« Video Game Makers Argue First Amendment Protects Use of Images of College Sports Stars | Main | Time for More Lenient Approach to Speech with the Potential to Harm? »
November 17, 2010
Facebook v. Lamebook: Trademark Infringement or Protected Free Speech
Law.com reports on Facebook's trademark infringement action against Lamebook, which claims to be a parody site that mocks the "best and worst posts" found on Facebook. The complaint was filed on Nov. 8 in San Francisco.
Parodies are protected as legitimate forms of criticism and social commentary under both The First Amendment and statutory copyright laws. Useful overviews of the law are provided here and here. Facebook's complaint asserts that the defendant's site is not a protected parody, however, but a profit making venture that uses a "mini version of Facebook" to attract advertisers.
-Kathleen Bergin
November 17, 2010 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef0133f5e7a9b0970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Facebook v. Lamebook: Trademark Infringement or Protected Free Speech:
Comments
I just taught the Lamebook case in my TM class yesterday. This post and the literature on the topic raises a puzzle that I'm still not clear about: Why is it that parody appears to be a (if not the) privileged route to a 1A defense for TM defendants? It seems to me that parody is one form of protected 1A expression, but by no means the only one. In Mattel, for example, Koz articulates the 1A as a generalized limit on TM enforcement not limited to parody, and the Rogers v Grimaldi test seems to apply to cases (such as the "Ginger and Fred" film) that are not parodies but still merit 1A protection. So even if Lamebook is infringing (which is itself debatable), I'd argue that it merits 1A protection even if it's not parody (and it doesn't seem like one to me).
Posted by: Dave | Nov 18, 2010 6:57:41 PM
Interesting post!
It´s funny how domains are not seen as trademarks, but when there is a domain dispute, it´s ALWAYS about a trademark infringement.
I know, domains are not trademarks, however it´s time that trademark lawyers take them seriously, and include them in their brand protection recommendations.
Posted by: Christopher "Domian Transfer" Hofman | Nov 23, 2010 4:55:10 AM
