Facebook users may not be able to mention the words "book," "face," or "poke"

Facebook users may not be able to mention the words "book," "face," or "poke"

According to c|net and Ars Technica, which first reported this news, Facebook has 73 active trademarks listed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, including the letter "F," "Face," "FB," "Wall," "Facepile," and "Friendfeed." "Book" is not yet on the list. But Facebook is planning to update its Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, and, if approved, Facebook members must agree not to use the words "Face," "Poke," or "Book."



Here’s the relevant excerpt from the old user agreement:

You will not use our copyrights or trademarks (including Facebook, the Facebook and F Logos, FB, Face, Poke, Wall and 32665), or any confusingly similar marks, without our written permission.

Here’s the equivalent part from the new agreement:

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.

Credits to ZDNet for the research.


If these revisions are approved, users signing onto Facebook will be agreeing not to use the word "book" as well as other "banned words" like "Face" "Poke." That is a pretty daring move on Facebook part, and I expect many backlash. Think about all the schools that have "books" in their library, or all the book publishers. If an employee of a book publishing company has a facebook account does that give the right of Facebook to sue? Also, how should I right about my favorite book on Facebook. According to the new terms and conditions, the following sentence would be disallowed: "I have been POKED in my pretty FACE by a bully while reading a BOOK in the library."

What do you think? Has Facebook oversteped the line? Express your opinions in below!

Credit for the man with the book goes to ZDNet.

Adapted from my blog post at http://my.opera.com/wikipedian/blog/2012/03/29/facebook-fail

No, I don't have a Facebook account, and despite the TOS they can't prevent you from using English properly. That's the thing about trademarks, you can trademark a common English word but people don't infringe on your trademark if they use the word normally. Otherwise saying "Be back in a jiffy" would get you in trouble with Jiffy baking mixes, etc. And do Clark gas stations need the permission of Clark candy bars, or is it vice versa? Are you going to watch a Clark Gable movie perhaps? (Did I just infringe both trademarks? Of course not.) So no, "feeding your face" is not an expression Facebook can do anything about - as long as you're actually referring to eating of course.

I will use any of those words any time I please.
FB can shove their copyrights up their arses for all I care.

I have and will be keeping my account and will use those words when/if I need to.

Originally posted by sgunhouse:

No, I don't have a Facebook account, and despite the TOS they can't prevent you from using English properly. That's the thing about trademarks, you can trademark a common English word but people don't infringe on your trademark if they use the word normally. Otherwise saying "Be back in a jiffy" would get you in trouble with Jiffy baking mixes, etc. And do Clark gas stations need the permission of Clark candy bars, or is it vice versa? Are you going to watch a Clark Gable movie perhaps? (Did I just infringe both trademarks? Of course not.) So no, "feeding your face" is not an expression Facebook can do anything about - as long as you're actually referring to eating of course.

How about if you have a book company? Would you be in trouble for mentioning "book" on Facebook website?

And I said Facebook users... those on Facebook "ghetto" cannot mention those words... I think. I least that's what most tech websites are saying.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

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.

It doesn't say that you can't use the words, it says you can't use the trademarks. If you talk about washing your face, no one would think you mean Facebook. Just as if you talk about someone's New York accent, it has nothing to do with that seasoning blend they sell in the store.

I do have to wonder though ... do all these people and business that say "Find us on Facebook" now have to get permission? That is definitely a case of using the trademark ...

Yes, trademarks (TM) are very different from copyrights or patents. They protect businesses from other businesses using those name for their products, services, or businesses (if this community was renamed Opera Facebook, it could be in trouble). That said, in Norwegian trademark laws, and it seems US as well disallow common words to be trademarked. That would include "face", "book", "poke", and indeed "facebook". That is the main reason why brands have those silly mizspellings. You can't trademark "book", but you can trademark "booq". While the words can't be trademarked, combined words can, like "Bookface".

I often wonder just how enforceable some of these EULAs really are. Trying to trademark so many common words, for example, and saying in the EULA that you can't use those words without permission.... I'd bet that Facebook might have a problem if it ever goes to court. I can't imagine a halfway sane judge siding with FB on this at all. I can imagine the case getting laughed out of court--- by Facebook's own attorneys as they explain a few facts to the plaintiff.

Originally posted by jax:

Yes, trademarks (TM) are very different from copyrights or patents. They protect businesses from other businesses using those name for their products, services, or businesses (if this community was renamed Opera Facebook, it could be in trouble). That said, in Norwegian trademark laws, and it seems US as well disallow common words to be trademarked. That would include "face", "book", "poke", and indeed "facebook". That is the main reason why brands have those silly mizspellings. You can't trademark "book", but you can trademark "booq". While the words can't be trademarked, combined words can, like "Bookface".

Then why are the tech websites reporting Facebook has those words trademarked.

Originally posted by sgunhouse:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

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.

It doesn't say that you can't use the words, it says you can't use the trademarks. If you talk about washing your face, no one would think you mean Facebook. Just as if you talk about someone's New York accent, it has nothing to do with that seasoning blend they sell in the store.

I do have to wonder though ... do all these people and business that say "Find us on Facebook" now have to get permission? That is definitely a case of using the trademark ...

But Facebook is trying to restrict the usuage of those words on their sites. So a book seller may have to seek permission before launching a page on Facebook. Anyways, look at the comments and the rumor are wild. Many people are thinking that those words have become unmentionables on Facebook itself.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

I often wonder just how enforceable some of these EULAs really are. Trying to trademark so many common words, for example, and saying in the EULA that you can't use those words without permission.... I'd bet that Facebook might have a problem if it ever goes to court. I can't imagine a halfway sane judge siding with FB on this at all. I can imagine the case getting laughed out of court--- by Facebook's own attorneys as they explain a few facts to the plaintiff.

But we are getting some silly cares where those pressing the charge has won on the grounds of legality. It may not make sense but if Facebook is legally correct, they would win. For example, in the past a serial murderer (Miranda) got away since he was not read his rights now know as Miranda right.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Then why are the tech websites reporting Facebook has those words trademarked.

Because they have. Trademark enforceability comes from usage, not just using the word. The article gives examples of websites called Teachbook, Placebook, and Lamebook, all real entities, all clearly imitating Facebook in how they use the word 'book', which is what gives the lawyers their basis.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Then why are the tech websites reporting Facebook has those words trademarked.

Because they have. Trademark enforceability comes from usage, not just using the word. The article gives examples of websites called Teachbook, Placebook, and Lamebook, all real entities, all clearly imitating Facebook in how they use the word 'book', which is what gives the lawyers their basis.

Which website? Certainly not Cnet or ZDNet.

Not to poke at this too much but FB is and maybe someone should hit their users in the face with a book or at least slam it into a wall to knock some sense into them (most of them anyway) too much personal info given out while some are complaining about stuff like google's new TOS.

Well I for one don't have Facebook but many companies have deep Facebook integration and certain competations and offers only exist on Facebook (even offers to redeem products from codes printed on boxes. No seperate website. Everything on Facebook ).

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Which website? Certainly not Cnet or ZDNet.

Sorry, do you mean which article on the subject, or which allegedly infringing website?

Those examples are from the Ars Technica article you posted.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/26/technology/teachbook/index.htm
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/facebook-and-lamebook-settle-trademark-dispute/3191
http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/10/facebook-placebook/

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Which website? Certainly not Cnet or ZDNet.

Sorry, do you mean which article on the subject, or which allegedly infringing website?

Those examples are from the Ars Technica article you posted.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/26/technology/teachbook/index.htm
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/facebook-and-lamebook-settle-trademark-dispute/3191
http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/10/facebook-placebook/

I mean this quote: "Because they have. Trademark enforceability comes from usage, not just using the word."

Also, I did not read the Ars Technica article so throughly. Only the ZDNet and the cnet article.

Civilization will collapse because idiots can't be anymore idiots because other idiots have already trademarked idioticy.
Not to speak about such idiots that keeps on posting about such idioticies.

What right does one country have to do this?

Originally posted by rjhowie:

What right does one country have to do this?

United States?

I think the "right" kind of falls apart when things get idiotic. Trademarking common words so nobody can use them without written permission of the trademark owner falls into the "idiotic" category. I have a suspicion that Facebook is going to have a real problem trying in enforce its "rights" in this case.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

I think the "right" kind of falls apart when things get idiotic. Trademarking common words so nobody can use them without written permission of the trademark owner falls into the "idiotic" category. I have a suspicion that Facebook is going to have a real problem trying in enforce its "rights" in this case.

No, it already has - as mentioned, it has had several legal cases, some successful, some settled. You don't need to have registered a trademark to claim it. All Facebook has done is put it into their Ts&Cs, which gives them a little more leverage in such cases.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

What right does one country have to do this?

Pretty much every country, or at least the ones that Facebook does the most business in, have almost identical laws. This isn't new, or confined to the U.S. - check out EasyGroup's list of legal spats.

But the trouble is johnnysaucepn that the USA is determined to control electronic media the Net or whatever. Recent actions proves that point. Of course they are not alone in using "security" but they are in the lead seat for this kind of control.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

But the trouble is johnnysaucepn that the USA is determined to control electronic media the Net or whatever. Recent actions proves that point. Of course they are not alone in using "security" but they are in the lead seat for this kind of control.

There may be an argument for that, but there's nothing unusual here, for any country or for any media.

Originally posted by jax:

That is the main reason why brands have those silly mizspellings. You can't trademark "book", but you can trademark "booq". While the words can't be trademarked, combined words can, like "Bookface".

Or make a sight named "Pornbook" or something like that, which can make the sillier users think that it's affiliated with Facebook