Reed Smith's Advertising, Technology, & Media Teleseminar: Facebook Personalized URLs - A Titanic Opportunity for Brands, or the Tip of an Iceberg?

Facebook announced last week the availability of a personalized Facebook URLs for individual profiles, e.g., www.facebook.com/[your name].

As discussed in our June 12 Client Alert, "Just When You Thought You Were Too Old for Facebook," this latest offering from Facebook raises serious issues—issues that are typically encountered when technology collides with traditional intellectual property laws intended to protect trademarks and brand names.

Much like the confusion and abuse that proliferated when cybersquatting became rampant over the ownership and administration of domain names, we now have social networks and service providers allowing users to generate content and offering customized http://www.thecompany.com/YOURNAMEHERE URLs within their own domains in a digital and borderless world.

Significantly, the promotional momentum created by Facebook's offer has caused every astute brand and trademark owner to ponder whether they should be in a rush to register their personalized URL on Facebook, or let it ride and deal with potential infringements when—and if—they occur!

While it can be stimulating to consider whether the intellectual property laws have kept up with the Internet, you need practical guidance and insightful approaches to these problems today. The Media & Entertainment Industry Team and the Advertising Technology & Media Law Group at Reed Smith have put together a teleseminar to help you understand the issues, formulate an approach, and make informed decisions. Join us for this informative one-hour teleseminar on Tuesday, June 23 at 12 p.m. EDT with partners Doug Wood and Joe Rosenbaum

UPDATE:  To view the seminar's PowerPoint presentation, please click here.

Just When You Thought You're Too Old for Facebook

Earlier today, you may have received numerous memos from law firms and bloggers anxious to respond to the announcement by Facebook that Facebook is allowing trademark owners to notify Facebook of their IP rights through use of a special electronic form. The purpose is to allow trademark owners to record their IP rights in advance of Facebook allowing its users to register personalized Facebook URLs. While we applaud advising clients and friends of issues, we think the matter is considerably more complicated than previous briefs and hasty reports may indicate. As is so often the case, the devil is in the detail and this memorandum provides a deeper look at the process and related issues before undertaking Facebook’s new program to record trademark.

Facebook Announcement

On Tuesday, June 9, Facebook, Inc., the popular social networking website, announced that on Saturday, June 13th at 12:01 a.m. U.S. EDT, it will allow Facebook users, subject to certain criteria and qualifications, to create personalized URLs for their pages on Facebook. By way of example, John Smith will be able to register "Facebook.com/johnsmith." Currently, a user’s Facebook URL consists of the Facebook.com URL followed by a random series of numbers, e.g., facebook.com/profiles.Php?349485).

Whenever users can register any name on the Internet, however, it raises infringement issues under federal and state trademark and related intellectual property laws, particularly for owners of well know brands. Any registration process creates fears of cybersquatting or other attempts to hijack trademarks and brand names. Sometimes these fears are real; other times they are not.

What Trademark Owners Need to Know

Facebook has responded to concerns trademark owners in several ways. Here’s what you need to know:

  • Facebook has created an online form for use by registered trademark owners (whether Facebook users or not) to record their trademarks and thereby notify Facebook of their IP rights, at least in the first instance, to prevent others from using their trademarks in their personalized URL. For example, if a company had a registered trademark for, e.g., Robert Hall for shoes, by registering the mark with Facebook, it could prevent someone else from registering Facebook.com/roberthall, although it is unclear whether a registration protects only the exact trademark as opposed to variations. While the FAQs indicate user names are not case sensitive, that does not necessarily mean every variation of a trademark is protected by recording a claim.
  • Regrettably, Facebook has given trademark owners only a couple of days to notify Facebook of their IP rights. If a trademark owner has not done so by end of day, Friday, June 12, anyone else can potentially register a personalized Facebook URL using the brand owner's trademark.
  • The new form can be found here.
  • Facebook has also provided FAQs here.
  • The notification process applies only to registered trademarks. At present, it appears that a trademark owner can only submit a registration based on a United States registration, as that number is used for the account number. While state and foreign registrations and pending applications have not been specifically addressed, presumably any registration number in the field of the form will suffice. But there must be an official registration number. Common law claims are not covered. A trademark owner must also complete a separate form for each trademark, which could prove to be a significant undertaking for a company that has a significant portfolio of trademarks. And what if other social networking sites adopt similar provisions?
  • Facebook is limiting the June 13 URL registration to individual users who already had a user profile page prior to the June 9th announcement and to Facebook Pages (these are the Facebook pages owned by businesses, public figures, brands and artists) that were live prior to May 31, 2009 that had at least 1,000 fans at that time. If your Facebook account does not meet these requirements, you have to wait until June 28th to register a personalized URL using a trademark or brand name.
  • Facebook also has a procedure and a form for notifying Facebook of alleged infringements of a non-copyright nature such as trademark infringement or rights of publicity. Presumably, this form can be used in lieu of the new form but will apply only after an infringement has occurred. This form is available at here.
  • Note that copyright infringement allegations are directed to a separate Digital Millennium Copyright Act form for users to complete.
  • Facebook users can sign up for only one username for their Facebook page and profile. Once selected, the username cannot be changed or transferred to third parties. If a user cancels an account, the associated URL will not be available as a new Facebook URL. Users will also not be permitted to register generic terms as usernames. Facebook reserves the right to remove or reclaim a username at any time and for any reason. Facebook hopes these restrictions will help to prevent the trafficking in usernames and leaves a remedy open even where a trademark owner has failed to record its claim with the new form.

The $64,000 Question

If you are a trademark owner, should you record your trademark claim through use of the new form or wait to assert claims as alleged infringements occur? This is not an easy question to answer.

By failing to record its claim, a trademark owner does not waive any rights to its intellectual property otherwise provided by law. Failing to record a claim simply means that a trademark owner may have to enforce its intellectual property rights after an infringement has occurred as opposed to preventing it prior to use.

However, it is unclear whether using the new form to notify Facebook of IP rights subjects the trademark owner to the Facebook general terms of use (referred to by Facebook as the “Statement of Rights and Responsibilities”) should the trademark owner have any issues with Facebook regarding to the processing and enforcement of its claim to a trademark.

For example, the Facebook terms of use provide that venue for any claims or disputes against Facebook are vested exclusively in the courts in Santa Clara County, California. Absent consent to such venue, a trademark owner could proceed against Facebook in virtually any jurisdiction in the United States, including the trademark owner’s home state. Whether that is an advantage or not is debatable, but it is an unresolved issue. Other provisions in Facebook's terms of use may also be problematic for some trademark owners.

Before deciding to undertake notifying Facebook of IP rights, however, a trademark owner should also consider the likelihood of someone hijacking its marks. Moreover, while the initial notification (and even later registration of a personalized URL) is free, it remains unclear whether Facebook will seek to monetize the offering in the future.

On the other hand, if a brand already has a Facebook Page (or knows that it will soon create one), then it is already (or will be) subject to the Facebook terms of use. Under such circumstances, notifying Facebook of IP rights through the new form may be the easiest means of avoiding a needless intellectual property battle that will most certainly cost more than the time spent completing a form.

The Evolution of Social Media

Facebook is adding another dimension to social networking -- allowing personalization of pages while seeking to develop mechanisms to deal with brands and brand owners. But Facebook users interact with brands as well as people. The personalized URL launch is another example of the collision of social media interaction and intellectual property protection. While Facebook’s latest offering may be the next evolutionary step forward, it may also be a passing fad. Time will tell. But one thing is certain:

If you are a brand owner with trademark registrations, you need to consider all of the issues before blindly jumping on anything that appears simple and easy but may be more costly than first meets the eye.

(In)Game Advertising: The European Perspective on Related Legal Problems

This post was written by Avv. Felix Hofer.

1. When I came around 'game advertising' for the first time my attitude as a lawyer, not necessarily familiar with what I – snobbishly – considered as basically being “kid's or nerds' stuff”, was obviously extremely skeptic. Running more and more frequently into articles published on the topic, I very soon had to realize that this was already a definitely “hot” topic to a number of industry sectors, involving an incredible amount of investment as well as offering truly exciting business perspectives.

According to an interesting US study, published in June 2007 on in-game ad spending targeted to digital homes in the period 2006–2012, companies had already invested 370 mln. of USD and were expected to increase such figure up to 2.051 mln. USD in year 2012.

Fairly impressed by the forecast exposed in the US study I got curious about how feelings would be in Europe about potential business development with respect to the specific area. Again surprise, surprise: according to a study performed on behalf of the EU Commission total revenues from on-line content sales will reach 8,3 bln. on Euro by 2010 (at an increase rate of a growth of over 400% in five years!) and on-line games will contribute with a significant share to that quite remarkable pie. In Fall 2007 another study showed that the Internet had already become the most popular communication tool among youngsters aged between 16 and 24; in the specific target group 82% affirmed to go on-line at least 5 days per week for entertainment and information purposes, while 46% declared that they preferred the Internet over (and used it more than) TV.

With the final blow I was provided when I had to realize that 9,8 bln. Euro had been spent for game consoles only during the 2007 Christmas period, that even traditional community venues (as sports arenas, shopping centers) were arranging specific gaming areas and organizing new entertainment events (e. g. “disc burn” sessions) attractive for gamers, that digital platforms did score important come-backs for popular past-time games and that in France the gaming sector had surpassed the entertainment industry for the first time in annual revenues.

Click here to learn more.

Italy: The Use of a Person's Image

This post was written by Avv. Felix Hofer.

1. The general principle is that the use of a person's image without his/her consent is basically prohibited (this even more if such use is performed for marketing or – in general - commercial purposes). In Italy the right on a person's image is governed both by the Civil Code and the Intellectual Property Act (Law no. 633 dated April 22nd, 1941, amended and integrated in the following).

(i) According to Section 10 of the Italian Civil Code the image of a person, or of his/her parent, spouse, or child can be exhibited or published only if such use is explicitly permitted by law and provided that the use does not cause prejudice to the dignity or reputation of the person represented.

Should abuse occur (save for the cases in which the use performed results in a criminal offense), a local (civil) Court can order termination of the abuse and award damages.

(ii) The local Intellectual Property Act contains additional provisions on the use of a person's image.

(ii.a.) A person's image MAY NOT be exhibited, reproduced or put on sale without his/her consent (so Section 96 of Law n° 633 dated April 22nd, 1941).
(ii.b.) Exceptions to this basic provision (i. e. use without consent) are allowed if the reproduction of a person's image is justified by his/her notoriety (see Section 97) and by a public interest (e. g. for purposes of information to the general public).
(ii.c.) Finally, a person's image may not be exhibited or put on sale if such use causes prejudice to the represented person's honour, dignity or reputation (Section 97 of the Intellectual Property Act). 

Click here to learn more.