[rickhanlonii]

I would expect a product named Facemail to be something created by Facebook either less than or as much as I would expect a product named Facetime to be something created by Facebook.

When we start making these decisions more heavily on the subjectivity of users more than objectivity (e.g. the colors would be completely different, and if they aren't then a trademark infringement could be filed at that time), then we're just giving the free market to large corporations.

The more popular a brand is, the more likely more people are to associate related names/colors/symbols to that brand. Trademark law simply does not exist for cases like this. It exists to prevent genuine outright infringement.

[DanBC]

> Trademark law simply does not exist for cases like this. It exists to prevent genuine outright infringement.

The link steps through the decisions, and gives case law for the reason. Which step do you disagree with?

EDIT: The link says clearly that a well known mark gets more protection just because it is well known.

[rickhanlonii]

I don't disagree that a well known mark should get more protection because it is well known--otherwise people could just trademark every word in the dictionary and enforce it with equal weight as Google.

But OP wasn't using Facebook, he wasn't using Facebok, he wasn't using Facbook, he wasn't pretending to be Facebook, we wasn't competing with facebook, he wasn't using the colors, the image, or anything related to the brand.

No, he was punished (i.e. the government used force against him to hider his free market ability) for using a name that started with Face. That's simply not a threshold that we, as a society, should accept as protected--no matter the popularity of the brand, no matter the laws a group of 435 people influenced heavily by corporations have managed to actually pass.

Besides that, the ruling is by it's very nature a subjective decision. I disagree with their subjective decision.