I just got a facebook trademark infringement notice by email from Meta I am the owner of https://*******onfacebook.com . Its a free tool to find mutual friends between two or more people. I made a facebook account to promote this website on many FB groups about mutual friends. The account got blocked because i had spammed too many different FB groups. Then i made the mistake of appealing the block using the same phone number that's connected to my regular facebook account, so now they know my first and last name as well... Shortly after this F*ck-up I received the following email in the inbox of my normal email address. To Whom It May Concern: We are writing concerning your registration and use of the domain name *******onfacebook.com, which contains the famous Facebook trademark. As you undoubtedly know, Facebook is the leading online social network service. Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”), previously Facebook, Inc., adopted the name and trademark Facebook in February 2004 and, since that time, has actively used the Facebook name and trademark in connection with its online social network service, including maintaining the web site www.facebook.com. The term Facebook is one of the most famous trademarks on the Internet. Meta owns exclusive trademark rights to the Facebook name as a result of numerous trademark registrations in the United States and internationally, as well as related common law rights. Accordingly, Meta enjoys broad trademark rights in the name Facebook. Meta has made a substantial investment in developing and providing its services. As a result of its pioneering efforts and devoting substantial effort and resources to providing only high quality services, the Facebook name and trademarks are widely known among the consuming public worldwide, and the name and trademarks embody substantial and valuable goodwill. Accordingly, we were concerned when we learned of the registration and use of ******onfacebook.com. As we hope you can appreciate, protection of its trademarks is very important to us. The registration and use of [[domain_name]] violate the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.) because it infringes and dilutes the famous Facebook trademark. Infringement occurs when a third party’s use of a company’s trademark (or a confusingly similar variation thereof) is likely to confuse consumers as to the affiliation, sponsorship or endorsement of the third party’s services. Trademark dilution occurs when a third party’s use of a variation of a company’s trademark is likely to lessen the distinctiveness of the company’s famous trademark. We have filed numerous proceedings before the United Nation's World Intellectual Property Organization's arbitration panel in order to protect our rights, and have recovered thousands of domain names. We are concerned that registrant’s unauthorized use of the Facebook name may cause confusion as to whether registrant or registrant’s company’s activities are authorized, endorsed or sponsored by Meta when, in fact, they are not. We understand that you may have registered *********onfacebook.com without full knowledge of the law in this area. However, we are concerned about your use of the Facebook trademark in the domain name. As you may know, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act provides for serious penalties (up to $100,000 per domain name) against persons who, without authorization, use, sell, or offer for sale a domain name that infringes another’s trademark. While Meta respects your right of expression and desire to conduct business on the Internet, Meta must enforce its own rights in order to protect its valuable and famous trademark. For these reasons, and to avoid consumer confusion, Meta must insist that you immediately stop using ********onfacebook.com and disable any site available at that address. You should not sell, offer to sell, or transfer the domain name to a third party and should let the domain registration expire. The domain name, *******onfacebook.com, is currently resolving to a parked page, pay-per-click advertising, sponsored links or other unauthorized use. Please disable the servers so they do not connect to a page with content. Please confirm in writing that you will agree to resolve this matter as requested. Sincerely, Meta IP &amp; DNS Enforcement Group Legal Dept. Meta Platforms, Inc. _Any personal data collected by Appdetex and used to identify individuals for the purpose of this communication have been done in accordance with applicable privacy laws and the Appdetex Privacy Policy available at: https://www.appdetex.com/legal/privacy-policy. Certain information provided herein may be confidential and/or protected from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission, please notify the sender immediately and do not deliver, distribute or copy this transmission, disclose its contents, or take any other action in reliance upon or as a result of the information it contains._ I am not diluting their trademark and am not claiming affiliation with Meta or Facebook. There is a disclaimer on the website that says that the trademark is used nominatively only. Just as the website www.twittervideodownloader.com is using the trademark Twitter nominatively as well. That website is still up, so what's wrong with mine? I used the answer from this lawexchange post to create the disclaimer. The subject of the email i received is Privacy Forward - [from:enf.facebook.1******@ad-facebook.com] *******onfacebook.com - Notice of Facebook Trademark Infringement. The email originates from ***********@identity-protect.org. What should i do? Do they really have something on me? They're saying i'm violating the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.) because i'm diluting the trademark Facebook. But how am i diluting their trademark? The site hosts nothing more but a free tool. They are also saying that *The domain name, ********onfacebook.com, is currently resolving to a parked page, pay-per-click advertising, sponsored links or other unauthorized use.. This is again not true. It resolves to an angular app for determining mutual friends between two or more facebook users online. It currently does not show any advertisements either. The content also looks like a standard template because they forgot to replace [[domain_name]] in the phrase The registration and use of [[domain_name]] with the url https://*****onfacebook.com . It could very well be that they didn't even bother to read my disclaimer. What should i do? Do they really have legitimate grounds to sue me? I must add that i reside in the Netherlands so the website https://*********onfacebook.com is not subject to US law. Can they file a case against me even when there is no ground to do so at all?
Since your website operates in the US (regardless of where you live), it is subject to US law, so you can be sued in the US. Also in The Netherlands: there is a non-trivial chance that the parent corporation registered their trademark in The Netherlands (and anywhere else they operate). Your domain name could be cancelled by ICANN as a result of a court proceeding in either country. You should consult with an attorney, if you want to fight this. In court, you could try to argue that your use of their trademark does not violate trademark law, and you might read this in preparation. This article gives an overview of trademark litigation in The Netherlands, and §9 explains how infringement is assessed.
&quot;LearnIT&quot; and &quot;Learn it&quot; are both descriptive, and thus are generally weak trademarks. It is not unlikely that a challenge would result in cancellation of any trademark on either, or in allowing a similar trademark in an unrelated category of business. For the matter of that, you don't seem to have determined whether the other company is making any trademark claims. In some countries there is no trademark protection unless a mark is registered. In others, including the US, use without registration can create some protection for a mark. It will also be relevant where the other company is doing business, and where you plan to. Trademark protection is always specific to a particular country, and generally requires proof of use in commerce in each such country (or of a plan to start such use in the near future). Domain registration is a different thing, and is not necessarily tied to a trademark (although registering a domain that infringes an existing trademark will often be disallowed). It appears that &quot;learnit.net&quot; is listed as available. That does not mean that a dispute filed by the other company would not be successful. The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) states in section 2 that: By applying to register a domain name, or by asking us to maintain or renew a domain name registration, you hereby represent and warrant to us that (a) the statements that you made in your Registration Agreement are complete and accurate; (b) to your knowledge, the registration of the domain name will not infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of any third party; (c) you are not registering the domain name for an unlawful purpose; and (d) you will not knowingly use the domain name in violation of any applicable laws or regulations. It is your responsibility to determine whether your domain name registration infringes or violates someone else's rights. If you register a domain name, and another person or firm complains that the name is &quot;confusingly similar&quot; to an existing name or to a valid trademark, you might be required to participate in an arbitration proceeding under the UDRP, or else forfeit the registration. Note that nothing happens if no one complains. Section 4(s) of the policy reads: You are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (a &quot;complainant&quot;) asserts ... that (i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and (ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In the administrative proceeding, the complainant must prove that each of these three elements are present. &quot;Bad faith&quot; can be shown by evidence that you obtained the domain for purposes of selling or renting it, not for use; that you intended to prevent a valid trademark owner from obtaining the name, and have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; that your purpose was to disrupt the business of the other; that you intended to attract users who were looking for the other site. The page &quot;What Are 'Look-Alike' Domain Names?&quot; states: An essential element of any domain name dispute is whether the domain name bears some important resemblance to a relevant trademark. The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) refers to this as the “identical or confusingly similar” test. In many cases, a disputed domain name actually contains the trademark, and in other cases it may contain a typographical variation of the trademark (such as by omitting a single letter; transposing two letters; or substituting one letter for another, often adjacent to it on a keyboard). Yet in other cases, a disputed domain name may simply look like the trademark at issue, even if the domain name doesn’t contain the trademark or fall into any of the popular cybersquatting tricks described above. I refer to these simply as “look-alike domain names.” You may wish to determine if the operator of the learnit.com site has in fact obtained a trademark on &quot;learn it&quot;. Most national trademark systems provide a means to search the trademark registers. This will not be conclusive, but may give a reasonable idea. One option is to consult a lawyer skilled in trademark law. Another might be to reach out to the exposition firm and ask if they would have any objection to your proposed blog. If they don't object, the will be no problem. Another option is to choose a domain that is not as similar to that of the existing site. One technique that can help avoid an accusation of bad faith is to provide an notice where someone first opening the blog site will see it, something like: This is XY.net. You may have been looking for XX.com,which is about {short description} If co, click here. with a link to the other site. Such a notice might help establish that you were not using the domain to improperly attract traffic looking for the other site.
While German law indeed requires providing correct contact information it does not require the recipient to answer queries. It is there so that you can submit legal notifications. In your case I wouldn't be so sure that the information is not correct. However, even if the contact information is incorrect, there is not much you can do about it. This is reserved to the following groups by § 8 Abs. 3 UWG: every competitor; associations with legal personality which exist for the promotion of commercial or of independent professional interests, so far as a considerable number of entrepreneurs belong thereto, and which distribute goods or services of the same or similar type on the same market, provided such associations are actually in a position, particularly in terms of their personnel, material and financial resources, to pursue the tasks, under their memoranda of association, of promoting commercial or independent professional interests, and so far as the contravention affects the interests of their members; qualified entities that prove that they are entered on the list of qualified entities pursuant to section 4 of the Injunctions Act or on the list of the Commission of the European Communities pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 98/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on injunctions for the protection of consumer interests (OJ Number L 166 page 51); Chambers of Industry and Commerce or Craft Chambers. Unless you are a competitor you are out of luck. The hoster or other providers can't do anything and don't need to, as they are not required to check legality of their user's websites. It doesn't really matter where you are by the way for these laws.
A slogan such as &quot;The Stripe of Bitcoin&quot; might well be taken to indicate that the seller of a product or service is trading on the good reputation associates with the mark &quot;stripe&quot;. If so, that would probably be a form of trademark infringement, assuming thst &quot;Stripe&quot; is protected as a trademark, unless the permission of the holder of the trademark &quot;Stripe&quot; was obtained. Payment processing and cryptocurrency handling are sufficiently closely related that customer confusion is possible. Note that competitive use is generally permitted. One can, for example market a soft drink with the tag &quot;The cola that's better than Coke&quot; without permission from Coca-cola (which i doubt anyone would ever get). This is because when a marketer says &quot;X is better than Y&quot; no one reasonably thinks X is sponsored or approved by Y, nor will anyone be lead by this tag into thinking that X and Y are the same. Other forms of nominative use are also allowed without permission from the trademark holder. For example, a computer component might have been advertised as: &quot;compatible with Intel Pentium&quot;, as this is just using a trademark to name a related product, and does not imply affiliation or sponsorship. But a tag such as &quot;The Rolls-Royce of pencils&quot; might be ruled to be infringing, even though Rolls does not, as far as I know, make pencils. Note that the details of trademark law vary significantly from one country to another. Note further that trademarks protected in one country may not be protected in another. The question does not specify any jurisdiction, so no answer can refer to the particular country that the asker may have in mind.
In the US, the author would be able to wind an infringement lawsuit against the re-publisher. Title 17, the US copyright law codified, grants the author the exclusive right to authorize republication, and does not require that a person use their real name. The argument "It was on the internet, it's in the public domain" is utterly without legal merit. The same goes for the assertion that a person loses his rights if he is uncontactable. The author has stated the terms of the license, so there isn't even a reasonable argument that the infringement is innocent (unknowing: "I thought it was with permission). There is no requirement that you have to allow a potential user to hassle you about the license terms. The one thing that is special regarding anonymous and pseudonymous works is that under 17 USC 302, "copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first". For a work whose author is identified, copyright "endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author’s death". This assumes that the host site has not preempted author's license: Stack Exchange, for example, preempts an author's exclusive right, so you can copy stuff from here accorting to the SE terms of usage.
There are three main aspects to this: Its their website, and their terms of service. They can enforce those terms, or change them (in some appropriate manner). You have no recourse if they remove you, block you, or delete your account, for example. That's the measure that you would probably have, virtually every time. To claim damages, or litigate beyond just website access control, requires a legal claim. But there's a catch there. To claim damages, they need to show actual damage, which they wish to be compensated for. If you misused their website but no actual harm can be shown, the total damage claimable is zero, whether or not you followed their rules. Merely entering dishonest information isn't by itself harm. So they would have to show they suffered damage/harm because of that, which is directly attributable to your behaviour, was foreseeably harmful etc, or similar. They also need to consider legal costs, and ability to enforce, especially if you are in a different country. If for some reason the computer use was also illegal, then a criminal act could be committed and they could notify law enforcement. For example suppose you did this in the little known country of Honestania, where the law says that to prevent trolling and online abuse, anything posted on social media under any but your own legal name is a crime. Or suppose you'd been banned from the system and ignoring/evading such a ban was criminal computer use or criminal trespass due to the forbidden/unauthorised access (which can happen in several places). But this is purely for completeness; I guess you'd know if you were taking it further, into criminal computer use.
Under the Berne Convention, a copyright notice is not required at all, although using one is good practice. Using one usually eliminates the claimed status of "innocent infringement", which, if found true by a court, greatly reduces damage awards. It is usual to place such notices at or near the start of a work. That is where people tend to look for them, and I don't see any good reason not to follow this practice. The book tradition is the the copyright page comes before any part of the actual work, including the table of contents, sometimes with a continuation at the end of the work, if there is more than one page of notices. But that is not now a legal requirement, if it ever was. In short, there are no rigid rules on this, but putting a copyright notice at or quite near the start is good practice, and I would suggest sticking to it.
It wouldn't be frivolous, but I doubt either party could prevail in a trademark suit The test to use for trademark infringement is a set of factors known as the Lapp factors. Per A&amp;H Sportswear, Inc. v. Victoria's Secret Stores, Inc., 237 F.3d 198 (3rd Cir. 2000): [L]ikelihood of confusion for both competing and noncompeting goods should be tested with reference to the following: the degree of similarity between the owner's mark and the alleged infringing mark; the strength of the owner's mark; the price of the goods and other factors indicative of the care and attention expected of consumers when making a purchase; the length of time the defendant has used the mark without evidence of actual confusion arising; the intent of the defendant in adopting the mark; the evidence of actual confusion; whether the goods, competing or not competing, are marketed through the same channels of trade and advertised through the same media; the extent to which the targets of the parties' sales efforts are the same; the relationship of the goods in the minds of consumers, whether because of the near-identity of the products, the similarity of function, or other factors; other facts suggesting that the consuming public might expect the prior owner to manufacture both products, or expect the prior owner to manufacture a product in the defendant's market, or expect that the prior owner is likely to expand into the defendant's market. Let's take a few of these. the degree of similarity between the owner's mark and the alleged infringing mark Low, but non-zero. They're facially completely dissimilar: the words sound and look nothing alike, and their logos are completely different as well in both design and color. The only similarity is that they are both parts of Nikola Tesla's name. The USPTO gives as an example &quot;LUPO&quot; and &quot;WOLF&quot; being similar, &quot;because, when the Italian word 'LUPO' is translated into English, it means 'WOLF.'&quot; However, in that example, the words have identical meaning in different languages. Overall, this seems to weigh against infringement, as neither company is associated with the actual person, and Nikola is a common given name. the strength of the owner's mark Tesla's is quite strong: they're quite prominent. Nikola probably less so. Would weigh in favor of Tesla in a suit. the price of the goods and other factors indicative of the care and attention expected of consumers when making a purchase Extremely high: the Tesla and Nikola trucks start at ~$40k and $60k, respectively. This weighs against infringement, as consumers are unlikely to make such an expensive purchase hastily. the intent of the defendant in adopting the mark Both chose the mark to pay homage to Nikola Tesla. Per the same case, &quot;defendant's intent will indicate a likelihood of confusion only if an intent to confuse consumers is demonstrated via purposeful manipulation of the junior mark to resemble the senior's.&quot; None appears clear here, which does not support infringment. the evidence of actual confusion I couldn't quickly find any. I'm sure a lawyer would search more thoroughly, but this seems to weigh against infringement. whether the goods, competing or not competing, are marketed through the same channels of trade and advertised through the same media the extent to which the targets of the parties' sales efforts are the same These are probably pretty similar. Would weigh in favor of infringement. As with any balancing test, it's a bit of a guessing game how a court would weigh the factors, but given the low similarity, high price, and lack of evidence of actual confusion, I find it unlikely that a court would find either party has infringed the other's trademark.