Saturday, October 8, 2011

Could Facebook Lose Its 'Facebook' Trademark After Being Too Aggressive In Trademark Bullying?

10:51 AM | Posted by ProJ | | Edit Post
We talked in the past on Facebook theories of the trademark and non-aggressive, which seems to believe that any website that starts with the "face" or ends with "book" somehow violates their brands. It's very excessive and I do not see how it meets the test of likelihood of confusion in most cases. While he made some claims, it is also directly opposed trademark applications in the USPTO. For example, today is the argument that the site can not score Shagbook its name.

  • Shagbook submitted its response to the opposition, which can be read below, but hit back hard enough, given a few key points:
    Facebook should never have allowed the brand name "Facebook".
  • The term is commonly used in English before the enemy began using the term as part of their services. The term is used generically by many members of the public and a wide variety of organizations. Because the term Äúfacebook, the AU has been used by many parts of the opponent before the descriptive and generic, becoming the protagonist of the date of first use of the word, the word is generic and incapable of trademark protection under the laws of the United States.

  • Facebook is participation in the misuse of trademarks and harassment by anti-competitive reasons
  • opposition, the opposition should be denied eternal fair under the doctrine of unclean hands. Opponent has engaged in misuse of bullying and the brand-marks Opposition abusive lawsuits and threats thereof to maintain a competitive advantage. For these reasons, and the applicant stated protagonist then becomes counter the opposition must be rejected.





No risk of confusion, especially since Shagbook is a dating site, and Facebook has said explicitly that there is
There is no risk of confusion between the applicant, by becoming the brand trademark opposition leader asked and even quoted by reading the description of the applicant, the AM for services in general. In addition, the applicant is only using the mark in relation to their online dating services, and as such there is no risk of confusion regarding the actual services provided by the applicant as an adversary does not offer online services meetings.

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Blog Archive

Blog Archive

About Me

ProJ
View my complete profile