snubbr.com

GoDaddy reviews : Should I pick GoDaddy?? Facebook sues over use of "book" in Teachbook

Get GoDaddy web hosting for just $1.99. Click here to use coupon...

Special $7.49 .COM sales. Click here for this special deal...
Facebook pokes start-up Teachbook with lawsuit | The Social - CNET News.

Facebook is concerned that a start-up social network with the word "book" in it's portmanteau title is infringing on it's own trademarks. It filed a court complaint on Wednesday in a California district court against Teachbook, a networking site geared toward teachers.

Claiming that Teachbook is "riding on the coattails of the fame and enormous goodwill of the Facebook trademark," the complaint asserts that the start-up, which is headquartered in a suburb of Chicago, shouldn't be using the "-book" suffix...

Comments (102)

So do they own all legal rights to all social sites that happen to have any connotation of the word "book" in the name?..

Comment #1

As you get bigger you're forced to protect your TM or risk losing it.

Would TeachBook.com be a social website for teachers if FaceBook didn't exist? I think not.

Book is actually the more easily protected word for Facebook as face could have arguable social meaning where book doesn't. I doubt that FB could stop FaceTeachers for a social site although they might try.

I just don't see where FB is wrong in the action. Yeah...exactly.

Unlike YouTube where tube was common from "boob tube" as a slang for TV I don't ever remember "book" being related to social networking before FB.

I see a win coming soon for FB in the form of a settlement...

Comment #2

I'm not so sure this is a slam dunk win for Facebook.

I think the motivating factor here isn't potential infringement as much as they want to nip a future competitor in the bud while they still can. The "book" infringement angle is their opening...

Comment #3

Actually I think it's about TM protection on an easy case. Teachbook is lame and probably couldn't fit FB anyways. This can help establish their "book" part in their TM...

Comment #4

Facebook has the best available means to protect it's interest, even outside complex legal remedies, like settlement. The use of "book" indeed, may be very disadvantageous to FB's interest as the generality of the trademark name is categorized in specific groups.. which is clearly not a good picture in social networking...

Comment #5

Teachers do use books still dont they?.

There are many other social sites with the word book & face.

Like Faces.com FaceParty.com YearBook.com etc etc.

Guess they dont have anything to worry about.

And I think most of those have been around longer than facebook.

Maybe they should be suing facebook..

Comment #6

@ eFingerz: I agreed. FB isn't that long and of course YearBook can suing FB easily too...

Comment #7

So if YearBook.com developed social network, Facebook will sue them ?

Thats bullsh*t !.

I was going to buy YearBook.com before myyearbook.com bought it...

Comment #8

Perhaps.

As one essentially stakes their claim, it's their burden to protect it as.

Well. Facebook's pretty much established itself in social networking.

I doubt they'd go after the likes of, say, F*ckbook. Heh...

Comment #9

Seems a bit shady to me. I assume their TM is for the term "facebook" not "book". Some companies think they rule the world and have free reign to do as they wish. A victory for facebook could open up a can of worms between sites which contain the same words. And please don't give me the, but it's a social networking site bs.

I'm almost a year into a social networking site which contains the word "my". So should I fear myspace coming after me? I say no way!..

Comment #10

Didn't Facebook used to be only for folks with ".edu" e-mail addresses, as in students?.

That, to me, says that their name, Facebook, was based on the word Yearbook.

So... Yeah. They invented neither faces nor books... so screw 'em...

Comment #11

One problem there is MySpace, if ever, might argue what made you decide.

To use the word "my" among your choices of words for a social networking.

Site. While their TM is for the combined words themselves, they might be.

Ready to show how your usage can likely confuse people you're them.

Likelihood of confusion is where it boils down to. Arguably famous marks.

Can have an arguably easier time proving that. What does that matter? The fact is Facebook is quite famous among users now as a social networking site.

While it's their burden to demonstrate likelihood of confusion, they're pretty.

Much prepared to do so. Time will tell how this one will go...

Comment #12

WHy they didn't sue [Sports OR F*ck] + Book ?

Comment #13

Facebook is getting more crazy. Ther are trying to trademark the word "face". Facebook Attempts to Trademark the Word 'Face' - PCWorld..

Comment #14

The arguments although at first seem straight forward on both sides, 'Facebook' is a world brand, however the words 'Face' and 'Book' are totally generic words throughout the English speaking world, the decision of any court is likely to be appealed by either side.

A similar situation has arisen here in the Uk with the owner of 'EasyJet' claiming that domains with the word 'Easy' in are confusing to the public - surprisingly he has won at least one case in court.

I sometimes wonder whether the 'courts' are indeed in the real world. For example would the company 'Woolworths' have the right to any domain using the word 'worth'?.

I hope it ends up with a jury deciding the case (I am not sure if this is possible in the States), if so I think that it could well go in Teachbook's favour, at least I hope so...

Comment #15

Let's take it exactly ONE step further... one small step from current reality... Google has "Gmail". Can they own the letter G? (Or for that matter, "mail".)..

Comment #16

Neither face nor book are generic descriptions for social networking website.

Microsoft doesn't seem to have a hard time defending it's name either. It's not very different. And yet you still don't understand things. Are you assuming a court is stupid? Very unlikely a jury would not side with Facebook given it's well-known brand. One just has to question why TeachBook decided on that name. How can anyone argue they came up with it without thinking of FaceBook as inspiration? Ignorance is bliss. How is it?..

Comment #17

Teachbook has a trademark too for the term teachbook: Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS).

It is also their company name. To me their chances are looking good. However the US legal system is not the fairest in the world...

Comment #18

The Teachbook registered TM is probably going to be a problem for Facebook...

Comment #19

According to the USPTO website, TeachBook TM is currently in opposition.

A company name in and of itself typically can not be trademarked; will not help in defending their TM registration.

The U.S. legal system is like most any other in the aspect that those with money and connections have a significant advantage over those that don't.

Not to say one shouldn't defend / fight back, but one has to consider the costs / rewards before doing so when the opposition is a well known company with much money to spend to battle it out. For many in such a situation that Teachbook is in now, settling may be perceived as the better / only option; "PlaceBook" reportedly settled with Facebook and rebranded itself as "TripTrace".

Ron..

Comment #20

Eh, if you want to call me ignorant, that's fine. It means nothing coming from some obscure wannabe big shot like you.

Trademarking "g" isn't much different than trademarking "face". My example is apt and your behavior is ridiculous.

You're pretending to be superior over a difference of three letters? Pathetic...

Comment #21

Ridiculous ...

They have no case here ....

Why they dont sue facebookofs*x.com ? there is all "facebook" in there ...

There is also for examble redbook.com ... so ..

Ridiculous ... again I must to say .. they are starting to push to much ..

I hate them more because of this ..

Btw. Labrocca r you working in facebook..

Comment #22

Well teachers & books go hand in hand like socks and shoes, guns & ammo, nuts & bolts etc..

Maybe it was inspired by all the teachers losing their jobs due to facebook post and privacy issues etc.

Ignorance is contagious and it looks like you got it!..

Comment #23

Poker Face.

Face the Ace.

FaceMail.

All TM with the term FACE in them along with a dozen or so other registered TMs in USPTO DB.

And short letters or acronyms like IBM are TMs. Have you any experience at all with TM law? Let's take a step back. Express to me how I'm a wannabe big shot. WTF are you on about? I think you're talking about copyright because a TM is exactly for company names and brands. They might be next. Yeah because whenever I use common sense I get a check from the company.

Sounds like a facebook wannabe for teachers. Do you have another description? The term book is nowhere on their site besides within teachbook.

This is all just a stupid move by teachbook. Had they been smart they would have used the name in a different genre they still would have done well. Infringing on Facebook TM wasn't smart.

Mark my words. When this is over you'll see I was right...

Comment #24

Doesn't apply. We're talking about Facebook trademarking PART of it's name, "Face". You know that. Is "IBM" a common word? No. Again, you know that. Listing your faults so you can give a red-faced rebuttal doesn't interest me. If a social networking site for auto mechanics calls itself "FixCars.com" are you going to come around saying "They aren't selling cars on the site"?.

Again, your comment doesn't apply to the situation...

Comment #25

Then don't start going there because I have no problem schooling you. It absolutely applies. You're joking right? A mechanic fixes cars. What you're describing is a retailer not an auto mechanic. And if you want...Auto Zone is an example where auto is used but zone is the more operative word for the TM. Would you argue a zone is is any area a retailer occupies and negative the TM as too generic?.

Here is another...Jiffy Lube. Lube is part of the name and jiffy informally means "quick". So does "Jiffy Lube" not have a TM? Lube might describe an oil change but Jiffy does not. It's the operative word. I've been arguing about TMs for years on this site. I think my comments do apply.

We have a company worth billions here and you don't think they have smart enough lawyers that they can win this? Are you willing to make a bet they will? Put up or shut up as the expression goes. Let's find someone reliable to hold the funds in escrow till the suit is settled. Even more fun...let's bet domains...

Comment #26

Seems as though facebook thinks their TM for the combined words "facebook" also gives them TM rights to the individual words "face" and "book". They're going to lose this case and rightfully so. Could namepros sue other sites using "name" or "pros"?..

Comment #27

Well there is plenty of zone and jiffy businesses other than jiffy lube and autozone Let me google that for you.

And they may not be selling books but they are responsible for almost every book in the world in some way shape or forum.

Not many people can learn to write spell type etc without a teacher, be it a school teacher or just some one that teaches you!.

I believe facebooks plan is to take the domain and create their own facebook for approved teachers only. just like facebook was for college students only originally...

Comment #28

No. Latest Status Info.

Current Status: An opposition is now pending at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

Date of Status: 2010-03-15.

Filing Date: 2009-03-16.

The point is not about a claim to all uses of the word "book", nor the fact that "teachers" have something to do with "books". The website is not a teacher nor a book. It is an online community site for teachers, and they clearly used <whatever>book to suggest a similarity with Facebook.

Once more, with feeling - trademarks are not about mechanical string permutation rules. The point is consumer perception:.

Would a relevant consumer think that a social community for teachers called "Teachbook" has some kind of association with "Facebook"?.

That is a fact question, and it is not going to be answered by a crew of armchair judges proclaiming their personal opinions. One way of getting at an answer would be to conduct a survey of internet-using teachers and see what the survey results indicate. You might get a fair number of them that believe "Teachbook" is a specialized service offered by Facebook, and you might not...

Comment #29

What??? They did'nt use "whatever" book to suggest any relation or similarity to facebook IMO. They used the word "teach" book which goes to the heart of why the website exists. Btw, a quick look at the site and I can't see how someone would be confused and think teachbook is affiliated with facebook in any way!.

I hope to god facebook loses because if not then it opens up a big can of worms. Maybe ebay will start suing any site using "e" or priceline will sue any site using "price" or "line". It's silly when you think about it...

Comment #30

Riiiight... because ever since the internet started, every social and professional networking site has been a two-syllable name ending in "book". It's practically amazing that Orkut, MySpace, LinkedIn, etc. never managed to figure that out...

Comment #31

I would imagine such a site is quite different yet also contributes to the promotion of Facebook in a sense only really helping Facebook and not a competitor/threat.

Placebook.com should NOT have backed down, that was a great name and Facebook would NOT have won that. Should they have, they would have had 45 days to appeal the case & I'd bring it to a grand jury and just win like that...

Comment #32

I understand facebook's claim. However even if it so, I don't think they have exclusive rights to the book as a suffix for a social network site.

Let's say I indeed want to use the book suffix for a social network site and I admit doing so. There are generic terms like yearbook which I think of when coming up with such a usage. In my opinion facebook doesn't have a case here. People can use the work book in a creative way to create new brands independently whether facebook exists or not.

It is true that anything ending with book would remind some people of facebook especially if it is an online community website. However just because this is so doesn't mean people who are using the book intend to mimic facebooks name. Let's take placebook for instance. It sounds like a "book or catalog for places".

Another way of reading it is "booking a place", like booking a hotel etc. I think they didn't include book in their name because facebook, but because book makes sense for their business and it is a commonly used word in their field. It creates rather nice brandable names. The same is true with teachbook. Teachers and book go together and because they have come up with that specific name doesn't mean they were inspired by FB...

Comment #33

But is your imaginary placebook a social networking site like TeachBook is?.

When Mr. Berryhill speaks people should listen.

Btw Redbook is not a social networking site.

Anyone willing to put up a gentlemen's bet on this just send me a PM...

Comment #34

The term "social networking" is very broad. To suggest that no entity can ever use "face" or "book" with a site that connects it's users is ludacris. Teachbook has a specific group of folks that it provides a service to. Has facebook went after f*ckbook? No, because f*ckbook is targeting a specific group of individuals...

Comment #35

We don't know FB's plans. I stated early on that my guess is they're using someone weak to establish precedent and their brand TM.

I would guess that f*ckbook makes a lot of money and would be more willing to defend itself than teachbook. Often cases like this start off with the weakest link and work their way up...

Comment #36

Slow down and read-read the thread - I mention the company name aspect, because the person I was replying to felt it added something to TeachBook's TM registration claim defense - in my view, it doesn't.

Again, a company name in and of itself is not a TM unless one uses it in some manner that makes it TM, such as in branding / promotion.

Ron..

Comment #37

So every domain with the words "book" or "face" are subject to get sue by facebook? I am thinking deleted my FB account.....

Comment #38

If it's the "company name" that's the usage and it's a TM even if not a registered one. Now you could argue that some company TM are so generic they aren't protected by TM law and are in effect invalid. Go read 100 threads on NP about TM then read your post again. You might realize how silly you sound...

Comment #39

All those libraries in the world will have to pay Facebook a royalty!.

I think trying to copyright everything is getting out of hand. There's people that are trying to copyright genes too...

Comment #40

I don't think so either, but that's not what this case is about.

If there is one phrase to understand about TM disputes, it is "fact intensive".

The question in this case is NOT "Does Facebook own the words 'face' or 'book'?".

The question in this case IS "Would a significant number of ordinary consumers in the relevant market believe that 'Teachbook' and 'Facebook' have something to do with each other?".

Those are really just not the same question, regardless of the fevered paranoid hysteria whenever a case like this is filed. Naw... Just because I think there is sufficient cause to get down to the level of a factual inquiry here, doesn't mean that this case, if decided, would go one way or the other. It's a non-frivolous claim. That's all.

I just think the hysterics are over the top...

Comment #41

Misfire #1: I say you're acting like a wannabe bigshot, and you reply here with a typical "wannabe bigshot" response. Misfire #2: You essentially counter something with "Nuh-uh!" Misfire #3: A mechanic fixes cars, and a teacher uses books. You helped prove my point. Misfire #4: Years worth of wasted time used as example of intelligence.

I think you just sputtered out... Want to keep struggling along? If you mean any of the domains in your signature, no thanks. Let me know if you have anything interesting and I'd be willing to think about it...

Comment #42

And the answer is no. Nobody in their right mind would think teachbook and facebook is associated in any way. I agree with that and exactly for that reason teachbook should defend themselves and if they would win.

However what I don't agree with you is your enthusiasm to side automatically with the stronger party on any legal case...

Comment #43

You're statement is so true. You make a strong point there. I'm looking over the site very carefully to see if I was a judge/jury if indeed I would think the sites usage overlapped Facebook. One possible settlement could be Teachbook removing such statements as "An Online Community for Teachers" which smacks of it trying to be social networking site for teachers. If it instead focused on some of it's other aspects I think FB would be happier and move along.

Looking at the sites material I believe they have a valid mission to assist teachers. I have no idea wtf you keep going on and on about with personal attacks. Any chance you'll stop and actually argue points? You're just mad I inferred you're ignorant. Typically on the internet that's called "butthurt". So let's talk money...

Comment #44

Oh, and Facebook will probably want to maintain a wholesome image too. I.

Doubt they'd want to have anything to do with something like that.

That's one party that's impressively lucky to take advantage of this and.

(so far) get away with it. Heh. How do we know that? As JB said, it'll take some survey to show if users.

Will either associate Teachbook with Facebook or not.

I realize some of you feel Facebook's recent act creates the perception.

They're trying to demonstrate some kind of absolute, exclusive claim on.

All and any domain names bearing the words face and or book. That's not.

Necessarily the case as mentioned before.

Like I've said, it boils down to likelihood of confusion. Or like JB has.

Asked, what are the chances general users might associate (or confuse).

One with the other.

If you want an example of someone who tried exactly to do that, look up.

Leo Stoller and his attempts over the word stealth. You'd see what that.

Eventually resulted into, and what a stupid and costly endeavor at that.

On a related note, look up also the PerfumeBay dispute. I've linked some.

Of them below: http://www.namepros.com/legal-issues...pute-ebay.html http://www.namepros.com/legal-issues...rfume-bay.html.

Some folks also believed eBay went after them thinking they own any and.

All combinations too. Admittedly their initial foray gave that idea, but go.

Look recently and see how many domains bearing ebay still linger without.

Seemingly any action from eBay.

Try to note some of the facts presented in that case, especially the bit.

Where PerfumeBay's respondent (mistakenly?) admitted they've had lots of.

People ask if they're eBay. One could call those folks idiots, but...the.

Fact is they really thought PerfumeBay is eBay.

Guys, it's tempting to get personal over things like this. This is kinda.

Supposed to be a so-called civilized discussion, so let's try to keep it.

At that.

At any rate, time will tell how this will conclude...

Comment #45

You guys should open a JB fan club. Because JB said something doesn't make it right. He doesn't speak from a moral or justice point of view. He makes a living in this legal world where the big guys with more money screw the small guy. He is used to this kind of stuff.

What I don't understand is what is it to you? Do you feel emotional satisfaction to side with the party that looks stronger? I bet if teachbook was your project you wouldn't be talking like this now. This could have been easily the case. Similarly if JB was representing teachbook his arguments would have been very different.

What I see here is injustice. I wish there was some volunteer organization who would support these small startups. I wish neither of them would give up their rights when they were offered some money by facebook. Facebook is running a calculated show and with so many people with low moral, ethics and principles and a corrupt legal system that supports the rich, they might just win...

Comment #46

From a quick glance at the file, it looks like Facebook had to work pretty hard to get their tm - it shouldn't surprise anyone that they'd defend it. We don't know what's going on behind the scenes there. The name was registered long before FB filed their tm application, teachbook was filed afterwards. If teachbook were my project, I wouldn't have chosen a name so close to Facebook!..

Comment #47

As in a fatal problem for creating tortuous interference with business..

Facebook shot themselves in the face.

I could beat FB in court easily as could nearly anyone with three working brain cells.

No JURY will do anything but pile on to FB.

Counter-claim city!..

Comment #48

Oohhhhh... Lord. How long before one of us loses interest? That's the REAL wager...

Moving on... My point was that if there was a social networking site for mechanics called "FixCars.com", because Mechanics fix cars, there'd be no problem with, say, another "Fix(word).com" website... so basically a social networking site called "TeachBook.com", because Teachers usually use books, would be just as legit without having to ONLY be a direct reference to Facebook.

I'm not saying that's how a judge would HAVE to see things, that's just my view on the subject. It's as valid as any view of yours, I assure you. Well, since you made the first personal smear - and are participating in the rest - I don't think you've got a good leg to stand on with this "Heyyy, no need to get personal!" thing.

"The Victim". Yet another clich tactic. You're kidding, right? What do you think all that other text is, Lorem Ipsum?.

"Ignoring the Response". Yet another clich tactic. Let's talk never posting on here again...

Comment #49

Teachbook is represented by Greenberg Traurig - one of the largest and most expensive firms in the country, and their lawyer is Paul McGrady, the author of a three-volume treatise on domain disputes. (McGrady, Jr., Paul D. - Greenberg Traurig, LLP).

But I'm sure he'd be happy to receive your donation. Awww... size doesn't matter. Send me a picture. We'll talk.

Geez. I love the logic by which having a decade of relevant experience is a disqualifier. I just knew I shouldn't have turned down the chance to run for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska...

Comment #50

JB, in the heat of discussion your humour brings a smile and even a chuckle. If nothing else in this whole thread was interesting (which by the way it is) then your quips in the post above would be reason enough to read it...

Comment #51

You mean like when they had their privacy controversy? I don't think FB has a wholesome image nor do they care. And when it comes to protecting your TM you listen to your lawyers. I really think this is a calculated move by them to begin TM protection and establishing their rights. Whether they're stretching or not is besides the point. Tell me when he was wrong? I'll win that contest every time. I love nothing more than long-drawn out legal arguments at NP.

What about mechanicbook.com? Or dentistbook.com? Or maybe TeenBook.com? Would teenbook be okay with you and not infringe on FaceBook? Of course these would all infringe if indeed these were social networking sites.

Find me some KeywordBook.com social networking sites that doesn't clone FB. This is where I wish you could see the smirk on my face. I don't think gambling my 7 year account vs your 4 month account is hardly fair. I guess you don't want to put your money up. I wonder why? Juicy. Let's hope this stays open for a long time.

Only people with brain injuries would disqualify your statements...

Comment #52

Labrocca, and JB of course.

There could be two slight problems for Facebook, if the site (TeachBook) is a 'social site' where people (in this case teachers) get to communicate with each other by looking each other up then there is an even older commercial book that is just as well known, and that is the 'telephone book' or 'telephone directory'.

More importantly it is the wording of the question that is asked by the court, here if I were TeachBook I would argue that it is the association of 'Face' and 'Book' together that people associate with the Facebook site. If another word was supplemeted would people 'naturally associate it' with the site Facebook? An example here would be to replace both words alternatively with say 'Paint', would the public associate sites named 'FacePaint' or 'PaintBook' with Facebook, I do not think so. Further more even if those two supposed sites were social networking sites would people associate either with Facebook.

There you go Labrocca, now you can have some fun...

Comment #53

It's been long established that the phone book is a list and can't be copyrighted. Yellow pages for example is now a common term as far as I know. It's been discussed a few times. This is possibly what FB is trying to prevent. The generic usage of Book for social networking sites. That's very likely to be the argument.

Hmm..I think so though. Example is mentioned in this thread where Ebay defeated perfumebay in an appeal. Just the few examples I gave above makes me think of FaceBook such as TeenBook. Teen and book are not natural together as descriptions. Find me examples of either of them used in a sentence describing something other than a social networking website.

And a website is not a book...

Comment #54

I think having so many years experience in this field makes you a master in bending the truth. I haven't read a single strong argument from you supporting your view. Except those "I side with the bigger company because it makes me look better" crowd people disagree with you, not only in this thread but on other websites as well.

There is growing opposition against facebook for this case. They made themselves look like a trademark bully. I wondering how long it will take for some of you guys to make a u-turn and support the teachbook guys.

I'm glad they are defending themselves properly. The only way FB can win this is to make defending the case expensive. Placebook gave up their rights only because they didn't have money to defend themselves...

Comment #55

Let's get real. Most people are just unfamiliar with the law and automatically side against the large company against what appears to be the little guy. The more ignorant imho the more people just view big vs little. Everyone likes an underdog as they say.

And I disagree that Mr. Berryhill isn't give us a supported view. He has with a few examples and things to think about. I'm sure he won't waste a great deal of time helping FB or TB make their case. He's just chiming in with some basic facts and examples that may or may not effect this case...

Comment #56

Facebook doesn't have any rights to prevent others from using "book" for a community website. They don't have a trademark on "book". Their trademark is for "facebook". Your "yellow pages" example is not similar. It would have been similar if they tried to prevent the use of "yellow" while they had a trademark for "yellow pages".

Facebook is trying to prevent others from using the "book" term without having a trademark for this. This is wrong.

Also for this instance defending FB doesn't make you cool, smart or more knowledgeable. So you can stop now doing so. JB is not always right. You guys don't have to follow him blindly on any case...

Comment #57

Does anyone know how long these cases usually take to sort out? I assume it could go on for some time but I'm referring to the initial ruling...

Comment #58

You are missing my point entirely. You don't "argue" what people would or would not associate with what. That's not a legal question. That's a fact question. To resolve a fact question, you don't use argument, you use evidence. It's not some sort of "here's what I think based on a bunch of assumptions and string manipulations".

What matters in a case like this is consumer survey evidence, and there are polling firms that specialize in the types of admissible surveys used in TM lawsuits, evidence of actual confusion, etc.

It's an irreducible question of disputed fact, and it is not going to be disposed on either side blowing hot air. That is what makes it a non-frivolous claim. Well, you go on feeding your prejudices then. Yes, in my spare time, just to amuse myself, I tell lies on internet forums for kicks, because I so dearly love big companies. Oddly, my entire practice is built on representing individuals and small (and I mean tiny) companies against huge ones, but we won't let facts get in the way of your method of argument which boils down to - "you disagree with me, therefore you must have impure motives".

And, yes, I'm here to "support Facebook" because what a bunch of bored folks on Namepros have to say about this case is absolutely crucial to their survival and whether they win or lose this suit.

This is what happens to doctors when they bother to comment on "Bubba Quack's Magical Cure-All" by saying it's crap. Bubba Quack inevitably comes back with "Well, those doctors only make money by keeping people sick, so you can't trust THEM..." ...and that's not what they are claiming in the Complaint in the lawsuit.

Don't store that strawman in your garage - it might catch fire! The twin brother of questioning motives is distorting the point, Jesse. Clearly, the names are similar enough to proceed with a suit. The outcome turns on a fact question that is not resolved by arguments. Those are the ingredients of a non-frivolous claim, but some folks are never going to grasp that doesn't boil down to "supporting" one side or the other.

I don't even use Facebook, for what it's worth. It strikes me as an enormous time waster.

And I have Namepros for that. Post added at 11:08 PM Previous post was at 10:59 PM That's a common mistake made in the discussion of these types of cases.

What courts do is decide the actual dispute before them. Whether some other word would be associated by relevant consumers if attached to -book for an online community site is not a question that this court is ever going to answer. The question is whether THIS name used THIS way does or does not generate consumer confusion.

That's the only question. And saying, "Well there's phonebook and blackbook and notebook and...." is not an answer to the question presented by THIS case...

Comment #59

Words are cheap. I will never forget the snapnames.com against swapnames.com case: http://www.namepros.com/380695-swapn...ml#post2261046.

This was another typical trademark bully case and not surprisingly you were again supporting the bully. You should never be forgiven for the things you said about the teachbook case or about the swapnames case.

You are not a friend of the average domainer...

Comment #60

Someone else mentioned the phone book. I didn't know I was defending FB? I'm expressing my opinion about the case. I don't have any stake in the win...unless someone wants to take me up on my bet. I'm just arguing for the sake of an argument. I don't use it much either. If they shut down tomorrow I wouldn't care.

And he's not the judge or lawyer in either case. He's just a guy knowledgable and experienced enough to understand how it will be argued.

Talk about shooting the messenger. You just stunned the crap outta me. He wasn't "supporting the bully". Did he pay for the prosecution? Was he part of the jury? In what part did he support them besides analyzing the case and giving his opinion on a public forum. Oh My God!..

Comment #61

Lolz... This may come as a shock, but this thread is not about me.

It's perfectly fine for you to disagree with me. People disagree all of the time, and can do so without casting aspersions on the character and motivations of those with whom they disagree. I get a little snarky from time to time, but I am curious, are you familiar with the types of cases I take?.

Aside from some weird fixation on some imaginary harm done by discussing cases on an internet forum, you might want to consider what I actually do when I'm not spending time I don't have in places few lawyers would bother to care.

A couple of examples... Domain Name Wire News Martha Stewart Chokes on EverydayFood.com - The Domain Industry's News Source.

That was Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia versus an individual domain registrant. Domain Name Wire News Register.com Loses Register.cc Battle - The Domain Industry's News Source.

"In terms of size, Register.com is Goliath and Domain-It is David. According to RegistrarStats.com, Register.com controls 2,635,000 domains compared to Domain-Its 25,000.".

And one of the cases I handled at no charge: Public Citizen.

"This is a victory for First Amendment rights on the Internet," said Paul Alan Levy, the Public Citizen attorney who represented Cohn in the case. "Without the domain name, the Web site would likely be much harder to find. We are pleased that the panel agreed that Mr. Cohn has a right to use Falwells name when criticizing him, and has every right to do so on the Internet. Also, Public Citizen thanks Philadelphia lawyer John Berryhill for his assistance in defending this case.".

On Namepros, I call 'em as I see 'em. I'm sorry you can't handle that. If you are unsatisfied with my opinion, simply say so, and I'll send you a full refund of every penny you paid for it...

Comment #62

There is some nice article here: Social Media's Bully Allows His Reputation To Proceed Him.

I wish namepros was a community that would actively support the small domainer or site owner against a trademark bully. There are only two big domain forums. The other forum is highly commercialised and this forum is too shy. Neither of them have supported any domainer against any injustice. There was never a campaign or anything similar as if we live in a perfect world where no domainer was ever bullied by a big company.

Both the teachbook and the swapnames cases are typical examples where a community like namepros should launch a campaign, post some news on his home page, encourage members to post articles on their sites, collect donations and provide all support it can. Unfortunately we are very far away from this.

Some people write here because of emotional motives such as satisfaction of winning an argument. Some others are concerned about their public image. Most people just watch. Overall it is disappointing. Something like this could easily happen to any of us. This is not what a community should be.

Every time when there is a trademark argument the same namepros gang starts a new show...

Comment #63

Nope. Do you feel emotional satisfaction arguing with someone who doesn't.

Agree with what you think, believe or feel is unjustified or immoral?.

What we're essentially trying to do here is discuss the method behind the.

Madness, so to speak. We don't have to like it, but we can learn from all.

This to avoid going through what Teachbook's going through.

Arguably, it's (almost) easy to not have this problem. They could've used.

Maybe TeachNet or TeachersNet or TeachClub dot whatever, but why did.

They use TeachBook of all choices?.

Oh, and I just happen to agree with John. No fan club needed.

Thanks for your comments...

Comment #64

Are you missing the point or purposefully ignoring it?.

TeachBook is to Teachers + Books.

As FixCars is to Merchanics + Cars.

So therefore if there was a gigantic corporate website called FaceCars.com, would you support them suing a site called FixCars.com that did essentially the same thing?.

This whole point stems back to you saying that TeachBook wasn't selling books, as if to say "why use book in your name if you're not selling them" - to which I said that a site called FixCars.com, a verb and noun, doesn't need to SELL cars to be a legitimate site. The same applies to TeachBook.com in my estimation. Okay, big shot. Well, here are a few reasons.

1.) It's a macho idiot thing to do - which is why you're so interested in doing it.

2.) I'm not easily goaded into macho idiot behavior.

3.) I'm really more interested in hitting you where it hurts - which would be taking away your platform for being a know-it-all.

4.) Yeah - like you'd really pay up. If you think you're talking with/around people with brain injuries - what does it say about you when you're so hot to prove you're right to them?..

Comment #65

Sure. You're right it's a macho idiot thing to do. But the reason why I want to do it is to call your BS. Your all huff and puff about this but you're not willing to put up a real wager. We give the money to a reputable member to hold in escrow. I think I mentioned that already but if not..that's the plan.

This is my platform where I KNOW IT ALL. You're just afraid of embarrassing yourself imho. Either you want a fair bet or you don't because you know your case is weak.

You seem passionate about your responses and rebuttals but let's see you put up or shut up.

Thanks for calling me big shot again. I'm starting to believe you believe I am a big shot. I appreciate that. Pretty much. There's a small group here that argues this kind of stuff all the time and has been here for years. I think these threads give insight to newer members that think they know something and later when decisions are rendered they realize how much of a noob they are.

It's like that pleasant pee you take when you're drunk off your ass and finally hit the urinal. It's just bliss...feels so good to get it out and empty the bladder...

Comment #66

And "Mc-" is to Scots like white on rice. However, if a Scottish person opens a fast food restaurant and calls it "McBurgers" or "McDougals", then McDonald's is going to leave a smoking hole where his restaurant used to be.

And, no, that doesn't mean that McDonald's owns all rights in the prefix "Mc-" either. It is simply that they are a tremendously famous brand in the fast food restaurant, which gives them a wider swath than lesser known marks around which they are entitled to claim a likelihood of confusion.

There are probably members of isolated primitive Amazonian tribes who have heard of Facebook by now. That level of fame means that throwing around these hypothetical analogies does not capture what may, or may not be, the result of a proper consumer survey.

Also, the defense that "teachbook" is in some manner descriptive is already off of the table. Remember - the Teachbook people filed an application to register that as a trademark (and that application has been opposed). It is that application which started the battle here.

As some have noted, other sites use "-book", and for the time being Facebook appears to be leaving stuff like f**kbook alone. The reason why they went after Teachbook was *because* Teachbook was trying to carve out turf in the USPTO. Some amount of nibbling around the edges of any brand in the marketplace is tolerable. But if they were able to register Teachbook as a mark (and you bet they'd be the 'trademark bullies' against someone else if they got it), then that's a serious erosion of the distinctive value of Facebook. So, no, Facebook didn't start this thing.

As an example of why all these analogies and hypotheticals are unresponsive to the facts at hand, consider the world's best known trademark - Coca-Cola. It's made from an extract of two plants - coca and cola.

Well, clearly they don't own "-Cola" (their biggest competition is Pepsi-Cola), but how do you think you would do if you lived in Boca Raton, Florida and started selling a hometown drink called "Boca-Cola". Hey, you could argue, it's entirely descriptive! It's a cola drink made in Boca!.

Would that case be a winner?..

Comment #67

A few things I forgot to mention.

If Teachbook were a site selling books, then Facebook sued them claiming.

Infringement over "book" itself, then that's one time I'd argue against FB's.

Overreaching. Both offer different and non-competing services, save for a.

Few extenuating details maybe.

On that note, I wonder if one of Teachbook's owners happens to have an.

FB account. Facebook can also argue they might've been "inspired" from it.

Also.

Lastly, I guess one reason for the outrage here is FB didn't specifically say.

They're not necessarily targetting them, merely because of their having the.

Word "book" on their domain and service. Would it have made some kind of.

Difference if they disclaimed that?.

Not that people have to believe that last part, though.....

Comment #68

There is a video here from fox news: Greg Shrader of Teachbook.com Talks About His Legal Battle with Facebook.

I hope they win. If FB loses, I would like to see the faces of those who enjoy supporting trademark bullies. I think the moment FB realises they can't win they will settle outside court, paying a lot of money and avoiding a fiasco.

Does anybody know how long this court case will last if there is no settlement?.

I can think of of two ways to defend the teachbook case:.

1. The pragmatic way:.

They could argue they are not using the book suffix to imply a social networking site like facebook but they are using it because some other reason.

2. The honourable way:.

They could argue they are indeed using the book suffix to imply a social networking site and they have the right to do so because a site that ends with book does not infringe on the facebook trademark. Just like facebook was inspired by by a yearbook others can be inspired by other things and they have the right to use book for a community website...

Comment #69

Teachbook.com has every right to keep thier name in my opinion. Because they technically are not infringing in any copyright laws regarding their name, and as a previous user said, it is also their company name. Also If Facebook cant handle a little competition they are looking weak on my part...

Comment #70

I'm not sure it matters what Facebook used as their choice of name. My understanding is that the word Facebook has been in use since 1983 as student directory. That also is neither here nor there. What matters? Facebook was granted a TM on that name.

I think this is an interesting case because the word "book" can be used in a generic sense. CheckBook, AudioBook, YearBook, PlayBook, Copybook, StoryBook, TextBook and my feelings vary on the use.

My view is that TeachBook.com was setup based on the name FaceBook.com and is benefiting from that mental link. The issue is proving it. I think it could be defended it in terms of the sheer number of GenericWord-Book words that exist - but I think this could be an uphill battle.

I'm on the fence because I do believe it is infringing.. but at the same time I don't think it should be. Unfortunately the law is not on the side of could have, would have, should have.

If they had used TeacherBook, or StudyBook I wouldn't feel the same. The singular syllable Teach with Book doesn't make any implicit sense and, to me, appears contrived. It is that contrived nature that would make me feel uncomfortable defending them.

I don't think that the challenge is purely on the word "book", per se, but more on contrived use of the word "book" associated with an online social network. What I think the legal system will take care of is NOT using this as a one size fits all precedent... so in the future other-Book.com would still be allowed based on use and intention.

What is happening? Mr. Z. looks like more of an a$$ every day.

Just an opinion - to throw in the mix...

Comment #71

I'm sure they're not infringing on any copyright.

You may want to read up on the difference between copyright and trademarks...

Comment #72

Why do you think it shouldn't be allowed to use "book" as a second word for a community website? This is absurd. Teachbook, or any other***book.com website has every right to use such a name for a social networking website...

Comment #73

And that's a difference we have. I really don't care who wins. I'd guess minimum 2 years but appeals could drag it on for a few more. Tough to say but it won't be 2011. Injuctions and other actions could happen sooner though.

And I just watched the video from Fox News. Interesting view the CEO has. A good fight is coming. All directly related to printed material. Even the Audio Book is defined as a book in audio format.

How is Face Book defined? A book with faces? A book faces? It's a website for online social communication. The word book isn't related.

Teachbook is the same despite that teachers use books. I don't see a real direct general definition of Teach Book along with the mission of the website and it's listed features. I think the Berryhill comments are the most signifcant since he discusses these often go to surveys as proof. Not sure if there is a 30% confusion or 70% confusion percentage for it to be deemed proof of confusion. It could be lower even. I was thinking along those lines too.

Umm..that's not what the law says. Not sure where you got that "right" from...

Comment #74

Teacbook would most definitely get their trademark approved at the end of the investigation of opposition. This is exactly the reason why facebook decided to take the matter to court because they knew teachbook would get the trademark and they knew it would be too late to do anything afterwards...

Comment #75

I explained in my post - but let me summarize again for you.I said the use of generic other***book will be allowed. I said in this instance the use of book was contrived and this is enough to show me they intended to benefit from Facebook. I don't think the issue is the word "book" but the use and intention of the word "book". I don't think the law will create a one size fits all precedent.

Answer this simple question.

Do you believe that if Facebook did NOT exist that TeachBook would have made their top 10 list of potential names? And "that's not relevant" is not a valid answer because it's the only relevant issue as far as I can tell.

The name is terrible anyway. Conveys nothing without the existence of Facebook.. that's the issue at heart...

Comment #76

It is a shame we don't have a real trademark expert here. Trandmark's are not a tool to beat your competition. They are meant to avoid somebody using your brand. For instance if there was a website called facesbook.com then this would be a trademark infringement case...

Comment #77

I'm sure John Berryhill qualifies. He's only an Attorney in Patent, Copyright and Trademark Law.... but then, maybe not, no decent lawyer would waste his time on NP. < This was a joke......

Comment #78

That we're all in agreement with. I guess what some people find hard to.

Believe is this can apply to situations where one is using only a part of.

Someone's "whole" trademark?.

If other liars...I mean lawyers chimed in and pretty much gave the same.

Opinion as JB's, how many other "real trademark experts" do we so-called.

Need then? Then again, the only so-called expert will be the judge who'll.

Decide the case if it isn't settled.

And frankly, I don't care if others think I am a so-called fan of Mr. John.

Berryhill. I mostly listen to or agree with him because his opinions mostly.

Coincide with other lawyers I know.

Some folks don't have to appreciate this, but thank goodness the likes of.

Him take time to share his views based on real-world experience. What more.

Can one want?.

And as to your question on post #76, that's essentially the same reason.

Why eBay went after PerfumeBay if one checked it out...

Comment #79

Yes I think they would. If you want a domain that starts with "teach" and continues with another generic word, there are only limited number of options that are available.

I recently made some research on this issue by manually checking 2000 English dictionary words as a second word. There are limited number of words that fit as a second word. When you try to create a new brand you want the main word to be at the beginning.

For instance if you are creating a domain website you want it to be in the form of "name***.com" or "domain***.com". The other way around like "***names.com" or "***domains.com" is less desirable.

Anyway I checked about 2000 combinations and found only 6 of them available and registered 3 of them. There aren't so many names left. You have to make up something that sounds good. I think the name is very good because:.

1. It is brandable.

2. It is unique. Good for finding it in search engines and trademarking it..

3. It passes the so called radio test. Meaning if you would hear it you would definitely type it correctly.

4. It uses two industry terms and builds a brand on the familiarity idea of these two nouns. Post added at 04:36 AM Previous post was at 04:23 AM Trademarks don't work the way you guys are trying to picture it. Trademarks are very specific. They are specific to a field. For instance somebody else could use "facebook" as a trademark in another field like alternative medicine.

Not only can somebody else can use part of your trademark they can use the exact term. There was a case for the "barbie" trademark between the doll manufacturer and a barbecue restaurant and those big shut barbie doll guys lost it.

Some of you are just too used to write something supportive for the compliant in any trademark case no matter what the case is. You guys really don't understand trademarks. They are meant to avoid somebody stealing your brand and acting as if they were you.

There is no such thing as partly using your trademark. You need to come up with some examples to support that view.

Source:.

Supreme Court rules against Mattel in Barbie trademark case.

Read more: CBC News - Money - Supreme Court rules against Mattel in Barbie trademark case.

FB is going to lose this case...

Comment #80

So your argument to the judge would be...."Your honor, I only picked Teachbook.com NOT because of any affinity with Facebook.com but because everything else was taken and I couldn't afford the ridiculous prices being demanded by domainers.".

I guess it's better than "I was unaware of Facebook." Fair enough. It's not really about this but...I will say that anything is considered "brandable" by domainers these days It is unique (as is EVERY domain) - but only half of it is here in this case - the other half is creating (imho) a notion of "online community" through the use of the suffix "book" which really has no other relevancy to the site (it is not a site about books or a compendium of items such as one would find in books) This is true I'm not sure about 4 because I find it awkward and contrived and not really intrinsically related to their business. I think Facebook is a crappy name too. Seriously.. but it's kind of embedded in our culture now. Did you read the complaint? Just curious - not an article on the complain but the actual complaint? And you weren't swayed in any way?.

When you are called TeachBook and in your manifesto (according to the complaint) you specifically mention that you are intending to act as a school approved Facebook or MySpace.. well you're setting yourself up for a problem.

The point that I've been making (and others) is that this isn't as clear cut as the hyperbolic domainer supporter wants. It's a non-frivolous claim that they MAY win. It's also a non-frivolous claim that they MAY lose.

I don't think you have the legal nouse to predict accurately one way or the other frankly. I think the discussion is interesting....

Comment #81

Berryhill is not only an IP lawyer but also an expert domain lawyer. That's why his posts should be seriously read and never discounted. OMG did they really? That's going to cause a major problem for them. And I confirmed they made this statement: What morons. Poppycock. The suit wants more than simply stopping their TM.

Why do opposition to a TM when you can go straight to court?.

And this is an interesting quote from FB. Pretty goes along with my thoughts why they're doing this. It's about overall brand protection in the social networking space.

Anyone have a link to the actual complaint?..

Comment #82

There are so many things wrong with this argument. If facebooks name was something like facebronk and they argued that others shouldn't use bronk for social networking sites then I would agree with them. This is the case with ***bay.com domains and ebay. However book would be used whether fb exists or not.

The second problem is if there are websites like teachbook.com, londonbook.com, rockerbook.com, teenagebook.com etc. it will not cause any confusion with facebook. Nobody is going to think those sites are affiliated with facebook.

Furthermore a book is an object that consists of pages. A site structure that has many users and user profile pages mimics the structure of a book. For instance if LondonBook.com was a community website and people were saying things like "Do you have a page in the London Book?" or "Check out my page in the LondonBook" we would not think this is an unusual way of talking. IMO it is perfectly valid that others should be able to use book in their site name that is a competitor to facebook...

Comment #83

Pardon I didn't explain myself clearly. I meant using a word that's also.

Utilized with another word as a trademark, especially a famous one. Finally found one: Teachbook Suit.

BTW, here's a comment apparently from Facebook on the issue: Hey Facebook, Here Are Some Other Companies You Can Bully Or Sue Obviously one doesn't have to agree with that or believe it. But that's.

Facebook's position on the matter...

Comment #84

Interesting thread.

I do not particularly believe any of you are exactly right or that any of you are exactly wrong.

I will enlighten those of you willing to learn...

JB is correct in that it is a non-frivolous case.

Title 15 and Title 17 are similar but not the same. Duh.

None of you thus far have compared this to the "Great-Value" use of "compare this to "Head and Shoulders" for shampoo or compare this to "A-1" for a steak Sauce where the size and shapes of the bottles are the same.

"Please "compare this site to FB" would be an easily defensible claim.

FB will lose but it is a non-frivolous claim.

Title 15 and Title 17 are both unconstitutionally vague and are before the Supreme Court now.

Anyone could easily defeat "FB" in Court..

Anyone could also lose to "FB" in Court.

FB will lose but it is a non-frivolous claim. JB is correct there...

Comment #85

Wow! I don't want to give $200 to someone I don't know just because some random internet douche bag decided I should.

I must be craaaazy!..

Comment #86

Sorry I had to delete and edit some comments here. Again, we can discuss.

This without necessarily attacking someone's character.

Stay on topic, folks. Thanks...

Comment #87

FaceParty.com was one of the original social networking sites and was around long before Facebook.

The whois for TheFacebook.com is 01/2004.

The copy of FaceParty.com in Archive.org at that time shows 2,064,158 registered users. So it's interesting that Facebook can claim ownership of "Face" in social networking when another social networking "face" was already millions strong on the day Facebook registered their domain...

Comment #88

Shame on facebook if you ask me. If thats the case then is Walmart sue Kmart for using the name mart? Or is Walmart going to sue Walbaums for using "wal"?..

Comment #89

I am not sure who the judges will decide, but it just doesn't feel right...

Comment #90

Don't know if this is true: Facebook is trying to trademark the word face" | Electricpig That might explain why. The word mart is generally known as a place to buy and sell goods. It's.

Going to be hard (if not impossible) for Walmart or even Kmart to claim.

Infringement merely on the word since they're both using it as a place.

To sell stuff.

As for Waldbaums (not Walbaums) itself, they appear to have existed.

Before Walmart. Walmart probably could claim confusion, but that is if.

They can truly demonstrate that happening.

Probably not worthwhile...

Comment #91

Sure looks that way ... Latest Status Info.

And, if you look at the documents, it was originally filed by FaceParty in 2005.

They wouldn't be the first company to get a tm for "face" (just the first for that usage class)..

Comment #92

US Title 15 is unconstitutionally vague and states a "mark" used in trade is a trademark. "Mark" is not adequately described. US Title 15 1125(d) does not clearly define "USE" of a domain name and does not specify domains used for bona fide commerce are "marks" used in trade.

"Copy-right" has never described a fundamental moral right and was initially written to fix pricing on mass publication for Noel Webster and was introduced as a barely modified "Statute of Anne". The law was introduced by an attorney-judge who was appointed to Congress and few today realize it has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the fundamental moral right to exclusively control original art granted by the Creator that is recognized my most other civilized countries.

'FB' has every right to attempt to TM anything they want and attempt to keep 'TB' from using anything. Law is either logical or wrong and a JURY has the final say in America. Judges are thought to have King-like powers and do now because citizens of America have accepted it that way.

It is not frivolous to fight a battle you are sure to lose and 'FB' is sure to lose. After they lose the next social site that considers 'x'-book will treat it as another cost for a start-up...

Comment #93

Posted by Erdinc: The issue is not a lack of experts; frankly it's an issue of experts not wanting to waste time arguing with people quoting something they read on Wikipedia or saw on Glen Beck as a rebuttal to four-twelve years of college and years of professional experience. I learned my lesson about flexing my own particular expertise on discussion forums around ... I don't know, three days or so after the first time I ever hit a BBS. Back 1983.

Frank..

Comment #94

That's pragmatic?.

This is their trademark application: Latest Status Info.

Note the goods and services:.

"Providing on-line chat rooms and electronic bulletin boards for transmission of messages among registered users concerning educational careers, general interest, classifieds, virtual community, social networking, photo sharing, and transmission of photographic images; providing access to on-line computer databases and on-line searchable databases in the field of educational careers, general interest, classifieds, virtual community, social networking, photo sharing, and transmission of photographic images".

I don't think trying to argue they weren't going to use it for "social networking" will work very well, since they have already submitted a sworn statement to the USPTO to the effect that it is exactly what they want to do.

I also don't think the statement on their own website, quoted upthread, is going to be very helpful to them either.

You don't get to simply make up facts in constructing a defense. You have to address objective reality. Post added at 04:19 PM Previous post was at 04:14 PM And... if you want to know where Teachbook obtained the draft for their goods and service description, this is the g&s from one of Facebooks' registered TM's: Latest Status Info.

"providing online chat rooms for registered users for transmission of messages concerning collegiate life, classifieds, virtual community and social networking".

Do I hear an echo? Post added at 04:49 PM Previous post was at 04:19 PM Nobody has said that - not even Facebook. The question is whether this suit is facially frivolous. Kelley Blue Book - over at BlueBook.com, remains one of the most well known car sales community sites on the internet.

But you haven't addressed my question about "MCBurgers". I want to have a hip-hop themed fast food restaurant and want to use "MC" as that term is used by DJ's in hip-hop music.

So I launch my website and I say, "A lot of rapsters and hip-hop artists and fans are not welcome at McDonald's, which is a 'family' restaurant whose customers are bothered by hip-hop culture. So, we have created 'MCBurgers' to cater to the fast-food needs of that culture.".

If McDonald's comes after me, it is not going to be because they "own" the letters "MC", and it is not going to say that 'MacDougals Irish Pub and Grille' can't serve hamburgers. They are going to come after me on much more specific grounds - that I am using something that is intended to sound somewhat like their mark for the express purpose of competing with them.

In considering the likelihood of consumer confusion, a court can look at eight factors (called the "Sleekcraft factors"):.

(1) strength of the mark;.

(2) proximity of the goods;.

(3) similarity of the marks;.

(4) evidence of actual confusion;.

(5) marketing channels used;.

(6) type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser;.

(7) defendants intent in selecting the mark; and.

(8) likelihood of expansion of the product lines.

You can Google "Sleekcraft factors" to see how these things play out.

The conversation here remains stuck on only ONE (arguably two) of EIGHT things a court is going to look at, many of which do not bode well for Teachbook on the apparent facts...

Comment #95

End result...teachbook will lose as I've always stated. Whine all you want about your own opinions about FB and the law...I still don't see how legally TB can win this...

Comment #96

Why dont they sue Apple for the word face in facetime?..

Comment #97

FB will lose before a J-U-R-Y if they insist on that right.

TB can then use a shopping bag full of generic products like say compare to the "active ingredients" in Head and Shoulders etc.

I use FB and think TB looked too lame to have the funds to cling to the name. FB will probably win because TB caves and not because FB is right.

How can TB legally win? A disclaimer and a link to FB.If they do not do that, they will likely lose. A disclaimer without a link might even work...

Comment #98

Adding a disclaimer after the fact isn't likely to help when one essentially.

Stated their intent to begin with. Namely, what TB said in their application.

But don't fret. TB's attorney will surely know what to do, more than any.

Of us armchair lawyers can...

Comment #99

1. I disagree and refer to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's confirmation hearings where he stated that his application for a position during a President Reagan political application was an attempt to win a political position. An application is always an attempt to manipulate the perception of the applicant rather than to give a definition the applicant.

2. I am not fretting. I know the laws TB did not break. It is a civil action and "after-the-fact" actions like a lawsuit or a disclaimer will be considered. Criminal concerns like "intent" are not relevant.

3. They can't afford an attorney or a website designer. If their ability to pay an attorney is reflected in their website design quality, they have already lost.

A counter-suit does not require filing fees and the fact that one has not already been filed testifies to the fact that they are as clueless about litigation as they are about website design. They obviously are not well funded and are lacking what is usually considered common sense.

It will be humorous to watch but affects me absolutely none at all. A judgment for FB or for TB will not set precedence and will only demonstrate the moral irrelevance of litigation when no party has a clearly higher moral position. It then ends up being who can manipulate the system better or who can hire the best litigators to manipulate.

TB will lose but they will get their 15 minutes of fame. They are facing no claim for damages that can be sustained and legal fees are likely not going to be awarded to either party...

Comment #100

I highly doubt their case will hold up in court. Facebook has ownership of Facebook. Not the suffix of book. Just because Facebook has popularized "book" as a well known suffix does not by any means reflect ownership. A simple analogy would be the use of the word cola, which has been made popular by coca-cola. However, Coke does not have the right to sue generic cola brands that end in "cola."..

Comment #101

Justia preview. <<<free link Facebook, Inc. v. Teachbook.com. (5:10-cv-03654-RMW) <<<Actual live real-time docket NOT FREE It will be interesting. Titanic was an interesting movie and it was interesting to watch even though you knew the boat would sink.

Sometimes people have to die before the truth gets out...

Comment #102


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.