Facebook.com threatening to sue me?

I would appreciate whoever commented (and threatened my life) on one of
my posts here to step forward so I'll know who's got a problem with me. It
sure is nice to make anonymous threats, but sadly wasn't brave enough to
say who they are and state what their beef is.

 

(cough) fair use (cough, cough)

Has no one ever heard the term "Fair Use" -- this is a scare tactic. Your website is for "EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE" your not in anyway shape of form saying that YOU own the copyright to facebook nor are you even having any relationship to social networking (eg. having people sign up and create profiles) you are simply educating people on how to edit or make better use out of there facebook account. My Lawyer would love to take this case if facebook would take legal actions as he would 100% agree that you could counter sue for harassment.

 

Fair use on a commercial site? Do some research before you post. Just another idiot who doesn't know the difference between a copyright and a trademark. If your "lawyer" wants this case, tell him to take it on contingency - and that I said he is also an idiot. Sue for "harassment" (did you mean "malicious use of process") on a domain that contains the exact spelling of the registered mark? - now that's really funny. Your experience with trademark law is obviously ZERO.

 

@mjewel

First thing how dare you say I know nothing about Copyright Laws

Secondly, in order for it to VIOLATE copyright law he has to compete directly with Facebook. Is he? I think not... Is he telling people "Hey, sign up for my network! NO! he is not.

GoogleSucks.com and rant about google and have my own search engine on it, would that be against copyright law? Nope, why? Because I'm giving an opinion about google and I am offering a alternative.

He wrote the content - he did not copy the content

He isn't competing with FaceBook... AT ALL! He is simply providing an educational site on how to modify facebook, just because he has ADS on the site does not give it a commercial status. It could be PERSONAL EDUCATIONAL USE. I know for a fact that this case would be dropped quickly if it was to go to court. MySpace threatened my friend for owning a domain name that contained myspace in it. What happened nothing? Did they keep persisting... yes... what did he do? he ended up selling the domain name to myspace for $1,000.00 dollars.

The only want to protect there brand thats it... anybody would and I understand that but there are so many cases where its just corporate giants that want to pick on the little guys.








----------- SOURCE ICANN ------------------------


a. Applicable Disputes. You are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (a "complainant") asserts to the applicable Provider, in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that

(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and [ it's not ]

(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and [ So many reason why he does, Freedom of Speech, Education, so many others ]

(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. --[ he's not, sorry it is being used to educated individuals ]

 

make the site not to resolve. and give it to them asap

i had a look at your site. and they do have all the requirements for a udrp.

source - im a domainer

 

Listen closely, and read very sloooowly so you can get some comprehension.

This has NOTHING TO DO WITH COPYRIGHTS

Again, for the mentally challenged, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COPYRIGHT law

We are talking about TRADEMARK LAW, and YES, you obviously have NO EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER.

You are a moron to think that you have to compete directly with a trademark holder. The test is a "likelihood of confusion". The OP product directly relates to their business - this is a slam dunk case that the OP could not win.

I also wish you idiots would stop posting about "sucks" sites - do you think a there is going to be a "likelihood of confusion" i.e. people will think that google is operating a gripe site called "googlesucks"? Duh!

And for your information, there are cases of sucks sites being sued and losing. The key test is whether or not there is "noncommercial use of a trademark" - which means you can't put up advertising, can't take donations, can't take in any revenue. Then you can argue "free speech" along with the non "likelihood of confusion". Of course, nothing is preventing the trademark holder from suing you and forcing you to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to prove your right of usage - and if you win, guess what, you don't get attorney fees. If you lose, a registered mark holder is entitled to ask for treble their attorney fees. Now does spending a few hundred thousand on a lawsuit which you have no chance of getting any money, for a site that can't make money, sound like a good idea to you? Regardless, it has NOTHING to do with the OP issue. (P.S. Try looking up who owns googlesucks.com - lol.)

Trademark holders like myspace may or may not offer to buy a domain like your friends. It has nothing to do with whether or not they could take the domain, it was a business decision. Paying $1k is far cheaper than a WIPO or lawsuit. Your friend probably didn't have a nickel to his name, so they decided to buy it for cheaper than they could take it. A lot of trademark holders don't care what it costs, they will bury you in legal fees before giving you a penny. If you want the possibility of having a huge judgment against you - one that would be for more than you will ever make in a lifetime, then roll the dice for the chance of a $1k payout. A judgment can follow you for life - but maybe you know you will never need credit, never own a house or any asset, so that doesn't bother you. It wouldn't surprise me.

Don't post in the legal section. You have absolutely know clue of what you are talking about. You embarrass yourself with every post you make.

 

@mjewlel

You know something I'm sick of you calling people IDIOTS. Did you know that I could send you to jail for calling me that? Did you know that it is a FELONY for saying such words if a person would take it the wrong way? I actually think I'm going to take actions against you. I DO NOT LIKE BEING CALLED AN IDIOT!

It doesn't matter in the instance i'm referring to Copyright, or Trademark law. IT DOESN'T MATTER. You also contradicted yourself

----------------------
do you think a there is going to be a "likelihood of confusion" i.e. people will think that google is operating a site called "googlesucks"? Duh!
----------------------

What makes you think that someone would get his domain name confused? I doubt anyone would get the domain name confused with the actual site.


Once again I'm sick of you calling people idiot, I'm reporting you to DP

 

Did you know that I could send you to jail for calling me that?

Listen Perry Mason, it's a bonafide fact.

Did you know that it is a FELONY for saying such words if a person would take it the wrong way?

What world do you live in? Does Charlie the Unicorn live there with you?

I actually think I'm going to take actions against you. I DO NOT LIKE BEING CALLED AN IDIOT!

You are a joke. I am 100% sure you are a blowhard and won't do anything. Now prove me wrong.

It doesn't matter in the instance i'm referring to Copyright, or Trademark law. IT DOESN'T MATTER.

Yeah, who care if you get confused about what law you are incorrectly talking about and that it has nothing to do with anything that has been posted. Laughing hard.


Once again I'm sick of you calling people idiot, I'm reporting you to DP

What happened to being arrested or having your make believe attorney jump on board? lol

 

I have reported you to the NCPC.

You are like a child. You know nothing about me. You know nothing about what I do who I am, who I know. Just because you have 5,000 post on DP doesn't make you an EXPERT it just says to me that you have no life, and you spend every awaking minute on DP criticizing others. I have read this entire thread you have called just about everyone in this forum a idiot. I miss typed when I said Copyright law. Trademark law would have the same legalities as copyright law.

Furthermore, I doubt that Facebook would even take legal actions. Just because you say YES doesn't mean anything.

I wish you the best mjewel you are going to have a very very difficult life ahead of you if you keep the attitude in which you have. You are a closed minded individual. I'm still going to talk to both NCPC and DP to see that you can no longer talk to others the way you do.

 

I have reported you to the NCPC.

The NCPC? Will McGruff the Crime Dog soon be barking at my door? lol.

Trademark law would have the same legalities as copyright law.

I told you to stop posting false information. Learn the difference between a civil matter and one that can be criminal. They are NOTHING alike.

Furthermore, I doubt that Facebook would even take legal actions.

You did read the entire thread, right? You know they have already given him a C&D and taken action against others, right? How about this, since you are posting false information that can get someone sued, why don't you forward your name and address to the OP and offer to pay any award or legal fees he may incur based on your made up non-understanding of trademark law (or was that copyright?). Deal?

 

@mjewel


The Anti-Cyber bullying act is very real. Just because there main target is teens does NOT mean that they do not handle other cases.

Furthermore anyone who takes the advice from a forum that does not consist of legal professionals has there on liability ( Post, and comments are for educational purposes only )

I also will no longer be looking at this forum as you are to childish to have a civil conversation.

 

FCM,

While it is true there's such a thing as fair use, unfortunately there have been
cases of such being held against domain owners when signs of commercial use
like ads are shown. It can't be helped some judges or UDRP panelists consider
that a "minimum" requirement for a finding against them, although many have
factored in other details as well.

The main problem is there's hardly any consistency on such decisions. Maybe
the next best thing attorneys can do is look for any common patterns and try
to make an educational guess, arising from their knowledge and experience in
such things.

What Facebook did is arguably a scare tactic. But I'm sure you know, like some
of us do, that every trademark holder must enforce and protect their rights as
well or risk losing it.

OTOH, it doesn't help anyone posting things that isn't necessarily true. While it
might be appreciated to hear from someone who has some degree of personal
experience, there's a risk it can be wrong as well.

For instance, what makes you doubt anyone would confuse the OP's site with
its trademark namesake holder? It's got Facebook in it, it mainly talked about
them, it unfortunately showed commercial ads, and what's the likelihood (w/c
is what mjewel mentioned) users will think Facebook approves it or so?

Of course, you could argue they won't. If Facebook disagrees, obviously what
you argue means little to nothing.

Whatever one thinks of the U.S. Anticyberbullying...rather, Anticybersquatting
Consumer Protection Act, it's there for a reason whether people agree with it
or not. And there's the UDRP to address domain-trademark issues for parties in
different jurisdictions, despite its imperfections.

And yeah, I don't appreciate being called an idiot. But...I got used to that, and
one really needs to develop thick skin when posting online.

Here's a tip for you and everyone else, though: despite what others comment
about you, you don't have to react badly to them. Nor do you have to get all
emotional about it.

Try to set your feelings aside, look through for any possible nuggets of wisdom
or knowledge within that comment, verify elsewhere if needed, and learn from
it. And unlike a real-life conversation, there's plenty of time to think before one
hits the Submit Reply or Post button.

Finally, no so-called legal advice is being dispensed here, although it cannot be
helped that some people would still consider that as such for whatever reason.
Only a licensed legal expert (lawyer, solicitor, etc.) with real-world experience
can do that, although the next best thing here is learning either from factually
verifiable information (like WIPO's site for domain-trademark disputes) or from
certain people who have arguably considerable experience in such things.

Whatever considerable means to people, anyway. And I agree that posts here
are mainly for educational purposes.

 

Then stop giving idiotic legal advice. Everything you posted should be ignored. You simply have all the facts wrong and no understanding of the law. Worse part is you are a real jerk about it. Like someone going around insisting that 1+1 is 3, and the more they insist the more idiotic they sound.

 

i think i want to trademark the "idiot" word.

(sorry, only joke for today..cheers )

 

I really don't like the premise. Can Facebook prove that this website site in question is "diluting" the main website itself?

It actually seems like it is an enhancement. Here is a good article concerning intellectual property rights:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/bryan8.html

 

i think using a trademark is illegal.

 

I must say that these legal threads become very entertaining once the custard pie fight begins.

 

Hey mjewlel you make my life ...just saying

 

Using a trademark is ilegal, but can see why you done it lol, reminds me of a case several years ago of Microsoft wanting to pull down typo domains.

 

The article you mentioned talks mainly about copyrights. While trademarks are
also intellectual property, they have their own issues.

While also not necessarily authoritative, the links below can give one an idea of
two dilemmas trademark holders face every other day:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_dilution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likelihood_of_confusion

Especially the latter.