[guitarbill]

The only time he mentions article 7 is that "every derivation of the name is implied, including every abbreviation of the word Sarajevo." So okay, article 7 doesn't apply to a non-monetised blog post. The other articles in "Komisija za Statut I akte" still do, right?

But okay, so implicitly you're suggesting OP has widened the scope, because it seems like a FB page being monetised could be considered a "product name", and therefore article 7 does apply, and this is the basis of the legal threat. That being so, where does the demand for money come in? Is that the cost of being granted to use the name? And what exactly is stopping the city from going after things not covered by article 7?

Any law is that vague and wide-reaching has the potential to be abused, and this is no different. Better to clarify it sooner rather than later.

[NeuroKix]

Article 4 defines that usage of coat of arms of Sarajevo in the stamp may be granted to private businesses, public companies, public institutions and other legal entities. Article 5 defines that usage of coat of arms of Sarajevo on public transportation vehicles, fleet vehicles, billboards, brochures and other advertising materials may be granted to the said group of legal entities. Article 6 defines that the usage of coat of arms on logos and decorations may be granted to the said group of legal entities. The annual fees for legal entities using the name and/or coat of arms of Sarajevo depend on the entity size and are defined in Article 17 (50-2400 Euros).

This Decision fails to define any terms of usage of coat of arms and name for natural persons. Natural persons are only mentioned in Articles 21 in 22, stating the penalties for the usage of name and/or coat of arms without a proper approval from the city government.

Again, not a lawyer, but in my view anything except the usage of name Sarajevo and its coat of arms in the names of legal entities and their products, stamps and logos is outside of scope this Decision. Purely speculating, but perhaps somebody from the city government decided it is time to optimise a revenue stream, which is now 12 years old (the Decision was published in 2006). If they continue harassing people on the Internet, there is going to be more of a coordinated backlash and sooner or later they will have to amend the Decision.

[guitarbill]

Thanks, appreciate the clarifications.

[hedora]

This law clearly would not be enforceable in the the US (you can’t start trying to enforce a trademark that you haven’t been defending and that is in wide use).

Having said that, there is recent precedent where FB differentially enforces foreign laws, apparently for their own political/financial reasons.

For example, Palestinian political speech about Israeal is subject to much harsher censorship rules than Israeli speech about Palestine.

So, this case really boils down to how much FB values its political/financial ties to the city of Sarajevo.