “Face” and “Book,” Eventually Taking Away All Nouns
By Megan Friedman | @megancarol | August 27, 2010
newsfeed
techcrunch

But anyway, trademark law doesnt work like how you think it does. It is very much limited to avoiding consumer confusion.

Back in 2007, Paris Hilton got the trademark for "Thats Hot".
Again, it only applies where consumer confusion might occur, and you can use those works in any other aspect of daily life.

I just posted 5.6 on my wall with a nice F&CK FACEBOOK

see how long it takes to get canned

Originally posted by alfa1

Not sure how this is a current event.


Facebook Trying To Trademark “Face” and “Book,” Eventually Taking Away All Nouns
By Megan Friedman | @megancarol | August 27, 2010
newsfeed
techcrunch

But anyway, trademark law doesnt work like how you think it does. It is very much limited to avoiding consumer confusion.

Back in 2007, Paris Hilton got the trademark for "Thats Hot".
Again, it only applies where consumer confusion might occur, and you can use those works in any other aspect of daily life.

You are thinking about this as a normal, sane person. You have to learn to think of this as a IP troll lawyer would. But my bad for not stressing the part I found most hilarious -- the fact that you have to access facebook to read the terms of service which say that by accessing facebook you have agreed to them. There is an implicit problem here centered around the definition of "accessing facebook"

As for the current event thing -- it is an event and it is current and I didn't really think if counted as "breaking news" so... just a judgement call.

reply to post by metamagic


How much pushing will facebook have to do before people start leaving it? How ridiculous will it have to get before people think to themselves "Im better off not on FB"?

Im pretty sure under UK law, common dictionary words cannot be copyrighted or trademarked.

2nd line.

Don't see anything odd about that. People who know TM laws know that they are like a nazi version of copyright laws. Worst thing is that they can judge that if you do not protect your TM with enough efford a clear violation can be allowed to excist.