In a quick bit of nonsense news from teh intertubes, my mate Graham pointed out to me that Facebook are trying to trademark the word “Face”. According to the news article:
The Facebook empire has just had a trademark application accepted for any use of the word “Face” in any product or service that could remotely be seen as offering any kind of competition to the all-conquering social network.
Specifically, the trademark covers “telecommunication services, namely, providing online chat rooms and electronic bulletin boards for transmission of messages among computer users in the field of general interest and concerning social and entertainment subject matter, none primarily featuring or relating to motoring or to cars”.
None relating to cars, mind you. Oh no, car social networks can use “Face” as much as they like. For some reason.
Facebook now has to provide the US Patent & Trademark Office with a statement of use within three months. Presumably their statement of use will be something along the lines of, “We use it as half of our name.”
Of course, it seems to me, as the original article points out, that this is a direct attack on Steve Jobs and Apple, targetting their whole Facetime thing. After Google and Facebook came to blows last week over Google refusing Facebook users direct connection to their Contacts list, and now this, I’m sitting back and popping me some corn. Seriously, when Google, Apple and Facebook finally get together to settle this thing, it’ll make Godzilla versus King Kong versus King Ghidorah seem like a schoolyard noogiefest.
Interesting times ahead.
.
Facebook are seriously grasping at straws for this attempt. They are getting a reputation for being dickheads not innovators in communication. Communication requires a certain level of freedom and this essentially strips other companies of the ability to chose a good name. A name usually conveys the product or service being offered and Facebook aren’t gaining any favors from this attempt at trademarking the word. Imagine if Burger King (Hungry Jacks) decided to sue Wattaburger for their use of “burger”… Slightly off topic, Disney trademarked it own red paint some years back. What I find funny is that there are paints that could fool the eyes of the viewer, giving the appearance of Disney red. Disney is probably still making a bundle of cash from the trademark though.
Do you know why Burger King is called Hungry Jacks in Australia? Because McDonald’s got to Australia first and bought the business name of Burger King as well. The reason you see some Burger Kings here now is because the statute ran out and McDonald’s weren’t allowed to renew as it was a blatant stab at stofling competition. But they got away with it once. At least, that’s the story I’ve heard – it’s completely uncorroborated!
Also, Dairy Milk have trademarked their shade of purple, or they tried to. It’s all big business fighting for an extra slice of pie.
Didn’t Cadbury get into a big stouche with Daryl Lea over using purple on chocolate? I think in the end they got told to shove their claim since they weren’t the only ones to use that particular shade of purple.
I’m off to trademark “Book”.
You could be right about that. I’m going to trademark the English language.